Poverty, Evil and Crime - Amartya Sen - Critical Summary

Introduction:

Amartya Sen, who is fondly known as the Mother Teresa of Indian Economics, was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1998, for his contributions to welfare economics and interest in the problems of the poorest people in society. This speech titled, “Poverty, Evil and Crime” was delivered to the United Nations Programme for Development, New York, on October 5, 2007.

According the George Bernard Shaw, “the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty”. Based on this premise, Amartya Sen divides his speech into two parts.  The first part of his speech deals with the relationship between poverty and evil, and the second part deals with the relationship between poverty and crime.

Relationship between Poverty and Evil:

Sen argues that poverty is the cause of all social evils. The world today is filled with millions of people who are unable to afford even the barest minimum necessities of life. It is this poverty that leads people to indulge in criminal activities like robbery, looting, arson, etc.

If poverty is an evil, then there must be some wickedness behind poverty that allows such wrong-doings to occur. This raises the immediate question: Who are the wrong-doers? But, identifying the wrong-doers is not our task. Our focus has to be on removing wrong-doing rather than going on the wild-goose chase of catching the wrong-doer.

The failure of the state and the society to create opportunities for decent employment is the main culprit here, which makes it possible to recruit labour to do terrible jobs. That is why, exploited labourers are led to hard work today in the poorer countries. Hence, closing down of labour factories without giving the victims alternative opportunities for employment or education, is not an adequate solution to the problems and predicaments of the precarious poor.

What is Poverty?

Poverty need not always be identified with lowness of income. On the other hand, poverty is about the inability to lead a decent – minimally acceptable life. Alternatively, there are factors that influence a family’s consumption patterns. Sen outlines four important sources of variation.

1. Personal Diversities and Handicaps:  People have diverse physical characteristics  like disability, illness, age, and gender. Hence, a disabled or an ill person may need more income to do the same elementary things that a less afflicted person can do with a given level of income. Disability in the world is truly gigantic, as nearly about one tenth of all human beings live with some form of significant disability in the world today. These make their lives much harder and their normal living more costly.
2. Environment and Poverty: Climatic circumstances, such as temperature ranges, or rainfall and flooding, also affect one’s mode of spending.
3. Social Conditions and Personal Capabilities: This includes public health, public educational arrangements, and the prevalence or absence of crime and violence in the particular location.
4. Differences in Relational Perspectives: Established patterns of behaviour in a community may also substantially vary . For example, to be able to appear in public “without shame” may require higher standards of clothing and other visible consumption in a richer society than in a poorer one.

Relationship between Poverty and Crime:

According to Sen, poverty can certainly make a person outraged and desperate, and a sense of injustice can be a good ground for rebellion – even bloody rebellion. Social analysts also support the viewpoint that the roots of discontent and disorder are a result of economic destitution.  Terrible poverty has the potential to generate terrifying violence, threatening the lives of all. Hence, poverty removal can prevent political strife and turmoil. Given this co-existence of violence and poverty, we come to the conclusion that poverty kills twice – first through economic deprivation, and second through political and social carnage.

The injustice of inequality can generate intolerance and the suffering of poverty can provoke anger and fury. Hence, it is important for poverty research to analyse the different causes of poverty – economic, social, cultural and ethnic, to understand the relationship between poverty and crime.

Conclusion:

Thus, Amartya Sen concludes by saying that, Shaw was right in his observations on the connection between poverty, evil and crime. The fact that this insight came not from an economist but from a dramatist and literary giant fits well with Sen’s argument that the economics of poverty involves much more than just economics. Human lives in society are interlinked through economic, social, political and cultural associations. This elementary understanding is, according to Amartya Sen, the key to the removal of poverty.