Talk:Development economics

message: The Recent Developments section here is pretty bad. Aside from the fact that the average sentence is five lines long. Second Thm of WE has been around for a very long time and I don't see how it's directly relevant. And anyway, it sounds like the First Thm is being described. The Dollar and Dollar article is more relevant but it gets a parahraph that is way out of proportion to its significance. The Prescott thing again is only indirectly relevant. Kahnemann even less so. I want to edit this but there's so much that I don't know where to start. Any thoughts or offers of help? radek 19:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Developments section

message: There might be something useful (or it could be patent nonsense, I'm not an expert) in the New Development Economics:A Survey of Literature that could be brought into this article. Sagsaw 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New Development Economics:A Survey of Literature]]

message: I think a link to sustainable development would be fine, but this detailed box seems to be a bit out of place. Any views? Robertsch55 13:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sustainability box

message: This is a very important topic and, unfortunately, as it stands the article is rather misleading about what development economics really is.  I'm going to begin to overhaul the page so that the article accounts for the various theories and applications of this field of economics. --The Way 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making major changes 

message: The citations there need to be page-specific.  It should not be the task of the reader or editor to sift through an article of book to see if the specific fact or concept described is as described.  That may be a needle in a haystack.  Rather it should be the responsibiliry of the editor to cite the page(s) that specifically verify the assertion, thereby satisfying WP:VER official policy. Nevertheless, the cited source may be a good place to start, or to replace with a more specific source that may better express what can be immediately verified.  This is not just quibbling.  It is important for assuring that distortions do not become enshrined in the  article.  
I'm putting  next to less easily verified references in the text, not as a criticism but to encourage more specific citations.   This good article will improve in the foreseeble future as a result, one hopes. --Thomasmeeks 17:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More page-specific references needed in Lead and Section 1

message: Our entry implied Harrod-Domar came after Rostow. And added mention of Marx's stage theory that Rostow draws on. Hope this is OK. There is I think much more needed on Deve Econ as a discipline. hope it is OK to add this. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, those were good edits! Brusegadi (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight changes to the Stages Theory and Added Origins 

message: This section seems to be based entirely on Todaro and Smith's book. It would be nice if there were other sources to complement that one. Additionally, I left my copy of at the office, but large portions read as if they had been taken from that book verbatim. Finally, the characterization of "Neoclassical Theory" in the final part is a bit misleading, at least if one takes "neoclassical" to mean things like Solow and related models. This partly reflects the discussion in Todaro and Smith but should be qualified.radek (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Theories of Development Economics" section 

message: If the principal cause of malnutrition is that humans have populated the earth (or a specific geographic region) beyond its carrying capacity, then a restricted population size is the solution. This is an argument that is espoused by people of both liberal and conservative persuasions. In the late 1700’s, Thomas Malthus originally argued that nothing could be done as only natural disasters could check population growth, but he later included the possibility of voluntary limits through “moral restraint.” Malthus, Robert Thomas. 1976 (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: Norton.1 
In the late 1700’s, Thomas Malthus originally argued that nothing could be done as only natural disasters could check population growth, but he later included the possibility of voluntary limits through “moral restraint.” Malthus, Robert Thomas. 1976 (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. Philip Appleman, ed. New York: Norton.1 
As such it should be noted that disasters actually helped the economies of low-income countries, as they helped to keep the population sizes small. Also, man-induced disasters such as the many wars which happened and yet remain to happen in Africa (eg trough supplies as those of Victor Bout) should be hailed as a good thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.177.54 (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. Any growth in GDP through recovery from disaster is at best balancing loss of GDP through the disaster. It's not really (sustainable) "growth" and it's certainly not "development". Rd232 talk 14:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice paper in disaster economics is Davis & Weinsteins "Bones, Bombs and Break Points: The Geography of Economic Activity", downloadable as a working paper here. Classical geographer (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Growth trough disasters

message: Teaching materials
Some UK academics who teach Development Economics have put some open courseware at , . I'm personally involved with the project so it would be a WP:COI for me to add it to this article. However, the materials may be useful for setting the scope of this article, or as external links. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Summary: In this article I'd really appreciate a brief lit review of the most influential contemporary development economists and how they fit together.
In the interest of assisting those with some knowledge of the subject matter who would like to improve this article, please indulge me as I share my "use case". 
I would like to learn more about contemporary development econ (DE) because I am studying a closely related field. I've become particularly interested in the ideas of Sen, but I have no feel for how he fits in the present state of DE. Are his ideas widely accepted now? Are other contemporary economists building out related but different theory? Is he an iconoclast in a sea of colleagues who reject his ideas and continue to focus on GDP growth? 
I'd like to identify what researchers besides Sen are influential in contemporary DE, but I don't really get a clear sense of where to go next from this article. "Recent developments" starts with a disjointed sentence about Sen, moves on to a lot of helpful generalities that would be even more helpful if they cited researchers working on these issues, and then at length discusses work of the ODI. If the ODI really is where most of the most influential contemporary work is going on, then the article should assert and document that fact. If the ODI is not, then this section of the article is way out of balance.
I hope these observations are helpful!
- PhilipR (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use case for those who would improve "Recent developments" 

message: Dr. Mogues has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Mogues has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Coxhead, Ian A. & Foltz, Jeremy D. & Mogues, Tewodaj, 2012. "Does freer trade really lead to productivity growth? Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124958, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Mogues's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Meon has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Meon has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Axel Dreher & Pierre-Guillaume Meon & Friedrich Schneider, 2007. "The devil is in the shadow: do institutions affect income and productivity or only official income and official income and official productivity?," DULBEA Working Papers 07-22.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Meon's comment on this article 

message: I have removed some of the readings from the bibliography. They seemed to me a bit obscure and perhaps just pushing some people's work rather than helping with this subject. I could be wrong. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography