Yes, the article was interesting. But even if there IS famine in India, it does not necessarily invalidate the Sen thesis. Sen's point is that in general, famines have been caused by lack of responsiveness to public needs, which is something undemocratic states are generally worse on than democratic ones. It's not an iron law that posits a mystic link; the mechanism is simple and obvious. I am very far from being an expert on famines or agricultural policy generally, but if Mike Davis' book on 19th century famines is reliable, the Sen thesis has a lot of empirical support. A single disconfirmation will not destroy it, particularly if these is good reason to think that for various reasons Indian democracy has been compromised, for example by corruption or structural adjustment policies. jks
Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The article was very interesting. I believe that Brad de Long
was arguing on pen-l about how well India was doing. My take was
that heaping up riches at the top was impoverishing the bottom.
In addition, the article suggests the ways that India's
marketization has made the poor more vulnerable.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
