Transparency and Its Connection to Reciprocity - Tutu

By

When reading Sen’s argument, his requirement of “transparency” as an instrumental freedom reminded me of the reciprocity clause Rawls, Shelby, and others have highlighted as required for a legitimate and just society.

Sen’s argument for development as freedom moves away from the classic “medical model” as development as gains in economic structures. As Sen argues, utilitarianism and other similar schools of thought ignore the importance of development’s role in expanding individual freedoms. As Sen argues, “expansion of freedom is viewed as both (r) the primary end and (2) the principal means of development.” In chapter two, Sen argues that development must consider five instrumental freedoms, especially in light of their interconnected nature. As Sen writes, “The claim that freedom is not only the primary object of development but also its principal means relates particularly to these linkages.” I will argue that the most important of these freedoms might be the transparency guarantees in light of the reciprocity argument Rawls and Shelby make.

As Sen writes, transparency guarantees “the freedom to deal with one another under guarantees of disclosure and lucidity.” Transparency makes the terms of agreements clear, allowing violations of it to be easily identified. For progress to happen, trust must be present. Often developers struggle with developing trust with the community they are aiding and within their own organizations. Additionally, it can be argued that all of the other instrumental freedoms are only merited insofar as transparency is insured. 

Reciprocity refers to the principle that all citizens believe that whatever laws they accept, other citizens, and as Shelby argues, the government, should also respect and follow. Sen writes, “In social interactions, individu­als deal with one another on the basis of some presumption of what they are being offered and what they can expect to get.” Considering Shelby, Sen connects transparency to reciprocity, as he connects transparency to lessening the possibility of “corruption, financial irresponsibility and underhand dealings.” Sen here seems to talk about reciprocity but labels it the “transparency guarantees.” As reciprocity is required for a legitimate and just society, Sen argues that transparency is needed for legitimate and just development.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more