"This book is not, I think, likely to be of much value to economists or political philosophers (of which I am one). It suffers from three main defects. One is that it includes too much inessential material. The book reads like a record of everything the author found interesting on the topic of moral assessment of economic institutions. The second defect is that the book does not have enough depth in its discussion of essential material. [...] The third problem is that Vickers mislocates the source of the problem he is concerned with. He is absolutely right that economics is not value free in its practice. But no human activity is. [...] The main relevant question, I think, is not whether economists in their professional role should make prescriptive judgments about economic policy, but rather how and when this should be done. "

"While this may serve as an introduction to ethics for someone with a strong background in economics, it cannot serve as an introduction to economics for the ethicist. Though not stated, readers are assumed to have a fairly substantial background in economics. [...] the attempt to link economics and ethics suffers from a failure to distinguish the different ways they might overlap. Consider the following three propositions.

1. Economists should treat economic actors as motivated by narrowly defined self-interest and lacking in ethical considerations (amorality of economic actors)
2. Economists should avoid expressing their judgements about the ethical propriety of economic systems (ethical neutrality of economists as narrators)
3. Economists should not allow their ethical beliefs to influence what they choose to study (ethical neutrality of economists in choice of research)

Vickers, unfortunately, does not make such a distinction. Instead he draws conclusions about each from evidence in support of any one."