They argue “development is the progress of human freedom and capability to lead the kind of lives that people have reason to value” (Dreze and Sen 43). Keeping this in mind, while also heeding the fact India has one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world, the following cross examination of the two arguments will discredit most of Shleifer’s supporting evidence. One fifth of all Indian Men in the age group of 15-24 years, and one fourth of all women in the same age group, were unable to read or write in 2006 (65). Life expectancy for Indian men in 2010 trailed behind both Brazil and China by a factory of about eight years, and Indian women trailed behind some ten years (66). The infant mortality rate in 2011 was at 47 per cent, compared to that of 14 or 13 per cent from Brazil and China. How could Shleifer maintain his argument that rapid economic growth brings about higher levels of education, life expectancy, lower rates of infant mortality, and overall betterment of quality of living if a country with a leading GDP is coming in last place when pitted against the same world development indicators it is supposed to thrive in. Not only this, but Shleifer consistently uses Latin American countries as an example of non-developed countries with abysmal economic growth. Yet, Brazil overtakes India in every aspect when it comes to world development indicators (66). This can be attributed not to any type of economic growth, but the creation of a democracy. One that instituted programs of free universal healthcare, social security and income support, and an expansion of elementary education (69). Shleifer had used China to illustrate how switching to capitalistic policies can bring success to a country. However, Dreze and Sen discredit this example by showing social
They argue “development is the progress of human freedom and capability to lead the kind of lives that people have reason to value” (Dreze and Sen 43). Keeping this in mind, while also heeding the fact India has one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world, the following cross examination of the two arguments will discredit most of Shleifer’s supporting evidence. One fifth of all Indian Men in the age group of 15-24 years, and one fourth of all women in the same age group, were unable to read or write in 2006 (65). Life expectancy for Indian men in 2010 trailed behind both Brazil and China by a factory of about eight years, and Indian women trailed behind some ten years (66). The infant mortality rate in 2011 was at 47 per cent, compared to that of 14 or 13 per cent from Brazil and China. How could Shleifer maintain his argument that rapid economic growth brings about higher levels of education, life expectancy, lower rates of infant mortality, and overall betterment of quality of living if a country with a leading GDP is coming in last place when pitted against the same world development indicators it is supposed to thrive in. Not only this, but Shleifer consistently uses Latin American countries as an example of non-developed countries with abysmal economic growth. Yet, Brazil overtakes India in every aspect when it comes to world development indicators (66). This can be attributed not to any type of economic growth, but the creation of a democracy. One that instituted programs of free universal healthcare, social security and income support, and an expansion of elementary education (69). Shleifer had used China to illustrate how switching to capitalistic policies can bring success to a country. However, Dreze and Sen discredit this example by showing social