While acknowledging the progress that the capability approach has made in renewing the thinking on development, this book critiques the inadequacy of the approach, drawing conclusions about the economic analysis of development.
"This book and its arguments deserves reading and attention, not just from the philosophically inclined in economics but also from those hoping to better understand the often overlooked complexities of economic and moral behavior." - John B. Davis, Journal of Economic Inequality
"[The authors] traverse quite a path in this volume, crisscrossing positive and normative domains in philosophy, economics and politics...This is a densely argued book which will repay reading and discussion." - Ravi Kanbur, Journal of Economic Methodology
"In sum, the book does provide interesting material for discussion for anyone concerned with issues of agency and responsibility, and the reduction of unjust situations in a globalized world." - Oscar Garza, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities
"[T]he phenomenological reconsideration outlined in this book sheds a new light on whether the dialogue between sciences can indeed prove lucrative for economics. This is a welcome and important contribution to the debate...More importantly, Ballet, Bazin, Dubois and Mahieu re-diagnose the methodological problem of economics: by underscoring the irreducible complexity of the person, they show how the 'representative agent', the mathematical models, or the quantitative predictions of economic interactions are highly problematic." - Carmen Elena Dorobat, Journal of Philosophical Economics
"In developing an alternative to the mainstream account of economic action, this book is to be warmly welcomed. The book usefully engages with a wide range of literature and issues, including Sen's capability approach, questions of intentionality, freedom and responsibility, and the status of rights and duties. The book also provides examples of cases where individuals appear to behave in ways that the standard economic model seems unable to adequately explain." - Stephen Parsons, Review of Political Economy
