Talk:Private sector development

World Bank Group POV?
These links:
 * Public Private Dialogue A resource for private sector development practitioners wishing to promote investment climate reforms through dialogue (sponsored by World Bank, IFC, OCED, DFID, GTZ)
 * Financial and Private Sector Development The World Bank Group resource center.
 * World Bank Group Private Sector Development Strategy

were added (and this article was started) by single purpose accounts whose edits have all been to promote the World Bank Group. This article was even started by one. We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved the links here for other editors to consider. In general, a lot of links to one organization or links to only one POV is not considered appropriate. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think at least the first one of these links Public Private Dialogue is acceptable, since it is not only a World Bank source, but also includes other significant PSD players in a joint effort. --Shenhemu (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Speculative contents
I think that the following paragraph (in the 6 March 2018 edition, before the introduction) is purely speculative and should be deleted.

"This trend will only accelerate as the planet’s population in the middle of this century passes 9 billion with nearly 2 billion consumers living in frontier markets of the LDCs. In the coming decades, the private sector -companies and investors- will no longer be partners in global development through corporate sustainability efforts alone, the private sector will shape the global development agenda across a wide range of sectors — food security, health, energy, environment, human rights and governance. This new era of Private Sector-led Development will fundamentally alter the landscape, transforming the roles of donors, development agencies and private companies alike. It has the potential to scale solutions to our greatest development problems — climate change, resource depletion and violent extremism while also creating new markets and investment opportunities." --Alvarosinde (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
Hello, I'd like to ask for assistance with editing this article, and am pretty new to Wikipedia! As I know there are guidelines about contributing when there may be a potential conflict of interest, I want to disclose (as on my [|user page]) that I am posting here in affiliation with and on behalf of the Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED), a knowledge-sharing organisation on Private Sector Development. It is the leading online source of knowledge specifically on PSD. I want to add a few edits and some citations that I think are genuinely good sources for some of the things on this page. Right now, some sections have no citations and therefore I think it is appropriate to add some. Some of these edits are based on previous edits on this article that have been removed by MrOllie, but have been rephrased to be more neutral and the citations tidied up so that they go straight to the relevant pdf publication. Edits as below!

Overview

I would like to add this paragraph:

''As with all development interventions, PSD programmes are under pressure to measure and report their achievements, monitoring and evaluating their work in ways that are both credible and cost-effective. There are a variety of different frameworks for monitoring and evaluation in PSD. The DCED Standard is one of such frameworks, and is being used by 150 projects globally as of 2019, in areas ranging from value chain development, to challenge funds, to business environment reform. The DCED is the leading source of knowledge on PSD, showcasing resources from donor agencies on different PSD approaches, as well as around measurement and evaluation .''

And delete this sentence:

The researcher identified some key criteria that can be used to evaluate different approaches and instruments and gave examples of their usage by different donor institutions.

As it is too vague, given that the reference link to the paper is not working so I cannot viably add more detail to it.

Women's Economic Empowerment

I would like to add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph:

''Many donor agencies actively support programmes that help women to overcome these barriers. Such programmes are often combined with other PSD strategies, for example, by promoting gender-sensitive business environment reforms or including gender considerations in market systems development programmes. . Some donor agencies (for example, Global Affairs Canada) promote gender mainstreaming in all of their PSD programmes; ensuring that, in the planning stages, the possible impacts of a programme for different genders have been considered. ''
 * I'm generally inclined to add this, but I'm struggling with the word "crosscut". I can't help thinking about the saw. Perhaps this word is also used in this way but there has got to be an alternative wording — "combined?" Or something else. As noted in my general comments at the end, I'd be much more comfortable if you could track down another source or two.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Access to finance

'Affordably' should be 'Affordable'. ✅ (I would think a few words about microloans would be in order. Any thoughts?)

Private sector development in conflict-affected environments

I would like to add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph:

On the other hand, where it generates job creation and trade, Private Sector Development can play a role in peacebuilding and preparing for future development.
 * ✅ although I'd love to see a different source.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Industrial policy

It would be good to add the following sentence, to demonstrate that this is a debated topic:

If and how donors should promote industrial policy is much debated in development circles.

Innovation policy

The first sentence has grammatical errors. Change to:

Innovation is an important driver of competitiveness, growth and employment generation.
 * ✅-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding a new section on Private sector development during and following the COVID-19 pandemic

This section is appropriate to add, I think, because many donor agencies and PSD practitioners have changed their strategies and priorities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Please do let me know if the synthesis note references are not acceptable, as they are papers that synthesise knowledge, and I can suggest a larger number of alternative more 'primary' sources.

''The COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding financial and social crises have, in many cases, forced private sector development priorities to shift. It has raised questions about the resilience of markets, sectors and private sector development programmes. In the short term, PSD interventions had to be adjusted to mitigate negative economic impacts and redirect support to health systems. In the medium to long term, focus in PSD has shifted to promoting economic recovery and resilience. Global socioeconomic responses have differed depending on national and sector impact and priorities in these. Some countries are, for example, promoting a green recovery through PSD to 'build back better' and some are accelerating digitalisation as a response. ''

It would also be good to add the following links to the External links section, if others think appropriate:

https://platform2020redesign.org/ (which gives an overview of different countries' national green growth PSD responses to COVID-19)

https://www.enterprise-development.org/ (The DCED website - a large source of knowledge and curated resources on PSD)

https://www.enterprise-development.org/measuring-results-the-dced-standard/ (Specific pages on the DCED Standard, a widely accepted and popular framework for results measurement in PSD)

https://businessfightspoverty.org/ (Another good knowledge source for resources on PSD)

https://blogs.worldbank.org/psd (World Bank pages with blogs specifically on PSD)

I also think that the external links to USAID--PSD strategy for Iraq and PSD projects in Afghanistan, China, Laos should be deleted as I'm not sure why those very specific links are there when there are much more recent and relevant resources out there on donor agencies' PSD strategy. Happy to suggest some alternative links for each of the major donor agencies if wanted. It seems strange to have a link to the USAID PSD strategy for Iraq yet not, for example, the Swiss Development Corporation or the UK's FCDO PSD strategy.

Thanks so much in advance for looking over these edits! Cardamom tea (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , First, I want to thank you for recognizing your conflict of interest, and structuring your proposed improvements using the request edit feature. (As an aside, this community is struggling with the large backlog of requests, and trying to think through how to create a better process, so apologies for how long it has taken to even acknowledge your request.)
 * I've never read the article before, and have mixed feelings. I think that some decent content but as you pointed out yourself, it is under referenced. I understand that you have a particular focus, but you also appear to have subject matter knowledge, so I hope you will work with me and address things some of which may not be directly related to DCED.
 * It's my impression that many people filling out a request for an edit do so when in a way that makes it difficult to easily carry out. I appreciate that you've done a decent job of following the guideline — identifying what needs to be changed, the exact wording of the proposed change, and reliable sources supporting the change.
 * That said, it did not escape my attention that almost all of the supporting references are DCED documents. (Note that Emerging Economic Recovery and Resilience Strategies is a dead link.) one of the challenges facing editors willing to help out with request for edits is that IMO, the task is not simply to confirm that the proposed wording is supported by a source and is relevant to the article, it is also the challenge of ensuring that biases do not creep into the article. The Wikipedia article about private sector development needs to be a neutral document summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject; it cannot be the DCED view of private sector development, even if your organization is one of the leaders in the field.
 * I've only just started reviewing the proposed edits, but I'll illustrate my point with the proposed edits to the "women's economic empowerment" paragraph. I've looked at the supporting document and I agree that it's acceptable, but I'm equally sure you will agree that DCED is not the only place that supports this statement. Could you help out by identifying one or two other reliable sources that could be added? I will reserve complete judgment until I read the other resources but I suspect they are all good candidates for inclusion. However, I am almost certain to be unhappy if I and up adding six or seven DCED sources and nothing from anyone else.
 * I do have a specific question about a specific word in your proposed edit but I will add that comment above. I look forward to working with you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That said, it did not escape my attention that almost all of the supporting references are DCED documents. (Note that Emerging Economic Recovery and Resilience Strategies is a dead link.) one of the challenges facing editors willing to help out with request for edits is that IMO, the task is not simply to confirm that the proposed wording is supported by a source and is relevant to the article, it is also the challenge of ensuring that biases do not creep into the article. The Wikipedia article about private sector development needs to be a neutral document summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject; it cannot be the DCED view of private sector development, even if your organization is one of the leaders in the field.
 * I've only just started reviewing the proposed edits, but I'll illustrate my point with the proposed edits to the "women's economic empowerment" paragraph. I've looked at the supporting document and I agree that it's acceptable, but I'm equally sure you will agree that DCED is not the only place that supports this statement. Could you help out by identifying one or two other reliable sources that could be added? I will reserve complete judgment until I read the other resources but I suspect they are all good candidates for inclusion. However, I am almost certain to be unhappy if I and up adding six or seven DCED sources and nothing from anyone else.
 * I do have a specific question about a specific word in your proposed edit but I will add that comment above. I look forward to working with you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have a specific question about a specific word in your proposed edit but I will add that comment above. I look forward to working with you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have a specific question about a specific word in your proposed edit but I will add that comment above. I look forward to working with you. S Philbrick  (Talk)  16:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me ! I've started making a few edits to the above, and adding some more varied sources (one there is hosted on the DCED site as I can't find it elsewhere but is from the Swiss Development Corporation (SDC), which I have indicated). I will continue to do so over the next few days, and will take a look at other sections on the page as well to see if I can suggest any more, relevant, sources as well to hopefully improve the page overall. Cardamom tea (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I see you've already started adding sources. While it may not directly affect you, I did see a number of statements in the article that were unsourced. I'll see if I can summarize some of the issues. S Philbrick (Talk)  21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Has this request been completed? If so, can you close it as answered? If not, what needs to be completed? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I haven't done anything since my edits on 18 Feb. It will take me some time to get up to speed and I have relatives visiting through Wednesday. Will try to look into it then, don't hesitate to ping me if it falls through the cracks. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Partly done: Closing based on the above discussion, which appears to have died off. If wants to revisit, they are free to write another edit request. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  22:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)