Talk:Decentralization

message: I want to explain that I added this template not because the article is missing wikilinks--seems to have plenty. What it doesn't have is sections; it's one long introduction. This template was the closest fit I could find. --Trovatore 06:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: wikify

message: I disagree with Decentralism redirecting to Decentralization.  The latter term defines a process in business, economics, and politics, whilst the former is a philosophy advocating the breakdown of large institutions (be they nation-states, corporations, or governments) into smaller, more easily managable, and more democratic forms.  In the latter half of the 20th century, men like E. F. Schumacher, Leopold Kohr, and Ivan Illich emerged as radical advocates for Decentralism, and there ought to be an article to explore their ideas, as well as their predecessors (such as Ralph Borsodi).  It is my intention, in future, to create such an article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a full article needs to be created. On my long to do list. In the meantime, I think I'll add to intro to political theory. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Decentralism]] 

message: I am editing to make the introduction a bit better.Rajankila (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: I was reading the Political Theory section and it's horrible. I don't want to sound like a jerk, although I am a jerk, but it's biased AND poorly written. I'm thinking of removing it, putting the text here on the talk page as not to lose it. Anyone disagree? Beam 19:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: I feel this article is too focused on the political aspects of decentralisation - it's all about decentralisation of state and society. But decentralisation is also an important concept in corporate governance, as demonstrated by Jan Wallander of Handelsbanken, for example. How could this aspect be fitted in? Tamino (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too focused on politics 

message: This article is full of spam, promotions, and nonsense. The real meaning of decentralization is lost. Needs to be completely re-written. I'm not an expert on the subject and that's why I'm not taking this endeavor myself. Pm master 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be completely re-written 

message: Don't just say that the article is bad or nonsense or horrible etc. The article is reasonably good, though it can be made better. There is always a scope for improvement. This article clarifies many concepts and I found some of its sections to be very useful. 
If you can't edit it constructively, don't say it is nonsense. BE CONSTRUCTIVE.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingforum (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is very good, it can still be made better (there is always scope for improvement) 

message: First, thanks for this article. I'm researching the underlying causes of deforestation, and I was wondering what the hell all the World Bank papers talking about "decentralization" of forest management actually meant. On that note, however, there's a couple issues that should probably be addressed. The first is Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario. While it did provide a useful justification for the privatization of natural resources, its acceptance has been far from universal. Even the World Bank has recently admitted that privatizing formerly public land has exacerbated deforestation in some cases, particularly when dealing with lands formerly managed under communal tenure arrangements (e.g. indigenous communities). A number of other, less guarded assessments of the World Bank's decentralization efforts describe them as anything from "largely ineffective" to "devastating." One of the more common objections to TotC is that it creates a false dichotomy. In actuality, lands that Hardin describes as "commons" are frequently governed, either at a communal level or a societal level. In many cases, privatization has disrupted this governance and resulted in an even more rapid depletion of the resource. World systems theorists have also pointed out that the international composition of power is such that when natural resources in a developing, non-industrialized, or--in their terms--periphery country are "decentralized" from public management, control frequently ends up shifting to a multinational corporation based in a core country (i.e. control over the resource moves even further from the local level). That said, the State has obviously not always been an exemplary steward of public resources, either, and some conflicts take place between common property institutions and the State (this is particularly true in Southeast Asia, where States have displaced indigenous communities or tried to force them into peasant production in the name of conservation). I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I can try to come back and make some of these changes when I have a moment. A few sources I'd suggest offhand would be Monboit's "The Tragedy of Enclosure," Peluso's "Rich Forests, Poor People," Reddy's "Communal Forests, Political Spaces," and Richards' "Common Property Resource Institutions and Forest Management in Latin America" (okay, so four sources).
:Napzilla (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Decentralization of Environmental Management

message: Ok, it took two weeks but per the tags {Essay-like|December 2010} and {Refimprove|April 2011}, I rewrote it. Did use most of the substantive material from good sources and actually inlined sourced it; found sources for a couple good things that were unsourced; removed a lot of WP:OR. 
Still in progress: Will do another copyedit tomorrow. Also: Need to put further reading in better order, add a few things. A couple refs have to find or misplaced are noted; have more info for the "challenges" section (including the ref to source that described it that way), some of it more critical; could use more on technology. And I have some miscellaneous points made by WP:RS in a list of things I probably will add at some future time, depending on any commentary here. CarolMooreDC 21:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of article

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Decentralization's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Noam Chomsky 2004, p. 739":
From Libertarianism: Chomsky, Noam and Carlos Peregrín Otero. Language and Politics. AK Press, 2004, p. 739
From Libertarian socialism: Chomsky (2004) p. 739
Reference named "Ostergaard 1991. p. 21":
From Libertarianism: Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". Limited A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing, 1991. p. 21.
From Individualism: Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell Publishing, 1991. p. 21.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Decentralization]] 

message: The article about economic planning is the only relevant article that exists here. At least people have some sort of idea as to how decentralization works within economies. That's why it says, see also and not, main article. But if you have an aversion to socialism then leave it out. Just know that theoretical socialism is very far from what has been practiced in countries like, say, China. China is actually state capitalism. Soviet Russia was also said to be state capitalism. See the second paragraph in the article, Marxism-Leninism. Decentralization has its roots in theoretical socialism, whether you want to accept it or not. To be fair, it also has as its foundation libertarianism, something I see you're fond of. Lighthead þ 19:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I haven't been able to work on the article for more than a year. I only noticed onr really off thing haven't had a chance to fix. Hope to look at it soon - maybe even this week!! Anyway, I definitely think a summary of the article Decentralized planning (economics) can have it's own section or issues mention in both the Government decentralization sections (especially where already practiced) and the ideological decentralization sections. It's just not the main article for either. I put it in the section header as a reminder to myself or anyone else. Or feel free to work on it yourself. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What I can do is write something in that section about economic planning, and quote something directly from that article, as well as use a reference from that article. Do you mind if I do that? I'll get started on it, but just let me know here if you have any problems with it. Lighthead þ 21:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put it in that section. You can modify it or move the paragraph up or down as you wish. Lighthead þ 21:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll leave it up to you. ([[Decentralized planning (economics)]])

message: Dr. Shah 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.
Anwar Shah (Ph.D. economics) is  Senior Fellow Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA, Advisor/Consultant, World Bank and Director of the Centre for Public Economics, SWUFE, Wenjiang, Chengdu, China  He has previously served  the World Bank (23 years), Asian Development Bank, Canadian Ministry of Finance,  the Government of Alberta and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the Canadian Ministry of Finance, he was responsible for federal fiscal transfers to provinces for health, education and equalization. With the Government of Alberta, he was responsible for provincial fiscal transfers to local governments and municipal annexation and incorporation issues.  He has published more than two dozen books and numerous articles in leading journals. His recent books include Fiscal Federalism (with Robin Boadway), by the Cambridge University Press, The Practice of Fiscal Federalism: Comparative Perspectives, published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers, Local Governance in Developing Countries and  Performance Accountability and Combating Corruption by the World Bank and Fiscal Incentives for Investment and Innovation, by the Oxford University.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anwar:  you say at end, "Empirical evidence shows that in most developing countries ant-corruption bodies lead to a higher incidence of corruption."  That seems unlikely.  Maybe not higher incidence but higher level of reporting, which would be a sign of success. Errantius (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Shah's comment on this article 

message: I feel like cyberocracy fits in this article somewhere. I don't have any citations to refer to, so I am not appending it just yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide124 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyberocracy 

message: "[The] first decade of the 20th century businesses were highly decentralized and competitive, with new businesses constantly entering existing industries. There was no trend towards concentration and monopolization."
>>>
"The formation of the Standard Oil Trust in 1882 effectively established a monopoly..."  "Although consolidation did advance the large-scale production and distribution of oil products, many critics believed that the resulting concentration of economic power was becoming excessive. In 1906 the U.S. government brought suit against Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890; in 1911 the New Jersey company was ordered to divest itself of its major holdings—33 companies in all."  "...[C]ontrolling 90% of the industry's refineries and pipelines."
So, obviously, that first statement, included in the article, is false.
Nantucketnoon (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Fact 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Socialist confederalism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Socialist confederalism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Need to add "Decentralized Finance (DeFi)", which seems to be growing in the crypto market - example. Errantius (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decentralized finance 

message: I am looking at adding a microeconomic discussion of decentralization - that is, discussing decentralization in the context of the organization of a firm. I was thinking of creating a new section in the article titled 'Economic Decentralization', putting it after section 5 - Ideological Decentralization, and before section 6 - Technological Decentralization. I would create a sub section under this titled 'Organisational Structure of a Firm'. Does anyone have any opposition to this? Additionally, I was thinking of shifting the sub section 4.2 titled 'Free Market' to the new 'Economic Decentralization' section given it pertains to economic theory. Would the author be okay with that?  MReid43549467 (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section for Economics 

message: — Assignment last updated by Jessssy (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

message: I'll have to come back to thisGreyStar456 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation tool hanging up 

message: @Grayfell The phrase “This is seen as having the potential to create new ways of doing business in the finance industry” is a terse summary of the paper. Would you prefer me to quote directly from the paper: "As a new area of financial technology, decentralized finance may reshape the structure of modern finance"? Or I could expand by summarising the section: "Blockchain technology can reduce transaction costs, generate distributed trust, and empower decentralized platforms, potentially becoming a new foundation for decentralized business models. In the financial industry, blockchain technology allows for the rise of decentralized financial services, which tend to be more decentralized, innovative, interoperable, borderless, and transparent. Empowered by blockchain technology, decentralized financial services have the potential to broaden financial inclusion, facilitate open access, encourage permissionless innovation, and create new opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators."GreyStar456 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing in bad faith to preserve bland filler language is not persuasive. All of this is still far, far too vague to be informative, and none of this is falsifiable. Perhaps it hypothetically could "empower a new era of innovative blah blah blah" but Wikipedia isn't a platform for insipid hype, so you would need a reliable source to directly explain both what any of these buzzwords actually mean and why anyone who hasn't already bought into this hype should care. Because as it is, this is basically meaningless. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to 'Blockchain disruption and decentralized finance: The rise of decentralized business models'