" 

 == Proposed merger between Government waste and Government failure == 

 This article [i.e., Government waste] covers an important topic, but its content is very similar to government failure, and it has several problems, as already discussed on this [i.e., Talk:Government waste] talk page.   

 *Oppose, with caveat – per comments I've made on other talk pages, the overal topic should be in Government spending. As is, both of these titles have WP:POVTITLE problems. Still, government failure is similar in topic to Failed state, although not on the extreme end of the scale, so merging to Government failure is not a good idea. (Where is there a dividing line?) But how about this? Cut and paste the material and combine the two articles into Government waste. And then do a WP:BLAR. I think opposition to that COA will be minimal. Then the issue of merging Government waste with Government spending can be addressed. –    
 ::I think you're misunderstanding the concept of government failure.  It's foundational theory of political science/public administration and it basically states that there are some things that the government doesn't do well.  It complements the theory of market failure, which states that there are things that the private sector doesn't do well.  It has nothing to do with failed states and the concept is entirely NPOV.  I wouldn't be opposed to moving this article to its own section in government spending, but it might be WP:Undue.    
 :::Not addressing your comments at the moment, I propose we change the location of the discussion page for this merger. Per WP:MERGE usually the destination page is the location for discussion. Andrewman, if you'll do the change, then wonderful. If not, I'll do a change a bit later today by doing a cut & paste of these comments.  –    

 Note – I have cut & pasted the above comments from the original posting on the Government waste talk page. This was done after redirecting the discussion target on the Merger banners. Also I have refactored Andrew's comments by adding information in [brackets] to clarify what article he was referring to in his comments. –   "