Amartya Sen and the media

Amartya Sen has correctly sought to correct some shortcomings within neoclassical economic theory. Nonetheless, there still exists a tension in his work. His overall frame of analysis is still congruent with much of the neoclassical tradition. However, his critiques seem to imply that a sharp break with neoclassical theory is necessary. This conflict is examined in light of the connections between the press and the media, its impact on capabilities and functionings in Sen’s framework, politics, and basic ideas about justice. Sen’s individualist focus on capabilities and functionings seems to reflect the individualist orientation derived from neoclassical theory, but his use of other categories calls for a new kind of analysis that better examines the connections that enable people to shape and be shaped by their institutional environment. JEL codes B3, B5, K00, L82 Section I: Introduction Almost everyone recognizes that the media plays a crucial role in real democracies. One must examine the media to understand its role in how democracies work, including how it both enhances and detracts from how well any democratic society works. Amartya Sen recognizes this basic truth in the realms of capabilities, functionings, economics, and freedom. However, there is a tension between this recognition and the fact that Sen does not deeply develop the structural and institutional aspects of the role of the media and of democratic society. In many of his works, Amartya Sen has correctly pointed out the links that exist between many kinds of freedom. One of the most important is the connection between democratic participation, political freedom, and the structure of the media. This is important because Sen argues that direct or representative democracy prevents catastrophic famine. (Sen 1999, 2009) He has also forcefully argued that political participation is important in its own right. In order to reap the full benefits of democracy, Sen has argued that it is crucial have a free press that allows for the free flow of ideas. The free press helps a society decide which policies to pursue, since these discussions lead to the direct consideration of the goals that society thinks are worthwhile. These discussions also shape a society, because they inform citizens how it might be best to pursue goals that are already settled on. On this point, I agree with Sen. However, there is a problem. Authors like Robert McChesney have argued that the ownership structure of media companies limits debate over economic and political policy. In the U.S., the primary concern seems to be the potential for corporate censorship, while in other parts of the world the main problem appears to be government censorship. For the U.S., the argument goes like this. Media companies such as Disney, Fox, and Turner have direct economic interests. Large media companies are large corporations, and they sell real-world economics review, issue no. 72