I propose a discussion on my PowerPoint "Some notes on Amartya Sen’s and Mahbub ul Haq’s Interpretations of Entitlements, Development, Economic Growth, and Freedom". I used this PowerPoint for my Online Guest Lecture held at the O.P. Jindal Global University on Tuesday, 11th March 2025, 1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. IST. In my inquiry, I analyse some concepts of the thought of Amartya Sen and of Mahbub ul Haq in order to find elements for public policy. Sen and ul Haq teach us the existence of many values for specific concepts, like, for instance, the concept of development; they moreover exhort us not to be content with easy answers in the analysis of social phenomena: the complete investigation of social phenomena always asks for patience, time and engagement. The first part of my investigation is dedicated to aspects of Sen’s thought: I analyse Sen’s refusal of fatalistic attitudes, his interpretation of the cause of famines and his consideration of freedoms as constitutive elements of development. Sen’s opinion that famines are not a natural, but a social phenomenon aims to reveal as false all attempts to present famines as something unavoidable, in relation to which the only solution is resignation. Sen points out that all governments which present famines as natural phenomena, on closer inspection, aim to conceal the responsibilities which they have for the occurrence of famines. Sen shows that starvation and famines are not natural phenomena against which there is nothing to do; they are social phenomena which are due to specific political failures. Famines and starvation do not represent an unavoidable element of human history: they can be prevented provided that there is the political will to prevent them. I then analyse Sen’s criticism of the thesis of the incompatibility between development and freedom. Sen strongly contends that democracy and freedoms are compatible with economic growth, thus opposing all those who consider democracy as an obstacle to economic growth. Freedoms and democratic public space are constituent components of development; they are, moreover, a means to development, since they make possible the public discussion on the needs of people. My attention is thereafter concentrated on ul Haq’s interpretation of the concept of development. Ul Haq shows that development cannot be reduced to the growth of GNP, but should be extended to the promotion of individuals’ freedoms, human rights, health care, opportunities for education and further entitlements. Development is, actually, the progressive growth of the individuals as such. People, and not economic growth, are the authentic end of any process of development. All interpretations of development based exclusively on the measurement and growth of the gross domestic product and of the individual income prove, on closer inspection, to be inadequate and insufficient since they do not give the necessary information on the quality of life of the individuals: the quality of life and the improvement of the quality of life of the individual directly depend on the choices made by the governments as regards the use of economic growth. To sum up, both Sen and Ul Haq interpret development as the promotion and the improvement of the whole individual, of his quality of life, and of his capabilities. The concept of development pleaded for by the two thinkers proves to be different, therefore, from the conception of development proper to the position which identifies development with economic growth. In Sen’s and Ul Haq’s view, economic growth is an instrument for the promotion of the person; it is not the goal of development. The authentic goal of any process of development is the individual’s life.