Talk:Prebisch–Singer hypothesis

Bad Article
This article says absolutely nothing about the thesis itself. Somebody should rewrite this so readers would know what Singer & Prebisch were talking about.

It also says nothing about the fact that the thesis has been proved pretty much universally wrong by subsequent experience as terms of trade for primary products substantially improved in the 70's, 80's and 90's.radek (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Source number [5] is not a peer reviewed finding and was not published by any academic journal.

Rename to Prebisch–Singer hypothesis
This article is currently titled Singer–Prebisch thesis, but the most common term is Prebisch–Singer hypothesis. A Google Scholar search over the last 20 years gives: These results seem pretty open-and-shut (and this page seems pretty quiet), so I'm going to make the change.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Prebisch–Singer hypothesis: 870 hits
 * Prebisch–Singer thesis: 468 hits
 * Singer–Prebisch thesis: 141 hits
 * Singer–Prebisch hypothesis: 77 hits

Criticism Section is Written like an Opinion or an Unattributed Quote
New guy on the block here. Sorry if I am making a mistake in how to go about this. But: It seems to me that the section of the article on criticisms of the hypothesis is either a quote from source number [5] without quotation marks, or the content of source number [5] has been presented as fact instead of as the critique of the author of the source. As I am new to editing here, how would one go about making the Criticism section more descriptive of the critiques (and less as positing the criticism as fact)? Ojobr (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)