Alfred Marshall distinguished investment in human beings as the most valuable capital, and this view may have inspired the formal economic analysis of education not only as a consumer good, but rather as a subdivision of neoclassical economics which had begun to place individuals at the center of any development agenda (Chattopadhyay, 2012). Human capital theory, while marking a resurgence of the orthodox view, has inspired a clear emphasis and predominance of education in public policy, arguing that the acquisition of intangible forms of capital such as education plays a key role in determining positive labor market outcomes. (Schultz, 1961; Mincer, 1974; Becker, 1975) by improving creativity, cognitive skills and the ability to execute. If human capital theory provided a theoretical microeconomic foundation for the cost-benefit analysis of education by the rational, utility-maximizing individual (Becker, 1975), the new complementary macroeconomic theories of growth of the 1980s advocated investment in human capital, and therefore education is necessary for growth in knowledge-based economies through increased productivity and knowledge spillovers (Romer, 1986). However, Amartya Sen's work on "development as freedom" in the late 1980s and early 1990s created a paradigm shift in economic development theory and policy and shifted the discourse towards good -being human beyond the mathematical calculations of rates of return. This article revisits the debate between human capital and human development theories to guide the development process. Human Capital Theory and Its Purpose The crux of human capital theory is that it views human skills and knowledge as a form of capital subject to a rate of return (Schultz , 1960). Investing...... middle of paper ......s or public policies and therefore fails to provide recommendations to promote capabilities (Denuelin, 2002). Stewart's analysis of groups and group capabilities shows how group affiliation has intrinsic value, critical importance in affecting effectiveness and resources, and influence on members' values ​​and choices (Stewart , 2005). Thus, the conditions of an individual's belonging to a family, a community or a society count as much as the individual's freedom to do or be (Dean, 2009). Finally, by ignoring dominant hegemonic assumptions, conflicts, and hidden oppression, the approach advances the interests of the powerful in the name of the common good, while ignoring those of the subordinates. In doing so, it fails to expose or explain the operational mechanisms of the functioning of social inequalities and injustices perpetuated by the capitalist system (Fraser, 1997).