Talk:Government failure

message: This page doesn't seem to provide any reason for being here, except as a dictionary definition. I don't think dictionary definitions belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.13.148 (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mere dictionary definitions don't belong

message: This example lacks the reasons why government subsidies have averse effects. Joepnl (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some reasons why subsidies have a negative impact on economy are provided by Murray N. Rothbard in his "Power and Market". I guess that it can be used a source for examples and explanation.--VictorAnyakin (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Subsidies - government subsidies provided to particular businesses or industries. " 

message: There are lots of very interesting types of possible government failures, so why are there no real-world examples?  Is it too difficult to find expert consensus of an example, or even some likely candidates? I noticed some of the linked pages have examples (such as pork barrel) -- is it preferred to leave all real-world examples there, instead of on this page? Directedchaos (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Any real world examples?" 

message: 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. Andrew327 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Andrew327 16:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  – S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger between [[Government waste]] and [[Government failure]] 

message: I've removed some unsourced, POV/OR sections/material. This was done incrementally so that editors interested in restoring them can do so incrementally as well, fulfilling the WP:BURDEN of providing WP:RS for the material, sans OR and POV. – S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While you can remove unsourced sections, it seems to me that a much better mechanism would be to add maintenance tags to those sections to challenge people to add cited sources. Ehusman (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is prone to abuse. Under WP:CRITERIA (which requires Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency) we have an article that fails because it simply invites POV-prone laundry lists of lousy government action or inaction. Really, some WP:TNT should be applied. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably so. It seems like there ought to be a clear statement in the lede that this is a technical phrase that does not simply mean, "whatever pisses me off", but has a analog to Market failure. Also, most if not all of the things that would be listed as types of government failure would probably have standalone articles:  Logrolling, Rational ignorance, and Pork barrel, for example. Keeping it down to a simple narrative that references off to existing pages might be an easy way to keep it clean. It is unfortunate that some of those pages suck, but that is not a reason not to note a type of failure. The old layout was based on conceptual grouping, i.e. problems shared by the principals and agents successively, or by all four (voter, legislator, administrator, street-level bureaucrat). Ehusman (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehusman, your renewal of the discussion may stimulate Andrewman to come in and opine. Dormant for 8 months, I wonder if my proposal, above, to get this merged into Government spending can be accepted and accomplished. (For now, though, it's holiday time. So I think the topic may go dormant for another 8 months.)  – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sections 

message: The article currently has an original research maintenance tag.  The content looks well sourced to me, which sections are OR?  Andrew327 02:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Overview section is lacking sources for most statements. The rest of the article appears to be sourced, although I haven't checked that the text reflects the refs. --Ca2james (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag. If there are any objections, can you please clarify which bits seem like original research in a comment here, then put the tag back? skeptical scientist (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Government failure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011071925/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7698 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7698
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Government failure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429120423/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/winston/20061003.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/winston/20061003.pdf
*Added  tag to http://iibf.ogu.edu.tr/erdal/Dosyalar/Kamu%20Ekonomisi%20YL/Gov.Failure/Grand%20Julianle%20The%20Theory%20of%20Government%20Failure.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717152441/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/aidt/papers/web/EJ2003.pdf to http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/aidt/papers/web/EJ2003.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The only salvation I can envision for this page is to rename it Government failure (public economics).  
Coase was engaging in some serious internal mischief when he gave it this name in the first place (the joke is that it mirrors market failure in preferred effects, but not at all in less preferred effects). 
This was all good fun while it remained in professional captivity.  It's presence here is anything but professional captivity. 
The present page title is guaranteed to befuddle the naive reader (in a biased way) before the reader has any chance to gain his or her bearings. Hats off to Coase's clever linguistic hack. Let's all have a good laugh, and then do the right thing. — MaxEnt 19:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The only salvation 

message: Article seems to subscribe to the deeply flawed idea of market populism. Failure must be defined by purpose - the purpose of government is to serve the needs of its people. Starvation is the easiest example.
Most failure arises not from too much control, but the absence of control. Instead of government controlling business (i.e., the movement of capital in and out of the country), business controls the government, leading to the death of democracy and widespread economic devastation. See: the third world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.132.67 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure of NPOV? 

message: It has many of the best preserved seas, UK doesn't do better at safeguarding fish, did anyone write that as to mean EU should give on fishery policy? What a dreadful POV-push... 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:8C23:A871:EBD8:650F (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is EU's fishery policy a failure?