Talk:Economic development/Archives/2016

Dr. Singh's comment on this article

Dr. Singh has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is such a large topic that it would be hard to have a comprehensive article. Nevertheless, the piece has little or no reference to mainstream economic theories of development, such as those of Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson, and North, Wallis and Weingast, including the role of political institutions, interest group competition and property rights.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Singh has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference 1: Singh, Nirvikar, 2009. "India's Development Strategy: Accidents, Design and Replicability," Working Paper Series UNU-WIDER Research Paper , World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

• Reference 2: Singh, Lakhwinder & Shergill, Baldev Singh, 2009. "Technological Capability, Employment Growth and Industrial Development: A Quantitative Anatomy of Indian Scenario," MPRA Paper 19059, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Asongu's comment on this article

Dr. Asongu has reviewed development&oldid=722525319 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Washington Consensus versus the Beijing Model

I suggest adding a section on the two dominant models of economic development, namely: the Washington Consensus and the Beijing Model.

Asongu and Ssozi (2016, p.44) after surveying about 110 recently published scientific papers have … defined the Washington Consensus (WC) as “liberal democracy, private capitalism, and priority in political rights” and the Beijing Model (BM) as “de-emphasized democracy, state capitalism, and priority in economic rights.” The authors have argued that the two dominant models of economic development can be reconciled in developing countries: one as a short-run priority and the other as a long-run priority. They have stated “The synthesis suggests that prioritizing economic (political) rights in the short (long) run should be optimal. Hence, the WC and BM are optimal in the long term and short run, respectively. The intuition behind the synthesis is based on the rationale that a sustainable middle class is needed to demand political rights in a genuine manner. Therefore, only when the BM has satisfied basic economic rights in the short term would political rights be sustainably demanded in the long run” (p. 44).

The proposition by Asongu and Ssozi (2016) has been verified and confirmed by Asongu (2016) within the frameworks of: the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and Sino-African relations. “This article reviews about 100 papers on Sino-African relations published during the past five years, for the most part, to put some structure on the existing strands. The literature is classified into dominant schools of thought, namely the: neocolonial or pessimistic; balance development or optimistic; and accommodation schools. After the classification, I reconcile the schools of thought in light of dominant themes and debates on development models, inter alia: (1) pessimists versus optimists; (2) preferences of rights in development models (economic vs. political, national vs. human, and sovereign vs. idiosyncratic); (3) the Washington Consensus (WC) versus the Beijing Model (BM); and (4) an African Consensus in both the WC and BM. Both the first and second schools have core values articulated by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. Policy implications are discussed with emphasis on: China’s growing role, fighting Africa’s poverty, and a more holistic conception of “rights.””(Asongu, 2016, p. 351).

References

Asongu, S. A., & Ssozi, J. (2016). “ Sino-African Relations: Some Solutions and Strategies to the Policy Syndromes”, Journal of African Business, 17(1), pp. 33-51. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228916.2015.1089614?journalCode=wjab20

Asongu, S. A. (2016). “Sino-African Relations: A Review and Reconciliation of Dominant Schools of Thought”, Politics & Policy, 44(2), pp. 351-383.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12152/abstract

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Asongu has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Simplice Asongu, 2015. "Rational Asymmetric Development, Piketty and the Spirit of Poverty in Africa," Working Papers 15/006, African Governance and Development Institute..

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Huang's comment on this article

Dr. Huang has reviewed development&oldid=726637175 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

this item needs to be re-written. The current version is far from professional.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Huang has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Fali Huang, 2006. "The Transition from Relational to Legal Contract Enforcement," Working Papers 23-2006, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. DiCecio's comment on this article

Dr. DiCecio has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Entire sentences are poorly written, as if they were translated from a foreign language, and devoid of any substantive meaning. E.g., "Borne out of the backdrop of Keynesian, advocating government intervention, and neoclassical economics, stressing reduced intervention, with rise of high-growth countries (Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong) and planned governments (Argentina, Chile, Sudan, Uganda), economic development, more generally development economics, emerged amidst these mid-20th century theoretical interpretations of how economies prosper."

The paragraph on John Joseph Puthenkalam's research is irrelevant. I have never heard of this person. Why is he cited (with no references to published works) as some kind of authority on economic development?

The section "Development indicators and indices" is incomplete and poorly written.

"GDP is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidizes not included in the value of the products." subsidizes should read subsidies.

"Income distribution means that income level of people of certain country increases and equitable distribution." Does not make any sense.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. DiCecio has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Levon Barseghyan & Riccardo DiCecio, 2008. "Institutional causes of macroeconomic volatility," Working Papers 2008-021, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)