Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

Active discussions
WikiProject Economics (Rated NA-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Hélène ReyEdit

I've added some initial discussion of the contributions of Prof. Hélène Rey here: [1]. There's a lot more that can be added, if anyone's familiar with her work and contributions.

What are the appropriate number of threads on this Wikiproject talk page?Edit

Regarding [2], what do other editors think the appropriate number of threads to leave displayed on this talk page should be? My understanding is that it is not uncommon for wikiprojects to have dozens of simultaneous projects. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, 20 minimum threads seems to be rather high when configured to an age of 90 days. WikiProject Finance & WikiProject Globalization use 6 & 5 minimum threads respectively. However, they are configured to expire threads after only 30 days. I think WikiProject Economics would benefit from a minimum thread count of 5 to 10, and an expiry of 30 to 45 days. My general view is that minimum threads and thread expiry should generally have an inverse relationship: less-active projects warrant threads sticking around longer because it takes longer for them to get attention, while more-active projects may not need threads to stick around as long since they may resolve more quickly, and may instead have a desire to see more minimum threads since there will likely be more things to discuss. Ultimately it boils down to what a project is willing to handle. On talk pages with an aggressive auto-archiving configuration, editors can always include a <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:00, 01 January 2020 (UTC) --> exception at the beginning of a talk page thread to exempt it from archiving (and remove it when the participants deem the thread ready for normal archiving). John Shandy`talk 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth?Edit

The article on gross private domestic investment says it "is an important component of GDP because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy." To what extent does GPDI actually determine the rate of growth?

Please answer at Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? thanks. EllenCT (talk)

Davos question listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Davos question. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

List of common misconceptionsEdit

Should the List of common misconceptions be included in this WikiProject?

It has a section on economics.

Benjamin (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The project can give it an importance ranking. Qzekrom (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: How can we go about that? I'm not familiar with how WikiProjects work. Benjamin (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Benjaminikuta: I just added a {{WPECON}} template to the talk page. All you would have to do is add an importance rating. Most WikiProjects rate it low or mid importance. Qzekrom (she/they • talk) 19:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Benjaminikuta: I have to reply to this for practice on reviewing an article and posting on a talk pageDshan19 (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Dshan19: Eh? Do you have any input? Benjamin (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A merge discussionEdit

There is a discussion at Talk:Supply chain finance#Merge "Reverse Factoring" and "Global supply chain finance" which was opened on 2 November 2019 and which has so far attracted no participants other than the nominator (not me), and to which members of this WikiProject may be able to contribute. Narky Blert (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Workforce in country XXEdit

I'm quite involved with the WikiProject Organized Labour. I've recently been involved with two articles covering workforce issues of India and Nepal. The articles are somewhat poorly named as Labour in Nepal and Labour in India. It's a little confusing because these could imply a political party, childbirth, and work. At the same time the issue itself is very significant - that is, the labour force and labour market within national economies - that the issue deserves stand alone articles for every country. It is generally seen as a subset of economic issues, but overlaps with demographics, law, history and politics. I've done some precursory searches through the archives, but not had any luck finding conversations on this issue before. If editors thought this was a good idea would seem the following:
1. An Ngram search comparing:

labour force,labour market,workforce
labor force,labor market,workforce

shows workforce as the overwhelmingly common usage (although interestingly a recent change). Although labour force and workforce are synonymous, labour market is not. I would generally argue that workforce in XX would be better as a general title since workforce is universal, whereas one could be part of the workforce but not be in the labour market (eg a person not looking for work), so labour markets could be covered within these articles. Also Labor force in the United States exists, but with Workforce could avoid US/UK english spelling issues.
2. An infobox could be created for each article using {{infobox economy}} as a base and including key labour market statistics defined by OECD and ILO.
3. Relevant to a number of other projects (Countries, Organized Labour, Statistics) - I've left a note on those projects of the comment here.
Thoughts?--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Subject matter expert at Risk aversionEdit

Hi - I wonder whether someone would be able to take a quick look at this series of edits and see whether the content and sourcing is sound. I have no strong grounds to assume anything other than good faith, but it's a new user who is referencing their own book - could be perfectly valid, but thought it would be worth checking and I don't know enough about the subject to be sure. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Petition to improve the Women Economists PageEdit


I was redirected to the Women Economists (a list of women who are economists) page via the Women In Economics (research on the presence of women in the field of economics) page, which claimed there were "hundreds more" women listed on the WE page. However, when I visited, there were 7 entries, a couple of which were not individual women.

A quick google search of "women economists" returns a article detailing 16 "powerhouse" female economists. This tells me that we can do at least 9 women significantly more justice by including them on the WE page. I would love to see them, and many more women included on that page, if someone would be willing to do the work.

Thank you for your time, and I wish you a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Proofreading and help with: Poverty Industrial ComplexEdit

I created Poverty Industrial Complex because I deemed it an important topic and something that people need to be aware of. However I'm sure that both linguistically and economically it need improvement. I'd be thankful of some of you could help with it. The article deals with funds meant to go towards vulnerable members of the society being misappropriated both through bureaucracies and privat for- profit contractors.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 12:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ricardo-Viner model: spelling mistake in the titleEdit

Hello I was working on the article about Ricardo-Viner's specific factors model (adding links from other articles to it since it's flagged as orphan). I'm writing here because the title of the article is wrong: it should be Ricardo (without an H), while the Wiki-article is called "Richardo-Viner model" (with the H). In the Talk section of the article I see that the spelling mistake has been notified already in 2018 by another user. Yet, the issue is unresolved. Hence, I'm writing here.

--La Nuova Idea (mia) (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

RfComments and contributors: CoVID shortagesEdit

Hello all, the Shortages related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic needs help. Lot of news is popping out this weeks and we are not enough contributors to process them. We need volunteers to read the news and write down additional content base on them. There is also meta-analysis to document : what impact this shortages and solutions will have in term of public policies, health care workers' health, etc. Where can we call for help ? Please have fun joining the push. Yug (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of businessEdit

Philosophy of business is pretty much a stub, but it would seem to be a very important article, considering the amount books written on the topic; and even the subcategory of Sun Tzu's Art of War in business books are very numerous. We don't have coverage, and it could do with some help. Could editors familiar with the topic expand the article? -- (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


While hunting for CS1 errors I encountered this orphan article tagged as of interest to this WikiProject. I cleaned some cite template errors, removed references/citations linked to Google Docs, email attachments, Google Drive, and one blacklisted site. I am not a subject matter expert nor do I understand Russian. Perhaps someone here is and does.

—¿philoserf? (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Help needed with Economics of global warming and Economics of climate change mitigationEdit

Hello from WikiProject Climate change,

We can see that Economics of global warming and Economics of climate change mitigation are in great need of improvement, but I for one do not have enough time or knowledge of economics and am intimidated by the size and technicality of the articles.

An example of a lack is that the following is all I could find in Economics of climate change mitigation about the 1.5C target:

"The Paris Agreement is, unlike Kyoto, calling upon all countries (developed and developing) to equally aid in their goal of keeping the global temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius pre-industrial standard, while actively following efforts to keep that number to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The UNFCCC aims to accomplish this with aid to all countries, through financial assistance, a new technological framework, among other measures of assistance, while remaining accountable with the implementation of their transparency framework."

But surely by now studies have been done on the cost-benefits of 1.5C and economists must have opinions on whether cost-benefit analysis is the right method to use for 1.5C. That is just one example.

Would anyone have the time to give them a thorough revision?


Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For example it would be great if someone who understands this papercould explain it in one of the articles

Hello, I'm an editor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. We published an article on climate change and central banks in our economics magazine, Econ Focus. I hope it's appropriate to note it here and on the Talk page of "Economics of global warming" in case it may be helpful. "Central Banks and Climate Risks," Econ Focus, Second/Third Quarter 2019. RichmondFedEditor (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Real bills doctrineEdit

I have declined this draft as being written as a statement of the author's opinion, that the doctrine is discredited. I have requested that the submitter work with other editors to rewrite it. If economists consider the doctrine to be discredited, an article should state that economists consider it to be discredited. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This article's author does not intend to discredit the real bills doctrine, but instead to define it, to show its history of varied interpretations by multiple economists, and to show that its effect, good or bad, is dependent on the circumstances of the institutional environment in which it is used.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I am again requesting a review of this draft. I think that this concept has had enough of an impact on economic thought that it should be described in its own article. The question is whether this draft presents it in a neutral fashion as seen by other reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Project contributions as an assignmentEdit

I am teaching a course at the University of Queensland. Last year, I had my students create a Wikiversity course as an assignment.

This year I plan to have the students contribute to WikiProject Economics. Each student will pick an article from a list to edit to bring the page up to good/featured article level. For the list, I wanted to use the "Economics articles by quality and importance" table and assign pages with low quality and high importance. However, quality assessments seem to be dated. Does anyone have a suggestion?

Also, please let me know if you have any other advice or comments. De economist (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The quality assessments are not very accurate, but it's the best we have AFAIK. If you are having undergraduates work on the articles, you have to drill into them these rules:
  1. Try to state things as neutrally and objectively as possible.
  2. Stick to summarizing reliable sources, do not inject opinion.
  3. Every paragraph needs at least one reference, every factual statement needs a reference, every single quote needs a reference and must state who said the quote.
Goodluck! LK (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Links to DAB pagesEdit

I have collected a handful of economics-related articles with links to DAB pages where expert attention would be welcome. (I had collected 40 or 50, but when I reviewed my bookmarks only these few remained.) Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode. If you solve any any these puzzles, remove the {{dn}} tag and post   Done here.

Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Arthur Laffer and the "Laffer curve"Edit

There's a RfC on the Arthur Laffer page[3] about whether to mention in the lead there is a consensus among economists that the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (i.e. consensus against the notion that tax cuts will pay for themselves). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

MMT is not heterodox? Who knewEdit

Looks like the page on Modern Monetary Theory is being actively worked on by advocates to become a soapbox for MMT. Would appreciate it if the people here add it to their watchlist and keep an eye on it. Thanks, LK (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


Please could someone explain to me the provenance of Template:Industries. I am very concerned that it appears to project an authoritative view of Industry classification but, in reality, represents just one point of view. The reason I ask is that there is a discussion under way at Talk:Industry and at Talk:Industry classification, about the relationship between those two articles. My main concern is that the Industry classification article should not be damaged through any merger with the Industry article. The latter seems to project - in its lede - a particular view of Industry classification, while the former describes many different Industry classification schemes. The particular view I mention seems to be reinforced by the Industries Template. This Template is used at the foot of the Industry article and was added also to the Industry classification article yesterday. As its presence there seemed to spit in the face of the thousands of people worldwide who work on and/or make use of the various Industry classification schemes, I have reversed that edit. I hope that this won't result in a to-and-fro tussle. Returning to my opening sentence, what is the provenance of Template:Industries? How does it relate to the many existing Industry classification schemes? Does it reflect one such scheme? If so, which one? Thanks! Misha Wolf (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, so I've actually had that template on my radar recently though I haven't worked on it yet. To answer your questions...
  • I think it was created several years ago by a user that then moved on.
  • Since then, it's had entries dumped into it and occasionally cleaned out.
  • It looks like it simply evolved like most things on Wikipedia; I'm pretty sure it's not following any one standard.
That said, I'm more concerned that several entries are wrong according to basics I imagine most standards agree on:
  • E.g. software & education are only tertiary but alcohol, bicycles, fur, and sex-workers are quaternary? wat.
  • I don't know if it should be cut from pages though, if only so it's more likely editors with the time notice it & fix it.
I did see someone recently skimmed it, made improvements, and fixed up the primary & secondary sectors.
  • I totally support them if they want to make more edits.
  • OTOH if nobody else plans to work on it in the next few months, I was going to tweak it using v4 of the ISIC as a guideline.
--Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. If the template is changed to reflect one of the many Industry classification schemes, eg ISIC, then please can its heading ("Major industries") be changed to reflect that fact rather than continue to present the template's content as forming some kind of Wikipedia-endorsed authoritative scheme. Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Economics".