Talk:OECD

Critics section needed?
I just had a look into this article to better inform myself about OECD. I have been surprised to notice that, compare to numerous aticles I have read on Wikipedia about global institutions, there is none "Critics" section. I am not an expert in OECD or global governance institutions, but there is certainly number of critics adressed to this institutions as any others. I don't feel myself qualified to do so, but I think it would be a pertinent addition to this article if anyone has some knowledge about OECD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.182.116.245 (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * nice 178.58.43.16 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I find it amusing that NIEO have a 40% share of the text dedicated to a criticism seciton and this page doesn't have one at all.


 * Per WP:NOCRIT, in most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative. Beagel (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Covering main indicators
I would suggest to add a list of the main statistical indicators that the OECD publishes, such as the PISA studies, STRI, or Product Market Regulation indicators. These are regularly used in peer-reviewed economic research and policymaking. I would argue that they are of similar notability as the Doing Business index and other statistical indicators that have separate articles, so some of them should probably also have a separate page. EditingEconomist (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Map
I've just removed the map from the infobox (shown at the top of this thread), as it's misleading. The key problem is that it defines the various countries as being either OECD members or OECD applicants. This isn't correct - as this article notes, there are actually several categories of non-members who are OECD partners, with only some of these countries having applied to join the organisation of which only a sub-set are going through the formal accession process. If a map showing non-members is included, it needs to reflect this diversity. The map was also flawed in that it included Malaysia as an applicant, where the reference to this in the article was very low quality (an old news story reporting that a low ranking Malaysian public servant had said that Malaysia was applying at a minor conference, with no follow up reporting I can see - OECD membership applications are actually announced by national leaders and attract lots of media attention). as the creator of this map. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)