In 1952, the General Assembly of the United Nations made a striking decision: to divide the previously cohesive draft of the Covenant of Human Rights into two separate covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESC). This decision would spur a slew of debates, pitting the Western world against the Soviet Union over the question of which were more important, civil-political rights or socio-economic rights. Underlying their respective positions were implicit assumptions about what enables a society to thrive. For the West, where the individual was preeminent, liberty, freedom, and self-determination were deemed fundamental to a flourishing society. The Soviet Union, by contrast, championed the socialist cause: economic development and social security were of foremost concern.¹ History would serve as the final arbiter in this debate, however, ultimately granting a point in favour of freedom as not only the best end of development, but its most powerful means as well. 

Conceptualizing development as freedom, as proposed by Amartya Sen in his acclaimed book, Development as Freedom, overcomes a number of the shortcomings apparent in other concepts of development.² A strictly economic concept of development overlooks both quantifiable and non-quantifiable inequalities which may be perpetuated in a country with otherwise robust gross domestic product (GDP) or gross national income (GNI)—inequalities in wealth, opportunity, longevity of life, standard of living, and self-determination. Although redefining development as a lack of poverty attempts to circumvent this oversight by using multifaceted measurements of poverty to determine development, this approach also falls short. The Multi-dimensional Poverty Index measures poverty primarily in economic terms, and therefore overlooks non-economic deprivations which impede development.³ This is clearly exemplified by Cuba, which, according to the Atlantic’s Council Freedom and Prosperity Index, is “mostly prosperous” and yet ranks as the fifth most unfree country in the world.⁴ National wealth and the absence of poverty are not accurate indications of holistic societal flourishing. For this reason, concepts which seek to measure development in economic terms inevitably fall short. 

Alternative concepts of development, such as sustainable development or quality of life, suffer from a different shortcoming: they propose idealistic developmental goals which necessitate the existence of activist governments supported by bourgeoning administrations. Although the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and indices such as the Gross National Happiness (GNH) Index measure important indicators of a flourishing society, such intangible goals as “community diversity” or “gender empowerment” unavoidably provide justification for expanding state socialism, government overreach in civil and private spheres, and the restriction of individual liberties. If viewed as the primary ends of development, such goals, however admirable, will inevitably result in the loss of freedom in favour of governmental paternalism. 

Redefining development as freedom, however, not only enables economies to better flourish, but to do so within the context of societies that are more equal, more happy, and more sustainable. Freedom is, in effect, the foundation upon which every other developmental goal must rest. As Sen notes, “Expansion of freedom is viewed, in this approach, both as the primary end and as the principal means of development.”⁵ Nor is his thesis without basis. A strong correlation exists between freedom and development, regardless of how development is measured. In the Freedom and Prosperity Index, for example, every “free” country is ranked as either “prosperous” or “mostly prosperous.”⁶ With few exceptions, the freer a country, the more it economically thrives. Freedom is, therefore, a powerful indicator of economic prosperity. Freedom is also a powerful indicator of reduced inequality, as evidenced by the Global Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index.⁷ Freer countries have significantly fewer deprivations and less economic inequality than their less free counterparts, testifying to freedom as a powerful antidote to poverty. Freer countries are also happier. The World Happiness Report, which correlates subjective respondent ratings with objective quality of life measurements, ranks as happiest the world’s freest countries.⁸ In short, the freer a country, the better it ranks across nearly every measurement of development. 

Freedom is not only the most effective means to development, but also a worthy end in and of itself. Central to the concept of human rights is the presupposition that every individual inherently and inalienably possesses the right to determine the course of their lives, from how they worship and where they live, to who they marry and what they say. As Sen aptly points out, “Even when people without political liberty or civil rights do not lack adequate economic security (and happen to enjoy favorable economic circumstances), they are deprived of important freedoms in leading their lives and denied the opportunity to take part in crucial decisions regarding public affairs.”⁹ Freedom, more than economic security or sustainable development, is fundamental not only to societal flourishing, but to human flourishing. For this reason, freedom should be acknowledged the most powerful means, as well as the primary end, of development. 

^{1 Matthew Craven, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Perspective on Its Development (London: Oxford University Press, 1995), quoted in Daniel J. Whelan, Indivisible Human Rights: A History (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 64. 
2 Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York: Anchor Books, 1999).
3 Mariana Mota Prado and Michael J. Trebilcock, Advanced Introduction to Law and Development, 2nd ed. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2021), 7. 
4 Dan Negrea and Matthew Kroenig, “Atlantic Council Freedom and Prosperity Indices,” Atlantic Council Freedom and Prosperity Center, 2021, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/do-countries-need-freedom-to-achieve-prosperity/#data.
5 Sen, Development as Freedom, xii.
6 Negrea and Kroenig, “Atlantic Council Freedom and Prosperity Indices.”
7 S. Alkire, U. Kanagaratnam, and N. Suppa, “Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Databank 2022,” Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative, 2022,https://ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/global-mpi-databank/.
8 Max Bachrach, et al. “Human Freedom Index 2022,” Cato Institute, 2022, https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2022.
9 Sen, Development as Freedom, 16.}