Talk:David Korten

POV issues
This reads like a sales brochure for Mr. Kosten's efforts. Mangoe 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find any rational argument here for adding a POV tag. re insert it when you have actual documentation of pov or bias.


 * I think it's pretty obvious that the article is written from the perspective of a Korten supporter. He is responsible for "powerful strategies."  It is "evident" that "USAID and other large official aid donors" are unable to apply the Ford Foundation's approach.  "Korten came to realize that the crisis of deepening poverty, growing inequality, environmental devastation, and social disintegration he was observing in Asia was also being experienced in nearly every country in the world -- including the United States and other "developed" countries."  And then there's this gratuitous bit of promotional fluff: "His publications are required reading in university courses around the world. He is also a popular international speaker and a regular guest on talk radio and television."  Jordansc 05:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "a leader in the global resistance against corporate globalization"? Seriously, the "global resistance?" What is this, "Terminator?" I'm tempted to go hear Dr. Korten speak tonight, but this write-up gives me pause. S. Ugarte (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly new to Wikipedia (editing, that is), but I think there's a "tag" or something which may better address this. I have seen Talk and History pages in the past say something to the effect of "Reads like advertising copy."  I think that might be a better fit than getting into a back-and-forth on POV/NPOV issues.  This is the only example I can find so far, but no tag: http://en.wikipedka.org/wiki/Talk:Pembrey_Country_Park  Shooter tx (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

David C. Korten
David C. Korten is board chair of the Positive Futures Network, publishers of YES! A Journal of Positive Futures, and founder and president of The People-Centered Development Forum.

Korten has thirty years of field experience in Asia, Africa, and Latin America as a writer, teacher, and consultant on development management, alternative development theory, and the strategic roles of nonprofit organizations in advancing social and economic transformation.

He is a former faculty member of the Harvard Business School and the author of nine previous books including the best-selling "When Corporations Rule the World".

Dr. David C. Korten has over thirty-five years of experience in preeminent business, academic, and international development institutions as well as in contemporary citizen action organizations.

Trained in economics, organization theory, and business strategy with M.B.A. and Ph. D. degrees from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business, his early career was devoted to setting up business schools in low income countries -- starting with Ethiopia while still a doctoral candidate at Stanford -- in the hope that creating a new class of professional business entrepreneurs would be the key to ending global poverty.

After graduation, Korten completed his military service during the Vietnam War as a captain in the U.S. Air Force, serving in Air Force headquarters command, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency.

He then served for five and a half years as a Visiting Associate Professor of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business where he taught in Harvard's middle management, M.B.A. and doctoral programs.

He also served as the Harvard Business School advisor to the Nicaragua-based Central American Management Institute.

He subsequently joined the staff of the Harvard Institute for International Development, where he headed a Ford Foundation-funded project to strengthen the organization and management of national family planning programs.

In the late 1970s, Korten left U.S. academia and moved to Southeast Asia, where he lived for nearly fifteen years, serving first as a Ford Foundation project specialist, and later as Asia regional advisor on development management to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

His work there won him international recognition for his contributions to pioneering the development of powerful strategies for transforming public bureaucracies into responsive support systems dedicated to strengthening community control and management of land, water, and forestry resources.

Disillusioned by the evident inability of USAID and other large official aid donors to apply the approaches that had been proven effective by the nongovernmental Ford Foundation, Korten broke with the official aid system.

His last five years in Asia were devoted to working with leaders of Asian nongovernmental organizations on identifying the root causes of development failure in the region and building the capacity of civil society organizations to function as strategic catalysts of national- and global-level change.

Korten came to realize that the crisis of deepening poverty, growing inequality, environmental devastation, and social disintegration he was observing in Asia was also being experienced in nearly every country in the world -- including the United States and other "developed" countries.

Furthermore he came to the conclusion that the United States was actively promoting -- both at home and abroad -- the very policies that were deepening the resulting global crisis. For the world to survive, the United States must change.

He returned to the United States in 1992 to help advance that change. He has since had a leading role in raising public consciousness of the political and institutional consequences of economic globalization and the expansion of corporate power at the expense of democracy, equity, and enviornmental health.

His publications are required reading in university courses around the world. He is also a popular international speaker and a regular guest on talk radio and television.

Need for Critique section
There are a lot of possible criticisms for Korten's arguments which are not featured here. Honestly, I doubt my ability to argue them all, but here is a brief list which I hope someone will expound on.

1. First and foremost Korten is not an Economist, and does not use an economic perspective in his analysis, or his applications.

2. He is very pro regulation, which is fine, but he removes the boundaries between "Government" and "Market" without providing a complete alternative to the two.

3. His definition of Capitalism isn't a commonly accepted definition.

4. He offers a distinction between "Markets" and "Global Capitalism" saying that markets are good, but global capitalism is bad. He fails to adequately describe the bright line between a market, and global capitalism. Antagonist (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ?? "First and foremost Korten is not an Economist" ??

"He is very pro regulation, which is fine, but he removes the boundaries between "Government" and "Market" without providing a complete alternative to the two." Have you read his work properly? is this supposed to be a page discussing your critique of people who do not hold your economic views? "he removes the boundaries without providing an alternative to the two" whats that supposed to mean? never heard worse gibberish. "His definition of capitalism.." ah.. so there is one definition that we all are supposed to adhere to and who pray tell are going to give us this infallible insight and definition? get lost! "the bright line between market and global capitalism".. Exactly what part of this garbage did you want included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Korten isn't an economist, and, in the talk I heard him give a few months ago, it showed. One of his central arguments hinged upon a definition of GDP that was wrong ("GDP measures the rate at which we use up natural resources" was, I believe, what he said); another involved a misunderstanding of how GDP relates to the current account balance (Korten claimed that GDP would decrease if people bought more domestic goods and fewer imports). Unfortunately, my observations of the above talk are, of course, prohibited original research, but in the interests of fairly and accurately representing Korten, his views, and his expertise, this article is certainly deserving of a little more balance.


 * Korten may be correct (though I don't personally think he is), but much of what he says seems to involve either redefinitions (intentional or not) of technical terminology or contradictions with much of mainstream economics. Again, regardless of ideology, that's something that should be noted in the article. S. Ugarte (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC).


 * The only reason Korten's status as an economist is significant enough to note is if he claimed to be one or the article made this claim and there was evidence he was not. If, say, Milton Friedman had said the GDP was the measure of a nation's happiness, I don't think that would disqualify him as an economist and cannot imagine a need to note in any way other than, perhaps to hyperlink to the wiki on GDP.Cronos1 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm not claiming that we should create a criticism section  [ possibly libelous comments removed, per WP:BLP ] Rob (talk).But apparently he's  [ possibly libelous comments removed, per WP:BLP ] Rob (talk) flown largely under the radar with respect to sensible criticism, so there aren't really any notable third party sources pointing out that he's a kook. Thus his kookiness has no place in his article.
 * That said, his status as an economist (professional or amateur) is relevant insofar as his bio (the one here on Wikipedia, and the one he uses professionally--the former, unsurprisingly, closely and uncritically resembles the latter) implies that he has some economic or business credentials (by way of associations with various prestigious business schools), and insofar as that implication bears a direct role in his credibility as someone making economic policy suggestions (OK, so he conceivably really does have an MBA, but he quite evidently knows literally nothing about macroeconomics, which is just weird).
 * I find it, honestly, rather shocking that you claim that whether or not the author of "Agenda for a New Economy" knows anything about economics is not at all relevant to his professional credentials.
 * S. Ugarte (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A little NPOV on your part would be a real good idea. Pronouncing someone a kook, especially someone as highly regarded as Korten is not adviseable or permitted in Wikipedia. Regarding your comments if you can establish that he does not possess these credentials, then you will have a valid editorial point, its best to stay away from "implications" as they are usually not something that is defensable from an NPOV. Economics is known as the "dismal science" for a reason, it doesn't necessarily improve the human condition, and, not infrequently, today's lauded practitioners are tomorrow's fools. In other words, I believe that the author of "Agenda for a New Economy" is not addressing anything as narrow as Keynsian or Friedmanian or Krugmanian economics, and certainly does not preclude his authority to comment on what tommorow's economy will be...Cronos1 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please. I haven't violated any Wikipedia policy. NPOV is a policy for article pages, not talk pages.
 * A little NPOV on your part would be a real good idea. Pronouncing someone a kook, especially someone as highly regarded as Korten is not adviseable or permitted in Wikipedia. Regarding your comments if you can establish that he does not possess these credentials, then you will have a valid editorial point, its best to stay away from "implications" as they are usually not something that is defensable from an NPOV. Economics is known as the "dismal science" for a reason, it doesn't necessarily improve the human condition, and, not infrequently, today's lauded practitioners are tomorrow's fools. In other words, I believe that the author of "Agenda for a New Economy" is not addressing anything as narrow as Keynsian or Friedmanian or Krugmanian economics, and certainly does not preclude his authority to comment on what tommorow's economy will be...Cronos1 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please. I haven't violated any Wikipedia policy. NPOV is a policy for article pages, not talk pages.

Korten isn't "highly regarded" by very many people--he's not regarded by many people at all, hence the difficulty finding an unbiased review of his book. The few reviews I was able to dredge up were from people like his wife in Yes! magazine. The definition of GDP isn't a point of contention among professional or academic economists (or at least, not in the way that Korten has misused it--for example, I would challenge you to find any source defining GDP as net imports (i.e., exactly the opposite of GDP, but exactly what Korten implied at the talk I attended)). My point wasn't that Agenda for a New Economy is out of phase with currently regarded economic theory (though it is); my point was that Korten doesn't even understand basic economics terminology. You can argue with someone who says 1+1=5; it's hard to argue with someone who says 1+1=an apple. If I can find a credible mainstream review of any of Korten's work, I'll add it to the article. In the meantime, as I said before, I don't believe my own personal views on how crazy Korten is are encyclopedic, which is why I haven't touched the article. If not editing an article is a violation of Wikipedia policy, that's news to me. S. Ugarte (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking for a credible mainstream review of any of Korten's work? I wonder how hard that would be? According to you, it's nearly impossible to do so and when you do its some heavily biased nepotism scheme. To aid you, I thought I'd plug Kortens name into Infotrac's book review Db. Guess what? 63 reviews ranging from scholarly journals to general interest publications to publishing and library jounals. Here's a sample of some comments on his most famous book, 'Corporations': Choice "The controversial presentation is balanced by a thought-provoking set of recommendations. All levels.", Library Journal "Although Korten speaks from an obviously liberal position, in an era when conservative political voices declare an unswerving faith in the benefits of unfettered free markets, a voice from the opposition offers a welcome balance. Recommended for public and academic libraries." Publishers Weekly "This well-documented, apocalyptic tome describes the global spread of corporate power as a malignant cancer exercising a market tyranny that is gradually destroying lives, democratic institutions and the ecosystem for the benefit of greedy companies and investors." I'm not sure if you have mistaken highly regarded with universally highly regarded, his membership in the Club of Rome alone would tell you that he's highly regarded. I know you think he's not qualified to discuss economic matters, a rather extreme opinion in light of his biography, and I'm sure there are Stanford Business MBAs (1961) & Phd's (1968) that don't understand macroeconomics like you do, but how many of them have articles written about them in peer-reviewed journals? You might want to read "Megacorporate Globalization at Bay: The Interrelation of David Korten with Institutional Economics" in the Journal of Economic Issues and let us know. Korten is an anti-globalist, therefore he disagrees with many free-market based economists and thinkers. For all I know, he's wrong, but that hardly means that he should be misrepresented as some anonymous and ignored incompetant.Cronos1 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of Journal of Economic Issues before, but it a) doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed and b) doesn't appear to still be in print. Maybe I'm missing something.
 * I guess I'm not sure what the thrust of your argument is, though. Are you questioning my personal view of the merit of Korten's arguments? I'm not sure this is really the place for that, but as I've said many times before, that view stems from a Korten talk and Q&A I attended, in which numerous obvious and egregious misuses of basic terminology occurred. That has nothing to do with Korten's MBA (an MBA not being, strictly speaking, an economics degree).
 * Or are you questioning my good-faith effort to find credible reviews of Korten's work? I didn't check out Factiva or Lexis Nexis; I did, however, search the Times, Post, Economist, New Yorker, and New Republic for anything mentioning Korten, and didn't turn anything up. Again, it's possible I simply made a mistake.
 * I did imply that reviews of Korten's book by writers at Korten's own magazine should be disregarded. I don't think that's a paranoid view, though you seemingly disagree. S. Ugarte (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or are you questioning my good-faith effort to find credible reviews of Korten's work? I didn't check out Factiva or Lexis Nexis; I did, however, search the Times, Post, Economist, New Yorker, and New Republic for anything mentioning Korten, and didn't turn anything up. Again, it's possible I simply made a mistake.
 * I did imply that reviews of Korten's book by writers at Korten's own magazine should be disregarded. I don't think that's a paranoid view, though you seemingly disagree. S. Ugarte (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did imply that reviews of Korten's book by writers at Korten's own magazine should be disregarded. I don't think that's a paranoid view, though you seemingly disagree. S. Ugarte (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of Journal of Economic Issues before, but it a) doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed and b) doesn't appear to still be in print. Maybe I'm missing something. Guess what?

Title:Journal of Economic Issues Format:Magazine/Journal Peer-Reviewed:Y Frequency:Quarterly Language:English Audience:Academic Description: A scholarly journal focusing on institutional and evolutionary economics. Coverage includes methodological topics, the organization and control of diverse economic systems, economic development, environmental/ecological issues, economic stabilization, labor relations, monetary management, and major economic policies. The scope of the coverage is international. Includes book reviews and papers presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Evolutionary Economists. Index Coverage: Mar 1, 2009 - Current Index to the latest volume: 1. The 2009 Veblen-Commons Award recipient: Paul Dale Bush.Janice Peterson. Journal of Economic Issues 43.2 (June 2009): p291(2). (668 words) 2. The neoinstitutionalist theory of value: remarks upon receipt of the Veblen-Commons Award.Paul D. Bush. Journal of Economic Issues 43.2 (June 2009): p293(14). (6653 words) etc., etc. I really don't have time or inclination to debate your mistakes and misunderstandings. You have been rude and contentious on elementary issues but you may rest your mind in that I have absolutely no interest in your thoughts on David Korten (& I suspect a great many other topics).Cronos1 (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

John Michael Greer?
"Author John Michael Greer has critiqued the book in another direction,[5][6][7] noting that "[i]n place of the sloppy and richly human realities of politics and culture in the world we actually inhabit, The Great Turning offers up a one-dimensional morality play in which Empire and Earth Community are the only options, and the choice between them is a choice between absolute evil leading to planetary suicide, on the one hand, and radiant goodness leading straight on to utopia on the other."

Who is John Michael Greer and why should anyone care what he says?

Actually, I did some research and found that he is some kind of Archdruid. So, the question "why should anyone care what he says?" is even more to the point than I had thought. ---Dagme (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed - to quote at such length and detail the opinion of a non-notable individual is a violation of the Neutrality and Undue Weight policies. Considering the nature of Korten's views, I'd expect there would be likely to be some controversy about his position, but it shouldn't be too hard to track down some balanced pro- and anti- opinions from notable sources. In the meantime, I'll remove that paragraph. DaveApter (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully helpful suggestions for the "External links" section
Dear Korten article editors, - Although I am an editor here, I try not to remove material from Wikipedia biographies. However, I would like to point out to you that the second and third entries under "External links" are not currently usable. The first Dalai Lama link appears to be broken, and the "Conscious Choice" piece does not appear to point to the article in question. Hopefully you will fix these soon.

As a reader, I would find it helpful if the articles by Korten were moved up from the External links section to the Bibliography; there could then be two sub-headings under Bibliography, "Books" and "Selected articles." I have seen this done in several Featured Articles – e.g., the Bernard Williams FA divides its Publications section into "Books" and "Selected papers." Your External links section could then be left for the official website, interviews of Korten, and more articles about his work. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Korten. 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/20081204054513/http://www.dalailamafilm.com/cast-david-korten/david-korten-biography-anti-globalization-corporate-power.html to http://dalailamafilm.com/cast-david-korten/david-korten-biography-anti-globalization-corporate-power.html/

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) 23:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)