Amartya K. Sen's Contributions to the Study of Social Welfare

Abstract

The oeuvre of Amartya K. Sen is very considerable in magnitude, nearly twenty books (with two forthcoming) and about 250 articles, mostly in learned journals but also in the higher level of the popular press, and lectures. It has nevertheless a very considerable degree of unity. It is motivated throughout by concern for the welfare of the individuals in an economy, with special interest in the lower part of the income spectrum; starvation, poverty, and economic development have been the objects of fruitful, important, and socially valuable study and have motivated his basic research into the concepts of individual and social welfare. All of this work is of very high quality and makes important contributions to our understanding and to the formation of policy. But I will isolate for special consideration that large subset which revolves about the conceptual question: what is meant by, better off socially? A major portion of his work falls directly into this category. The value of Sen's analysis of social welfare and the conceptual questions relevant to it have now been recognized by the award of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science. Unlike some other work which has been awarded this Prize, especially in economic theory, we cannot do justice to Sen's work in social welfare on the basis of one or two seminal papers, although there have been several such, as I will point out. Rather it is the work as a whole and the way the various parts interplay that must be understood to see the importance of Sen's contribution. His exploration of the notions of social welfare takes place at every level of analysis, formal-mathematical, conceptual, and empirical. It is by far the most comprehensive study of its kind, drawing on profound understanding of both economics and moral philosophy. It is useful to note that he is regarded by philosophers as one of their leading lights, and he has published extensively in philosophical journals. In view of the comprehensive and far-flung nature of his work, it is not surprising that his role has been somewhat different in various specific aspects. In some, indeed, he has opened and defined new fields with strong results. In others, he has perfected and enriched earlier results or contributed along with others. In still others, he has raised new inquiries whose chief value has been the stimulation to others. What is striking is the consistency