Teoría del capital humano como dispositivo de cosificación del sujeto desde la ética de la liberación de Enrique Dussel J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 23-29 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21854604 ISSN 3091-1583 REFLECTION ARTICLE Theory of human capital as a device for the reification of the subject from the perspective of Enrique Dussel’s ethics of liberation  Dustin T. Gómez dustin.gomez@asturioas.edu.co Received: 03 March 2026 / Accepted: 03 June 2026 / Published online: 31 July 2026 © The Author(s) 2026 Dustin T. Gómez Abstract This article critically examines human capital the- ory through the ethical and political framework of Enrique Dussel’s philosophy of liberation. Drawing on a qualitative and critical-hermeneutic methodology, the study analyzes the foundational contributions of Schultz, Becker, and Minc- er in order to demonstrate how the theory of human capital reduces the human subject to an economic asset governed by the instrumental rationality of capitalist accumulation. The analysis reveals that this perspective establishes a structural equivalence between human life and capital by transforming education, knowledge, and labor capacities into commodities subjected to market valuation. Furthermore, the study argues that the discourse of meritocracy and individual responsibili- ty conceals historical relations of domination and legitimizes structural inequality through processes of self-exploitation and neoliberal subjectivation. From Dussel’s ethics of lib- eration, this rationality becomes ethically unsustainable be- cause it subordinates the reproduction of concrete human life to the imperatives of productivity, competitiveness, and profitability. The article concludes by proposing the need for an alternative ethical-economic horizon centered on dignity, social justice, and the expanded reproduction of life. Keywords human capital, reification of the subject, lib- eration ethics, commodification of education, instrumental rationality. Resumen El presente artículo examina críticamente la teo- ría del capital humano desde la perspectiva ética y política de la filosofía de la liberación de Enrique Dussel. A partir de un enfoque cualitativo, hermenéutico-crítico y de carác- ter teórico-documental, se analizan los postulados centrales de Schultz, Becker y Mincer con el propósito de demostrar que esta teoría configura una forma contemporánea de co- sificación del sujeto al reducir la vida humana a un recurso económico sometido a la racionalidad instrumental del capi- talismo. El estudio evidencia que la educación, las capacida- des y el conocimiento son reinterpretados como inversiones orientadas a la rentabilidad, estableciendo una equivalencia estructural entre vida y capital. Asimismo, se argumenta que las narrativas meritocráticas y de responsabilidad indi- vidual invisibilizan las relaciones históricas de dominación y legitiman desigualdades estructurales mediante procesos de autoexplotación y subjetivación neoliberal. Desde la éti- ca de la liberación de Dussel, dicha racionalidad resulta in- compatible con la reproducción digna de la vida humana, ya que subordina la existencia concreta a los imperativos de productividad, competitividad y acumulación. Finalmente, se propone la necesidad de reconstruir horizontes éticos al- ternativos centrados en la justicia social y la reproducción ampliada de la vida. Palabras clave capital humano, cosificación del sujeto, éti- ca de la liberación, mercantilización de la educación, racio- nalidad instrumental. How to cite Gómez, D. T. (2026). Theory of human capital as a device for the reification of the subject from the perspective of Enrique Dussel’s ethics of liberation. Journal of Advances in Education, Sciences and Humanities, 4(2), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21854604 Programa de Economía, Corporación Universitaria de Asturias, Bogotá, Colombia.

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 23-29 24 Introduction In recent decades, human capital theory has become con- solidated as one of the conceptual pillars of neoclassical eco- nomics and of hegemonic discourses on education, labor, and development (Rodríguez et al., 2025). Since the foundational contributions of Schultz (1961), Mincer (1970), and Becker (1964), this theory has promoted the understanding of the human being as a rational agent who invests in themselves with the purpose of increasing their productivity and maxi- mizing their future income. Within this framework, educa- tion, training, and competencies are conceived as economic assets susceptible to accumulation, valorization, and profita- bility, integrating the subject into a strictly instrumental logic governed by market rationality (Álvarez et al., 2021). However, this conception is neither epistemologically neu- tral nor ethically innocuous (Sandoval & Hernández, 2018). Human capital theory emerges not merely as an economic framework, but as a broader regime of rationality that re- organizes the meaning of education, labor, and subjectivity according to the imperatives of capitalist productivity. Un- der this logic, the human being is progressively redefined through calculability, efficiency, and economic performance, thereby diminishing the ethical and historical complexity of human existence (Levine, 2024; Odriozola, 2008). In this way, the subject ceases to be understood as an end in them- selves and is reconfigured as a means, resource, or factor of production, which implies a specific form of reification that naturalizes the commodification of existence and legitimizes the subordination of life to capital (Cortés-Campos, 2025; Gómez et al., 2025). From a critical perspective, this instrumental rationality finds a radical challenge in the ethics of liberation of En- rique Dussel, who proposes an ethical foundation based on the centrality of the concrete life of historically oppressed majorities (Dussel, 1998). For Dussel, all economic, politi- cal, or institutional rationality must be evaluated based on its capacity to guarantee the reproduction and development of human life under conditions of dignity (Dussel, 1984). Consequently, any system that sacrifices life in the name of efficiency or profitability incurs a fetishistic inversion of the means of production, characteristic of capitalist modernity and its devices of domination (Dussel, 2023). Within this horizon, human capital theory can be interpre- ted as a technology of power that operates through the inter- nalization of the logic of capital within subjectivity, promo- ting forms of self-exploitation, individual responsibility for poverty, and the legitimization of structural inequality (Be- neyto, 2013). Education ceases to be a fundamental right and a common good oriented towards emancipation, to become a private investment whose value depends on its capacity to generate economic returns (Dussel, 2002). Thus, life itself is subsumed under the logic of value, configuring a social order that prioritizes accumulation over the material reproduction of existence (Garrett, 2025). In this context, the need arises to critically interrogate the ethical, ontological, and political foundations of human ca- pital theory from a perspective situated in Latin America and committed to the liberation of historically excluded subjects (Dussel, 2007; Bunge, 1997). In particular, it is pertinent to ask: How does human capital theory configure a form of rei- fication of the subject by reducing human life to an economic resource, and how is this instrumental rationality ethically incompatible with the ethics of liberation proposed by En- rique Dussel? In coherence with this inquiry, the present article aims to critically analyze human capital theory from the perspective of Enrique Dussel’s ethics of liberation, in order to demons- trate its reifying character, its reduction of the subject to a commodity, and its subordination of human life to the ins- trumental rationality of contemporary capitalism. Based on a hermeneutic critique of the foundational texts of human capital and of the principal ethical and political works of Dussel, it seeks to contribute to the construction of a politi- cal economy of life that reorients the meaning of education, labor, and development towards horizons of dignity, social justice, and the expanded reproduction of life (Díaz, 2022). Unlike conventional critiques centered exclusively on labor economics or educational inequality, this study contributes a decolonial and ethical interpretation grounded in Latin American philosophy, specifically through Enrique Dussel’s ethics of liberation. In doing so, it broadens current debates on neoliberal subjectivation by emphasizing the ethical con- sequences of reducing human life to economic functionality. Methodology The present research is situated within the critical-her- meneutical approach and adopts a qualitative, theoreti- cal-analytical orientation aimed at examining the ontologi- cal, ethical, and political foundations of human capital theory from the perspective of Enrique Dussel’s ethics of liberation (Ali et al., 2025; Bunge, 1980). The study is conceived as an epistemological and philosophical documentary investiga- tion, whose purpose is to deconstruct the economic rationali- ties underlying the construction of the subject as productive within the framework of contemporary capitalism (Bunge, 1969). Based on a hermeneutic critique of the foundational texts of human capital theory, especially the developments by Schultz (1960, 1961), Becker (1983, 2002, 2003), and Mincer (1958, 1970) as well as institutional documents from multilateral organizations that have consolidated this approach in educational and labor policies, its anthropologi- cal, economic, and normative assumptions are reconstructed, identifying the central categories that shape the notion of in- vestment in education, productivity, and profitability (Arias

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 23-29 25 & Maldonado, 2025; Mukherjee et al., 2022). Similarly, a systematic interpretation of the principal wor- ks of Enrique Dussel in the fields of ethics, political philo- sophy, and the political economy of liberation was conduc- ted, in order to construct a normative framework centered on concrete life, alterity, exteriority, and the critique of economic fetishism (Dussel, 1984, 1998, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2015, 2020, 2023). From this horizon, an exercise of critical contrast between both theoretical corpora was established, aimed at analyzing the mechanisms through which human capital theory configures a form of reification of the sub- ject by reducing human life to a factor of production and an economic asset susceptible to valorization (Mora, 2025; Neugen & Suh, 2023). The documentary corpus was selected according to criteria of theoretical relevance, epistemologi- cal coherence, and historical influence within debates on hu- man capital, neoliberalism, and liberation philosophy. This analytical strategy allowed for a comparative reconstruction of the ethical assumptions underlying both theoretical tradi- tions(Bunge, 1980;1969). The analysis was supported by qualitative techniques cha- racteristic of the critical analysis of economic discourse and comparative categorical analysis, allowing for the identifica- tion of the structures of meaning that organize the producti- vist frameworkof human capital and their confrontation with an ethical conception founded on the material reproduction of life (Neugen & Suh, 2023; Mukherjee et al., 2022). In this way, the methodology made it possible to answer the research question through a structural critique that demons- trates the incompatibility between the rationality of human capital and the ethics of liberation, by showing how life is subordinated to the logic of accumulation and economic effi- ciency (Román et al., 2025; Paramo, 2008). Results and discussion The critical-hermeneutical analysis of the foundational texts of human capital theory allows for the identification that it is structured upon a reductionist anthropological con- ception that configures the subject as a bearer of a stock of productive capacities susceptible to economic valorization (Álvarez et al., 2018). In the developments of Schultz, Bec- ker and Mincer, as well as in documents from multilateral organizations, education, health, and training are conceptua- lized as individual investments whose value is expressed in terms of wage returns, marginal productivity, and competi- tiveness in the labor market (Pimenta, 2024; Becker et al., 1990). This rationality introduces an ontological equivalence between the human being and capital, displacing the con- dition of subject towards that of an economic resource and subordinating life to its productive functionality. Within this framework, human existence is abstracted from its social, historical, and communal dimensions, to be integrated into a logic of accumulation that measures its value based on its capacity to generate future income (Deere, 2025; Gómez & Velasco, 2024). From this perspective, it is evident that human capital theory produces a specific form of reification of the subject, by converting their corporeality, intelligence, creativity, and life time into exchangeable commodities within the labor market (Rodríguez et al., 2026). Under the logic of human capital, subjectivity becomes increasingly subordinated to economic utility. Human capacities are valued primari- ly according to their profitability and market performance, which transforms education and labor into mechanisms of capitalization rather than spaces for human emancipation or collective flourishing (Laverde et al., 2020). This inversion manifests in the naturalization of individual competition, in the subjective attribution of responsibility for unemployment and poverty, and in the legitimization of inequality as the result of differentiated rational investment decisions. Con- sequently, the social structure of exploitation is rendered in- visible and replaced by a meritocratic narrative that attribu- tes success or failure exclusively to individual performance (Maturana & Andrade, 2019; Jaimes et al., 2018). The contrast with Enrique Dussel’s ethics of liberation allows for the demonstration of the structural incompatibility between the rationality of human capital and an ethics foun- ded on the centrality of concrete life (Merlo, 2024). From the material principle of Dussel’s ethics, all economic rationality must be evaluated based on its capacity to guarantee the re- production and development of human life under conditions of dignity (Reyes, 2023). However, human capital theory operates under an economic utilitarian logic that sacrifices life in the name of efficiency, profitability, and competitive- ness, configuring a sacrificial logic characteristic of contem- porary capitalism (Rodríguez & Pérez, 2025). In this sense, education ceases to be a fundamental right oriented towards emancipation and is transformed into a commodity whose value depends on its capacity to generate economic returns, thereby reproducing a structure of exclusion that marginali- zes those who fail to successfully insert themselves into the market (Teruel, 2024; Salcedo, 2013). Likewise, the analysis allows for the identification that hu- man capital theory functions as a technology of power that internalizes the logic of capital within subjectivity (Freire & Terjeiro, 2010). The subject is interpellated as an entre- preneur of themselves, responsible for managing their own portfolio of competencies and for assuming the risks derived from labor precarity. This neoliberal subjectivation produces forms of self-exploitation that are presented as freedom and autonomy, concealing the structural relations of domination that condition access to education, employment, and the means for the material reproduction of life. In this way, the rationality of human capital contributes to the legitimization

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 23-29 26 of a social order that prioritizes capital accumulation over the life of historically excluded majorities (Rodríguez et al., 2026; Gramaglia, 2025). Consequently, from the Dusselian category of fetishism, it is evident that human capital theory absolutizes economic mediations and presents them as ends in themselves, concea- ling their historical and contingent character (Leyva, 2023). Productivity, efficiency, and competitiveness are elevated to supreme values, while the concrete life of subjects remains subordinated to these abstractions. This fetishization of eco- nomic rationality produces an ethical inversion in which the economy ceases to be at the service of life and life is put at the service of the economy, configuring a structurally unjust social order incompatible with an ethics of liberation (Velas- co et al., 2026;Téllez, 2024). The obtained results confirm that human capital theory does not constitute a neutral or merely technical approach to education and labor, but operates as an epistemological and political device that ontologically reconfigures the subject according to the market-centered rationality of contempo- rary capitalism (Téllez et al., 2020). This transformation can- not be interpreted solely as a change in economic language; rather, it represents a deeper anthropological reconfiguration in which subjectivity becomes progressively subordinated to market rationality. As a consequence, social recognition increasingly depends on productivity, competitiveness, and individual performance. In this sense, the reduction of the human being to a bearer of productive assets not only im- plies a semantic transformation of economic language, but a profound mutation in the very understanding of life, which is subsumed under the logic of capital valorization (De Sousa Santos, 2011). This rationality coincides with what Dussel identifies as a fetishistic inversion of means, in which the economy ceases to be a mediation for the reproduction of life and becomes an absolute end that sacrifices concrete exis- tence in the name of efficiency and profitability (Rodríguez, 2024; Dussel, 1984). From the material ethics of liberation, human capital theory is ethically unsustainable, insofar as it denies the fundamen- tal principle of the centrality of life as the ultimate criterion of legitimacy for all social rationality (Deere, 2025; Dus- sel, 2023). While for Dussel the economy must be oriented towards guaranteeing the material conditions of possibility for the dignified life of excluded majorities, human capital theory displaces this purpose towards the maximization of individual productivity, configuring a rationality that holds the subject responsible for their own exclusion and natura- lizes the structural inequalities of the system (Velasco et al., 2026; Dussel, 2020). At this point, the meritocratic narrati- ve accompanying human capital functions as a legitimizing ideology that conceals historical relations of exploitation and domination, replacing them with a discourse of individual responsibility and entrepreneurship of the self (Álvarez et al., 2018; Ramírez, 2015). Likewise, the findings allow for a dialogue with the approa- ches of critical political economy and studies on neoliberal governmentality, insofar as they demonstrate how human ca- pital theory produces an entrepreneurial subjectivity that in- ternalizes market logic as a normative principle of existence (Garret, 2025; Dussel, 2002). The subject is interpellated as a manager of their own capital, forced to permanently invest in their training, to compete with other equally reified subjects, and to assume the risks derived from labor precarity as if they were free and rational decisions (Teruel, 2024; Dussel, 2007). This form of subjectivation coincides with what Dus- sel conceptualizes as a form of ethical domination, insofar as it invisibilizes the exteriority of the Other and silences the voice of the system’s victims (Pimienta, 2025; Salcedo, 2013). In this horizon, education ceases to be understood as a fun- damental right and as a process of integral formation oriented towards emancipation, to become a commodity whose value depends on its capacity to generate economic returns (Dus- sel, 2020). This commodification of knowledge reproduces a colonial logic of knowledge, in which knowledges not func- tional to the market are delegitimized and the situated epis- temologies of peoples and communities are subordinated to the standards of productivity and competitiveness imposed by the global North (Dussel, 2002). From the philosophy of liberation, this operation constitutes a form of denial of al- terity, insofar as it disregards the material, cultural, and his- torical conditions of peripheral subjects (Gramaglia, 2025). Consequently, human capital theory not only reifies the subject, but contributes to the reproduction of a structurally unjust social order, in which the life of the majorities is sa- crificed in the name of accumulation (Escobar & Paternina, 2017). In the face of this, the ethics of liberation of Enrique Dussel offers an alternative normative horizon that allows for the reorientation of the economy, education, and labor towards a rationality centered on the expanded reproduc- tion of life (Mora, 2025). From this perspective, it becomes necessary to construct theoretical and political frameworks that overcome the instrumental logic of human capital and restore the primacy of concrete life as the foundation of all legitimate social organization (Levine, 2024). Conclusions The findings demonstrate that human capital theory consti- tutes a form of economic rationality that reorganizes subjec- tivity according to the imperatives of productivity, compe- titiveness, and market valorization. Within this framework, education, knowledge, and labor capacities are reduced to

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 23-29 27 mechanisms of accumulation, producing processes of com- modification that subordinate human existence to economic functionality. From Enrique Dussel’s ethics of liberation, this logic becomes ethically unsustainable because it prioritizes efficiency and profitability over the dignified reproduction of concrete human life. Likewise, the study evidences that human capital theory operates as a dispositif of neoliberal governmentality that internalizes market discipline within subjectivity and legitimizes self-exploitation through merito- cratic narratives. Such dynamics obscure historically consti- tuted relations of domination while reinforcing exclusionary structures that normalize inequality as an individual res- ponsibility. Consequently, the reduction of life to economic performance consolidates a social order incompatible with emancipatory and decolonial horizons grounded in ethical alterity, social justice, and the primacy of life over capital.ls References Ali, M., Al-Hatef, E., & Alamri, H. (2024). A concise review of qualitative research methods in healthcare research. Journal of Young Pharmacists, 16(3), 374–384. ht- tps://jourdata.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/jyp/PDF/ JYoungPharm-16-3-374.pdf Álvarez, B., Alfonso, D., & Indacochea, B. (2018). El des- empeño laboral: un problema social de la ciencia. Di- dáctica y Educación, 12(3),1-12. https://dialnet.unirio- ja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6596591 Álvarez, J., Atis, K., & Morales, A. (2021). Tasa de retorno de la educación y brechas salariales: evidencia empí- rica para la ciudad de Pasto en el año 2018. Equidad y Desarrollo, (37), 123-144. https://doi.org/10.19052/ eq.vol1.iss37.6 Arias, W., & Maldonado, C. (2025). Diseño Metodológico: Más allá de una verdad a toda costa. Revista Perspecti- vas, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.22463/25909215.5277 Becker, G. (1983). El Capital Humano: un análisis teórico y empírico referido fundamentalmente a la educación. Alianza Editorial. Becker, G. (2002). La economía cotidiana.Planeta. Becker, G. (2003). Capital Humano en la nueva sociedad. Presentación en la Fundación DMR. http://www.funda- ciodmr.org/textos/conferencias01d.html Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and em- pirical analysis, with special reference to education. Columbia University Press. Becker, G., Murphy, K., & Tamura, R. (1990). Human Ca- pital, fertility, and economic growth. The Journal of Political Economy, (98), 12-37. https://www.jstor.org/ stable/2937630 Beneyto, J. (2013). Teoría (y práctica) del capital humano. Un análisis crítico del caso español. methaodos.revista de ciencias sociales, 1(1), 53-81. http://www.redalyc. org/articulo.oa?id=441542970005 Bunge, M. (1969). La investigación científica: Su estrategia y su filosofía. Ariel. Bunge, M. (1980). Epistemología. Ariel. Bunge, M. (1997). Ciencia y desarrollo. Siglo XXI. Cortés-Campos, A. (2025). Ética de la liberación: Reflexio- nes de Enrique Dussel. Espiga, 24 (49), 189–216. http:// dx.doi.org/10.22458/re.v24i49.5907 De Sousa Santos, B. (2011). Una epistemología del sur. Clacso Ediciones. Deere, D. T. (2025). Transmodern geographies and colonia- lity: On Enrique Dussel’s pluriversal modernity. Latin American Perspectives, 56(6), 41–56. https://doi.or- g/10.1177/0094582X251389502 Díaz, J. (2022). Desde las éticas hacia la política de la li- beración de Enrique Dussel. Aproximación crítica y debates sobre su filosofía de la liberación. Revista de filosofía, 79, 61-85. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718- 43602022000100061 Dussel, E. (1998). Ética de la liberación en la era de la glo- balización y de la exclusión . Trotta. Dussel, E. (2007). Política de la liberación: Volumen I. His- toria mundial y crítica. Trotta. Dussel, E. (2008). Veinte tesis sobre política. Duke Univer- sity Press. Dussel, E. (2015). Filosofías del Sur: Descolonización y transmodernidad. Akal. Dussel, E. (2020). Siete ensayos de filosofía de la liberación. Trotta. Dussel, E. (2023). Política de la liberación (Vol. 3). Trotta. Dussel, E. (1984). Filosofía de la producción. Nueva Amé- rica. Escobar, C., & Paternina, S. (2017). Determinantes de los ingresos laborales de los economistas en Colombia para el tercer trimestre de los años 2010 y 2016. Tesis de pregrado, Universidad de Sucre. https://repositorio. unisucre.edu.co/server/api/core/bitstreams/ec8ef885- e822-4235-889c-728e9f69059e/content Freire, M., & Terjeiro, M. (2010). Las ecuaciones de Min- cer y las tasas de rendimiento de la educación de Ga- licia. Capítulo 14 en Investigaciones de Economía de la educación. 5: 285-304. https://ideas.repec.org/h/aec/ ieed05/05-14.html Garrett, P. (2025). La filosofía de la liberación y el trabajo social: un breve ensayo en memoria de Enrico Dussel (1934-2023). Revista Europea de Trabajo Social, 28(1), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2024.2377 128 Gómez, D., & Velasco, N. (2024). La Seguridad y Salud en el Trabajo como posible pilar estratégico de competi- tividad en Colombia. Revista Cubana de Salud y Tra- bajo, 25(3). https://revsaludtrabajo.sld.cu/index.php/ revsyt/article/view/625 Gómez, D., Barbosa, E., & Martínez, C. (2025). Las áreas metropolitanas de Colombia: motores del desarrollo

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 23-29 28 económico y fuentes cruciales de oportunidades de empleo. Revista Multidisciplinaria Voces De América Y El Caribe, 2(1), 352-369. https://doi.org/10.69821/ REMUVAC.v2i1.174 Gramaglia, P. (2025). La perspectiva de Enrique Dussel para repensar los problemas de la Justicia en América Lati- na. Revista Iuris, 20(2), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.18537/ iuris.20.02.02 Jaimes, L., Luzardo, M., & Rojas, M. (2018). Factores de- terminantes de la productividad laborar en pequeñas y medianas empresas de confecciones del área metropo- litana de Bucaramanga, Colombia. Información Tecno- lógica, 29, 175-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718- 07642018000500175 Laverde, M., Almanza, C., Gómez, D., & Serrano. (2020). El capital relacional como recurso diferencial y valioso para las empresas. PÓDIUM, (37), 57-70. https://doi. org/10.31095/podium.2020.37.5 Levine, E. (2024). Enrique Dussel y el reconocimiento crí- tico del Otro: liberación e interculturalidad. Revista Stultifera, 7(2), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.4206/rev. stultifera.2024.v7n2-07 Leyva, G. (2023). Enrique Dussel (1934-2023). Signos filo- sóficos, 25(50), 8-11. Epub 03 de noviembre de 2025. https://doi.org/10.24275/sfilo.v25n50.01 Maturana, D., & Andrade, V. (2019). La relación entre la formalización de las prácticas de gestión humana y la productividad de las mipymes. INNOVAR, 29, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v29n74.82091 Merlo, J. (2024). Nietzsche en la política de liberación de Enrique Dussel. Revista Guillermo de Ockham, 23(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.21500/22563202.7107 Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in human capital and personal income distribution, Journal of Political Economy, 66, 281-302. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1827422 Mincer, J. (1970). The distribution of labor incomes: A sur- vey. Journal of Economics Literature. 8, 1-26. https:// www.jstor.org/stable/2720384 Mora, A. (2025). La filosofía latinoamericana de liberación en Dussel. Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 63(166). https://doi.org/10.15517/rev- fil.2024.60019 Mukherjee, D., Lim, W., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bi- bliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042 Neugen, E., & Suh, J. (2023). Qualitative Research Metho- dology in Social Sciences. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM), 11(9), 1431-1445. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v11i09.sh01 Odriozola, S. (2008). Análisis crítico de la teoría del capital humano: apuntes para una concepción alternativa para la construcción del Socialismo. Economía y Desarro- llo, 143(1), 237-268. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo. oa?id=425541312011 Páramo, P. (2008). La Investigación en las Ciencias Socia- les. Técnicas de recolección de Información: Universi- dad Piloto de Colombia. Pimenta, T. (2025). Enrique Dussel’s concept of modernity: the intellectual evolution of a complex understanding of our age. Revista NUPEM, 17(40), 1-22. https://doi. org/10.33871/nupem.2025.17.40.8514 Ramírez, D. (2015). Capital humano: una visión desde la teoría crítica. Cad. EBAPE.BR, 13(2), 315–331. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1590/1679-395114754 Reyes, A. (2023). Movimiento y actualidad de la filosofía de la liberación. Revista de Filosofía Latinoameri- cana, 40(2), 87–110. https://www.redalyc.org/jour- nal/5519/55197388 Rodríguez, D. (2024). Returns to education in Colombia: Impact of human capital in times of change. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 8(5), 2479–2489. ht- tps://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i5.2020 Rodríguez, D., & Perez, E. (2025). Returns to education of Colombian care workers before and after the COVID 19 pandemic. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, 9(2), 1019–1026. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484. v9i2.4642 Rodríguez, D., García, H., Laverde, J., & López, C. (2025). Retornos a la educación en Colombia: Diferenciales profesionales. Revista Internacional de Investigación Innovadora y Estudios Científicos, 8(11), 464–469. ht- tps://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i11.10958 Rodríguez, D., Pérez, E., & López, C. (2026). Regional gaps in returns to education: a microeconometric analysis of Colombian cities (2021–2024). Veredas Do Direito, 23(5), e233911. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.3911 Román, D., Rodríguez, E., & Gómez, D. (2025). Análisis de prácticas abusivas en la oferta financiera para zonas ru- rales: revisión sistemática. Producción + Limpia, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.22507/pml.v20n2a3863 Salcedo, J. (2013). La forma neoliberal del capital humano y sus efectos en el derecho a la educación. Revista Ac- tualidades Pedagógicas, 61, 113-138. https://revistas. lasalle.edu.co/index.php/ap/article/view/292 Sandoval, J., & Hernández, G. (2018). Crítica a la teoría del capital humano, educación y desarrollo socioeco- nómico. Revista Ensayos Pedagógicos, 13(2),137-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.15359/rep.13-2.7 Schultz, T. W. (1960). Capital formation by Education. The journal of political economy, (6), 571-583. https:// www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/258393 Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American Economic Review, (51), 1-17. https://www. jstor.org/stable/1818907 Téllez, C., Gómez, D., Ramos, C., & Bernal, E. (2020). Ap- proximation from the Humanist Administration in a Case Study of Hotels in Villa De Leyva, Boyacá. Jour- nal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 11(2), 366-376. https://doi.org/10.14505//jemt.11.2(42).15

J. Adv. Educ. Sci. Humanit. (July - December 2026) 4(2): 23-29 29 Téllez, E. (2024). Primeras distinciones hacia una ecológi- ca de la liberación. Revista nuestrAmérica, (24), e12696728. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12696728 Teruel, F. (2024). Presentación del dossier: Una vida para la liberación de nuestra América. Cuyo. Anuario de Filo- sofía Argentina y Americana, 44, 13-16. https://revistas. uncu.edu.ar/ojs3/index.php/anuariocuyo/article/view/ Conflicts of interest The author declare that she has no conflict of interest. Author contributions Dustin T. Gómez: Conceptualization, formal analysis, research, methodology, writing the original draft, Writing, review and editing. Data availability statement Not applicable. Statement on the use of AI The author acknowledges the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to improve the readability and cla- rity of the article. Disclaimer/Editor’s note The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publi- cations are solely those of the individual authors and contri- butors and not of Journal of Advances Education, Sciences and Humanities. Journal of Advances Education, Sciences and Humanities and/or the editors disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, ins- tructions, or products mentioned in the content.