Talk:Development economics

Recent Developments section
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)

New Development Economics:A Survey of Literature
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)

Partial merge with 'Economic development'?
These are different though related topics. Do not consider merging. 97.115.169.68 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Mark Madsen

What would people think of keeping this article and putting much of the content in 'Economic development' into this one, with that article redirecting here? Some of 'Economic development' seems like it belongs in the 'Growth theory' article, but aside from that the article seems redundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Countermereology (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Please don't merge these articles. Development economics is a subfield of research economics in which development economists study "developing" or poor economies, often, but not necessarily with a normative view. Researchers in the field work at academic institutions, the World Bank, NGO's or "in the field." Economic development is a macroeconomic concept which refers to the changes in the economic environment as the result of economic growth. The vast majority of development economists promote economic development in poor countries, but some might focus on health, poverty reduction or human rights research. As well, many people besides development economists study economic development, especially macroeconomists, who are often interested in economic development in medium and high-income countries. MarkB 01:49 February 15, 2007

I don't agree that economic development refers only to changes in economic variables related to growth. There is a big difference between growth theory and economic development--economic development includes issues like rural-urban migration, industrialisation, etc. For example at the moment, the article on economic development makes reference to the Lewis-Ranis-Fei model, which is a microeconomic model involving rural-urban migration and industrialisation--to quote the article, it 'is an economic development model and not an economic growth model'. If what you say is the case, then the 'economic development' article ought to be merged with the article on 'economic growth' or 'growth theory', because at the moment that article refers only to economic development in what I take to be the common sense of the term, i.e. that with which development economics is concerned. At the moment there are far too many redundant articles in this area. There really only needs to be one article on economic growth theories, and one article on development economics; at present there are a couple on each. I think for most economists 'development' immediately implies development economics, while 'growth' is the term used for what you are alluding to. Also I'd like to reiterate that as it stands, the article on 'Economic development' is already an article on some aspects of development economics. Countermereology 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If Chicago wants to attract new businesses then that falls under the category of economic development just as much as if Swaziland wants to do the same (I don't think that the Economic Development article does a good job of reflecting this distinction). However, Development Economics focuses on underdeveloped economies. The same functions in rich counties are described in terms of other branches of economics. At least that is my understanding of the situation.Jordanus maximus 23:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an economist, so I'm not aware of the finer distinctions between economic development and development economics. However, I think you're a bit off the mark claiming that the study of economic development would apply to a city like Chicago. The best-selling economic development textbook appears to deal entirely with developing countries, not rich countries like the United States. Here is a description of the textbook from its preface: "This book is designed for use in courses that focus on the economics of development in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as the 'transition' countries of East Europe and the former Soviet Union now classified as developing countries." --JHP (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but if that is the case, what could be the content of the article on economic development? At best, it would seem like it should be a list of links to other articles. In either case, the situation as it stands with that article is not good, because it's either redundant, misleading, or both. And what really is the content of economics about 'economic development' in rich countries other than growth theory? Perhaps urban economics? I'm not really sure how I see the analogy between topics of development economics and topics of 'economic development' in rich countries other than growth--migration, industrialisation etc do not seem to be issues there. Where they do overlap, they tend to overlap in things like growth theory, international economics, etc, which are treated as their own fields by everyone. I would argue that if 'economic development' cannot be given substantial content relevant to rich countries, there is no point in it being a separate article. Countermereology 10:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a somewhat fine distinction between the terms "development economics" and "economic development". "Development Economics is the branch of economics that studies developing countries....Economic Development has been defined by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen as 'the process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy'....In short, there is more to economic development than growth in incomes."


 * However, looking at this article, it appears to cover economic development. In either case, economic development is a different area of study than economic growth. --JHP (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Development economics is the study of economic development of third world countries... The Sen quote is mostly to exemplify the focus that modern development economist place on "non-tangibles."  Back in the day, development performance was judged solely by GDP.  Today there is much more emphasis on things that one cannot touch, hence the Sen quote above.  The basic thing is that GDP can be a misleading metric for human well being.  I think the pages can be merged safely.  The new article can describe what is meant by 'economic development' and then discuss the field of economics that studies this phenomena, which is 'development economics.'  This, however, cannot be merged into 'economic growth' since growth is mostly about the experience of Western Europe and the US (basically, all that were developed by 1920s).  The justification for the separation of these fields is that developing countries today face a much different world than that faced by Western Europe and the related colonies when they industrialized. Brusegadi (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the term "economic development" can cause confusion. When laymen talk about economic development, they often mean the economic development of any area, whether a city like Chicago or a country like Swaziland. However, whenever I have seen the description of a college economics course titled "Economic Development", the course has been about the economic development of developing countries. This is reflected in the title of the Todaro and Smith textbook. --JHP (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right about that. I guess we could use a disambiguation page and have a page devoted solely to the economic study of "Economic Development" and other pages for other pages, etc. Brusegadi (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on "economic development", but not on "development economics". It seems to use both terms interchangeably in the article. --JHP (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a book on development economics and the classes on the subject are only about the development of under-developed countries. Perhaps the other use is a phrase that appears with high frequency in urban studies texts???  Thus, it would not have articles elsewhere but it would be popular enough that people would mention it on wikipedia. Brusegadi (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Developmental economics and economic development are entirely different subjects, and despite similarities in their names, they should be recognized as two separate branches of economic theory and practice. (I am a senior economics/international business major, and I am currently taking a course at a highly-accredited institution over this exact topic).  To put the matter simply, developmental economics deals ONLY with the challenges faced by developing nations in raising their qualitative standards of living.  These standards include the provision of greater health care, access to education, improved sanitary conditions, reductions in infant mortality, etc.  Economic development, by contrast, deals with the creation and perpetuation of beneficial economic circumstances in ANY country, including developed nations such as the United States.  It can be applied on the microeconomic scale, such as a city-by-city basis, and looks primarily at quantitative aspects of improvement, such as increasing industry and job opportunities, raising employment levels, stimulating investment, etc.  As such, the topic of economic development is WHOLLY SEPARATED from that of developmental economics.  This is a key distinction which is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to recognize within the field of economics, and as such these articles should remain SEPARATE.  PLEASE HEED THIS FACT.  If anything, economic development should be merged with a closely related topic, such as growth theory. -Anonaymous Economist March 15 2008 at 5:30 pm


 * First, if you sign as an anon, do not change your signature to that of an established user, its sort of like forgery. Second, thank you for your credentials.  Finally, economic development, as studied by economist, deals primarily with the improvement of third world countries.  I have never seen anything remotely close to studying the topics on a city by city basis because, economic models are to broad for that, economists simply do not like such narrowness.  I also invite you to search the graduate department of any top twenty program in economics for professors who specialize in development economics and you will see that most of their papers deal with country by country cases.  I am willing to accept that the name 'economic development' may appear a lot in the context you speak of (and in other disciplines) but its primary and major use in economics is the study of the fulfillment of the developmental goals of the non-industrialized world.  If it is used differently in business, sociology, or any other social science, then two separate pages are appropriate.  Finally, merging Development Economics with Economic Growth would not be smart, since there are huge differences between the two.  The field of development was born out of a necessity to separate the experiences in the process of industrialization of the western offshoots from that of the rest of the world.  Good luck on your course, Brusegadi (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I take issue with the majority of your points. To begin with, the notion that "economic development, as studied by economists, deals primarily with the improvement of third world countries" is inaccurate.  While LDCs (Lesser Developed Countries) stand as the more highly publicized aspect of this branch of economic theory, an overwhelmingly greater deal of time, energy, and effort is devoted to economic development within fully developed nations, such as the United States, Canada, and the greater part of Western Europe.  It is for precisely this reason that nearly all towns, cities, states, and (at the federal level) countries employ large boards of economic advisors.  On this note, I can assure you that the reason you "have never seen anything remotely close to studying this topic on a city by city basis" is because you simply have not looked hard enough.  Economic development is applied on a citywide level DAILY, right here in the US.  It is for this exact reason that all cities host a board of economic advisors, along with unemployment assistance, the provision of welfare, public works projects, etc.  Economic development policy is what helps determine tax incentives to stimulate business growth, apartment price ceilings to help control the cost of living, etc.  Needless to say, the list is extensive, and most certainly applies on micro and macro levels alike.  As evidence of the wide-scale application of economic development practices in developed countries (where DEVELOPMENTAL ECONOMICS is not at all applicable), I would direct you to the United States Economic Development Administration's website at http://www.eda.gov/AboutEDA/Mission.xml as well as the Economic Development Corporation of Utah at http://www.edcutah.org/ The existence and purpose of these organizations serves as undeniable support of my argument that economic development policy is prevalent in developed nations, and has been a major focus within the field of economics for many years.  I also strongly disagree with your statement that the "primary and major use [of the term "economic development"] in economics is the study of the fulfillment of the developmental goals of the non-industrialized world".  As previously demonstrated, the term "economic development" is heavilly applied in the context of developed countries, and thereby its "primary and major use" is by no means constricted to the non-industrialized world.  Finally, the field of economic development exists as a sub-category of economic growth, as the prior stems from the latter and deals with the enhancement of the qualitative factors present within growth theory.  For these reasons, economic development and developmental economics should remain as seperate, independent pages.  P.S. Thanks for the overview on Wikipedia policy.  I am not a registered user, and was not aware that signing my posts in any other manner would create an issue.  I have changed my previous post signature to reflect this. Respectfully, -Anonaymous Economist March 15 2008 at 10:43 pm
 * Thanks for the website, you see, it helps me support my point. You have provided a space where economic knowledge is APPLIED and not created.  Notice that I was very careful in pointing out that Development economics, when spoken about in the field of economics (academics) is all about the study of MDCs and LDCs.  I am sure that most people working for the organizations you provided have PhDs in economics, some in micro, I/O, macro, and perhaps even development (again, concerning LDCs) but none specialize in what you claim to be a field of study.  Thus, again, when development is studied in academia it concerns LDCs.  Anything else is OUTSIDE academia as the website you provided shows.  Here is a link to a page I quickly found using google.  My point is short:  Development is a study, while Economic development is not really a study in itself, it is the application of economic knowledge or a label for 'improvement'.  On a final note, development is not a sub-field of economic growth.  There is some stuff that you see in development that you dont see in growth while there is some stuff that is useful in growth but not applicable in development.  Thats why above I mentioned that there might be another use for 'Economic development' (in this case, you have provided with a link that shows that it is merely the application of economic theory) but that the only thing I am familiar with is Development Economics.  To make things worse there is a book on 'Development Economics' by Smith and Todaro titled 'Economic development' hence it leads me to believe that in academia the terms are used interchangeably.  If you dont mind me asking, what courses have you taken in econ, and what books have you used (we can talk in my talk page)?  If you are planning on graduate school I can give you good advice and some good resources! Brusegadi (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are gong to stick with separate pages (which seems appropriate, since, as noted above by the anon, the term economic development is widely used outside academia in a different way) we should have a disambiguation page with redirects. Brusegadi (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After re-reading your arguments, I will concede that you are correct (to the best of my knowledge) in stating that development economics, as a synonym for economic improvement, is the application of economic theory as opposed to an individual field of study. Within the field of economics itself, the terms economic development and developmental economics are not interchangeable, though one may occasionally relate one to the other on a case-by-case level.  (As you have pointed out, however, this may simply be the difference between academia and practical application.)  In any case, it seems we are in agreement that these two pages should remain separate, with a disambiguation page and redirects.  That being said, I would recommend that both the economic development and development economics pages receive an overhaul, as each is somewhat vague on their respective topics and could use lengthening and improvement, in my opinion.  I would certainly be willing to aid in this.  On a side note, my economics classes have included Introductory Economics, Microeconomics, Economic History of the United States, Developmental Economics, International Economics, and a variety of relevant business courses including Finance, Accounting (Managerial and Financial), Business Management, and a list of others that I can't recall at the moment.  I'm not planning on attending graduate school immediately after college (if at all).  I figure that an Economics/International Business double-major, a minor in European Studies, study abroad experience and a couple years of work experience are just as good as more schooling.  Thanks for the offer though!  So, if we're in agreement and nobody else cares to contest it, I recommend we keep the pages separate, revise/update/lengthen them as necessary, and create a disambiguation page dealing with other uses of the term economic development.  Sound good?  If not, let me know.  This is all a learning opportunity for me!  -Anonaymous Economist March 16 2008 at 06:20 pm
 * Yes, we were arguing due to misunderstandings. I hate it when that happens!  In terms of the articles, agreed.  The pages should remain separate.  We should have a disambiguation page too.  You are also correct in pointing out that the pages are like a mix of each other, thus, the task at hand is not a merger but a "separation" of sorts.  I will write more tomorrow when I am rested.  Ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are Yale University's graduate school courses on "Economic Development".


 * Columbia has several undergraduate courses with the name "development" in them: "Economic Growth and Development" appears to be a course on economic growth, while "Economic Development" covers the development of poor countries.


 * George Mason University has a course titled "Regional and Urban Economics" for the economic development of cities. I think the urban development that Anonaymous Economist was referring to would be covered by the subfield of urban economics, not economic development. GMU has a course titled "Economics of Developing Areas" that covers "Economic growth characteristic of developing countries. Economic development, obstacles to development, policies, and planning." They also have courses covering poor continents titled, "Economic Development of Latin America" and "African Economic Development". --JHP (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the urban stuff is mostly about cities, while development is confined to countries. At Brown we have one undergraduate course on development offered by the econ dep with the development studies dep, we have two on growth; one taught by Prof. Weil (writer of the book) and one generally taught by Prof. Galor (very theoretical.) I am not aware of any urban economics course here, but tht may be because our department is very development/growth oriented.  Brusegadi (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Some distinction of the terms (noted above) & history may help.
 * 1) ED is the older term, concentrating on the study of low-income countries.  When the field matured enough (formalization, integration with standard micro/macro/modeling/measurement, etc.), DE became a common alternative usage.  The older usage is still common as at JEL classification codes.
 * 2) When emphasizing the science or the subject as an academic discipline, ED is relatively less frequent (though still very common). When emphasizing the process of development, ED is the common uaage.  The journal Economic Development and Cultural Change is suggestive of ED. The content of Hollis B. Chenery and T. N. Srinivasan, eds. (1988, 1989). Handbook of Development Economics, Vol. I & II is suggestive of DE. That's one way of distinguishing content of the DE & ED articles if partial merger occurs.
 * 3) The distinction or synomymy  in ED/DE usage should be noted, if partial merger occurs.
 * 4) ED (as in regional ED), whether or not for a low-income country, could be covered either in the ED article (presently the case) or as a separate article ("Regional ED"?). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to cause confusion, so why not have a disambiguation page on both terms and create pages like DE(explain which) ED(explain which)? Brusegadi (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That certainly could be done, but of course it should first be decided if there should be a partial merge. If "yes," then the disamb could clarify the distinction between the 2 pages, which might be along the lines of several editors above (including me). Alternatively, the distinction could be written into the text of the lead with a link to the other article. I'd say the biggest advantage of merger would be not arbitrarily leaving out what is clearly related or overlapping material. Careful pruning of redundant material I believe would be appropriate during the merge, rather than a "dump" of everything, leaving someone else to figure out where things should go.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been previously stated, Economic Development and development Economics should not be merged, as they are two different fields - if you check almost any city or county website in the United States, they will have a department of economic development. That department is charged with the "economic development" of the respective city or county (or state even). It is through business attraction, business retention, education, and workforce development programs, that these departments work to increase revenue and the value of a city - and of course, all this is done to create jobs, and provide more/better services to residents and businesses. There is an international council of Economic Development, and they have a website - there are numerous scholarly journals of ecomonic development, and they are mostly focused on techniques and case studies of what methods other US cities have used for economic development. This is clearly not just another term for "development economics" as it applies to third-world countries. And yes, even Chicago has been used for case studies in the past, and has a need for economic development - you should check out New York City's econ dev webpage- very impressive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.98.158 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So basically, we find there are two meanings of economic development: I'd vote to take those two apart; I don't mind much which gets to keep the current 'economic development' page, but if the regional economic development is to leave the page, it might find a nice place at Regional economics, which is currently a redirect to the more general Regional science, but which by itself would cover regional economic development - states, counties, cities, but also countries. Classical geographer (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * a general meaning, relating to any economic development at any scale, often used in regional policy (at any regional level);
 * a specific meaning, relating to developing countries, often used as such in academia.

For what its worth, as a everyday reader going to wikipedia to get information on economic development. I was not trying to find an article about development issues in poor or undeveloped countries. Now I know that "developement economics" is about underdeveloped or undeveloped countries, or at least that's what I seem to understand. In either case, and regardless of the titles of the please get the introduction(s) better defined. And, make clear that if someone like me is looking for information about economic deveolpment in an underdeveloped country I have come to the right place OR the wrong place. Mike172.164.67.78 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The section on models has a further overlap with Economic growth, and I propose we merge it to there. I have put up a complete proposal for a restructuring of this page at Talk:Economic_growth. Classical geographer (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While they do overlap...they are different. Economic devolpment deals with poorer nations.Smallman12q (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally, there does seem to be a consensus, at least among the hardy souls who have slogged this far.  The consensus is that there are 2 distinct uses of the term 'Economic development'.  One refers to its use in economics referring to economic issues in low-income countries (sometimes including all counries say 250 years ago).

A Google Scholar search of "economic development" reveals that the 1st hundred hits fits the pattern of "economic development" pretty much referring to what could also be referred to as  "development ecnomics."

That usage is nicely mapped out in the Journal of Economic Literature codes used to classify articles from thousands of journals for eaarch purposes, in particular at JEL classification codes at JEL: O1 and JEL: O2. That's reflected in all of Development economics and most of Economic development. Hence, those parts of the latter could profitably be merged with DE, in the sense that there is no reason to have 2 articles with parallel coverage of the same topic. I believe that the case for partial merger is overwhelming. Those have contributed to the ED article might understandably resist merger. Those concerns should be addreesed as fully as feasible. But first the decision on pertial merger should be made with a WP:REDIRECT of ED to DE.

What would be left over then from the ED article? Maybe something like "Regional economic develooment" or "Regional development." The remainder could also used in connection with rural development or as part of Regional economics as Classical geographer suggested above.

I propose that all those opposing partial merger state their reasons here relatuve to earlier argumets in favor of partial merger in the next 2 weeks (say) to determine the level of opposition to partial merger and see if those concerns or arguments can be met. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why this merger is proposed; the difference between the two seems very obvious to me. Broadly speaking ED is the phenomenon, and DE the study of it (though of course DE applies to developing countries while ED remains broader in space and time), and encyclopedia articles about the two should differ substantially. Both are currently poor, but a merger isn't about to help. Disembrangler (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, the growth models from ED should really go into Economic Growth. Disembrangler (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above states the conclusion in the first sentence, which is OK but, strictly speaking, still the "cart before the horse." It would roughly follow from the 2nd sent. So, please let me rearrange, I hope faithfully, to the gist above.
 * !. ED is the phenomenon, and DE the study of it.
 * 2. So, there is no need to merge. They are distinct subjects and should be treated as such following (1).
 * I admit that (1) is a nice distinction. And as a definition of ED, it's fine.  But it makes no practical difference to the above proposal. That's because the textbooks and encycloypedia articles on the subject(s?) that do treat ED  in any depth also usually treat DE in the same work, often mixed together as at Economic development, or Hla Myint and Anne O. Krueger (2009) "economic development," Encyclopædia Britannica, Micropædia or Macropædia versions (for a "full  treatment," in earlier editions, the Micro article  referred to the Macro article "Economic Growth and Planning"). There may be a good reason for such mixing if ED and DE correspond to description and analysis respectively.  Description may only be possible at a deep level w analytical tools.  What one sees depends on one's theoretical and empirical tools. Similarly, at the [[JEL classification codes at JEL: O1-JEL: O5. there is room for both ED (broadly construed) and DE.  If one examines the different parts of the ED article, there is no practical reason to separate out most the ED article as to merger IMO.   Whether such a lead would read "ED or DE" or "DE or ED" would make little difference.   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me put it more bluntly: as far as I'm concerned, Development Economics is about the economics of developing countries; it's an academic discipline and we should describe it as such, in terms of its history etc. Economic Development is about how countries, regions, and other units develop, have developed, and can develop; it's an empirical phenomenon with related policy issues. Merging DE and ED would be like merging Geology of the Rockies with Mountains. Disembrangler (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For new readers, I link to what this discussion is not about here. For ease of reference, I number points below.
 * 1T. I don't believe that the preceding meets the major point of my previous Edit (on good enough reasons for merger). Still, IMO it makes a good case for a merger title of "Economic development" both as the more basic  term (without which nothing and that which "development economics" studies).  True, the proposal is for a partial merger into DE (with which I agree). But one should allow for  a name change after (keeping its current history).  On "ED" as the title, both Encyclopædia Britannica and JEL classification codes agree per my previous Edit.
 * 2T. It is not a hard thing to address a distinction as to usage. A dictionary does that in givng diffeent definitions of the same term and what the current Edit of Economic development does in the 1st sentence of 'ED' — in one usage a phenomenon, in the other usage the field that studies that phenomenon.
 * 3T. I would be interested in hearing from a merger opponent the argument for keeping section 2 in ED at Economic development with its 3 subsections, rather than merging it with DE. It is certainly DE theory and has a parallel in DE at Development economics.  Why should it stay at ED, if it is really DE theory?  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed your secondary ED definition, which is (a) egregiously wrong (ED is not the study of itself) and (b) supported by JEL classification ROTFLMAO. Annnnyway, as I said before, the growth models in ED would be better covered in Economic growth (they're basically there already). I really wish you'd drop the unnecessary merger and try to improve the existing articles, it is a far better use of scarce attention, and the articles have enormous room for improvement. Disembrangler (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhat belated followup: "Economic development is the process through which economies are transformed from ones in which most people have very limited resources and choices to ones in which they have much greater resources and choices. Development economics refers to studies of economies with relatively low per capita resources, so-called ‘developing economies.’"(J. R. Behrman, "Economics of Development", International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp3566-3574). Disembrangler (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As a late arrival to this discussion, it seems as thought most of the differences between DE and ED have already been discussed. However, if it helps to further clarify, in my mind, as someone who has a masters in community development, worked in econ dev for a municipality, and is presntly doing a PhD in Pub Admin (with intended dissertation on ED), ED can also be thought of as a sub-category of community development. I am sure some will disagree, but my main point is that this is drastically different from DE, i.e. ED also refers to the activities of states and local govs to create jobs, retain jobs, facilitate new business, inspire entrepreneurship, ameliorate poverty, and of course increase the tax base, all of which has developed into its own profession at some point. Therefore, I support 2 different pages. I hope I have contributed in some way. Thank you, Steven (src4768@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.163.7.183 (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As a student of Economic Development, I have to say there should be two pages devoted to the separate fields. Although to the lay person it may seem as though the two are identical, due to the simple switching of the words, the two fields cover the same subject but in a far different manner. Development Economics is more theory, based on statistics, and charts/graphs, and relatively distant from policy decisions. Economic Development is a field were the practitioner uses theory to improve the economy through policy.Matheina (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability box
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)

Making major changes
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)

More page-specific references needed in Lead and Section 1
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)

Slight changes to the Stages Theory and Added Origins
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))
 * Thanks, those were good edits! Brusegadi (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Theories of Development Economics" section
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)

Growth trough disasters
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.” 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.” 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Use case for those who would improve "Recent developments"
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)

Dr. Mogues's comment on this article
Dr. Mogues has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The sentence "Unlike in many other fields of economics, approaches in development economics may incorporate social and political factors to devise particular plans.[4]" does not seem accurate, and it cites a well known (and quite voluminous) textbook with no reference to page number so as to be able to trace the line of argument. I argue that it is inaccurate because, for example, the field of political economy, as that of political economics, strongly interconnect political and economic factors, and emerged fully outside of and have strong prominence outside of development economics. Many applications in the seminar works of political economics in fact apply to the US and to the EU/europe, such as lots of literature by Tabellini, Greif, and others.

I would thus change the beginning of the sentence to "Like in some fields of economics...""

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)

Dr. Meon's comment on this article
Dr. Meon has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The article starts with a nice survey of the history of the discipline, but then becomes sketchy, vague, or even arbitrary.

Section 3.3, "growth indicator controversy" provides a critique of GDP, but does not mention synthetic indicators of development, like the Human development index.

The list of prominent development economists is arbitrary. What is the criterion to select an economist?"

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)