Template talk:Economic systems sidebar

Theory vs History
If you're going to be picky, it's NPOV to suggest that Capitalist, Open, and Socialist economies have ever been realised, so I don't see that making this a template for 'actual' economies is particularly useful. We do have many other articles on 'actual economies', and they are of the form Economy of Somewhere. --Nema Fakei 00:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This template is for actual TYPES of historical economies of actual places people and segments of society. Theoretical and future and science-fiction and ideological economies do not belong. Political and governmental philosophies especially do not belong. Sub-economies do belong. Philosophies do not belong. Specific examples such as American System (economics) or Socialism with Chinese characteristics do not belong. WAS 4.250 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. In which case, would you agree with a namechange to 'Types of Economy'? 'Actual' looks disconcertingly out-of-place to me. Oh, what about removing Palace Economies? They're pretty much an idiosyncracy of Mycenaean civilisation, a specific instance of a planned or command economy and no more significant than, say American System (economics). A socialist economy is either a Planned Economy or a Participatory Economy - or both: it just requires that the planning be democratic in the former case. Therefore, I'd also say remove the socialism, which is politics/ideology, and add Participatory Economy.--Nema Fakei 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Actual" is opposed to "theoretical" ruling out pie-in-the-sky theories of perfect types, science fiction economies and the thousand varieties of anarchism debated at wikipedia. Sub-economies make sense because in some sense all actual economies are subeconomies of larger types until you get to the all inclusive natural economy of all the universe over all of time. Practically, we are limited to economies that actually exist in both reality and as Wikipedia articles. Maybe Palace economies should be deleted. I don't know. A rewritten participatory that was about actual economies would fit in nicely, but last I loked the article specified it was about a theory, not about actual economies. Many nations that have been been run by communist parties claim with reason to have a socialist economy and the article is about actual economies so it should stay. There is necessarily some overlap. But we have to use the contents of articles, not the titles, as it is the contents we are refering readers to. By all means create or alter some article so we have an article about actual economies that are participitory; then we can link to it. WAS 4.250 19:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, we have a number of things being evaluated here. Are these the criteria you're holding up - right?
 * Exists vs Exists or has existed vs Doesn't exist and has never existed
 * Specific examples vs archetypes
 * Complete systems only vs complete systems or parts of another system
 * Article concerns only theory vs Article concerns at least a description of the examples
 * --Nema Fakei 21:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Exists vs. Theory
 * 2) Wikipedia's best 20 articles on existing types vs. 100 derivative types or poorly addressed examples (eg mixed economy yes, socialism/communism with chinese characteristics no) (american system-done as theory no american system-done as a useful historical example yes)
 * 3) Wikipedia's existing articles vs. Wikipedia's future articles (we link to what we got)
 * 4) This template is in contrast to the ism templates of progressivism, liberalism, socialism etc.
 * 5) Pragmatic vs. idealistic
 * 6) Based on content not on title WAS 4.250 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many names on the template are identical. A gift economy and a planned economy is identical. Also market economy and capitalist economy is also identical. --88.154.107.5 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We are linking to articles not concepts. WAS 4.250 19:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've made some edits based on those criteria. I still think we need a better heading than 'Actual Economies', though. 'Economic Sectors' if you don't like 'Types of Economy'.--Nema Fakei 18:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanations of changes
Right, I've followed your criteria, so I'm not sure what you're reverting me on. The criteria on which I've deleted these are in brackets (though other criteria may also arguably apply). I've added Parecon, since it exists, is a good quality article, is a viable article in the immediate, isn't an ism, is pragmatic, and has a healthy content.--Nema Fakei 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anglo-Saxon: Derivative Type (2).
 * Capitalism: Ism. (4)
 * Dual Economy: Stub (2,3,6)
 * NIC: Derivative (2)
 * Palace: Derivative Stub (2,3,6)
 * Plantation: Derivative, poor quality (2,3,6)
 * Socialism: Ism (4)
 * Token: Theory, Idealist (1,5)
 * Transition: Derivative, poor quality (2,3,6)

We disagree on what should go into this template. I don't believe you are being honest in your discussion of this. I recommend we find one or more third parties to judge. I am not an economics expert; so maybe I'm the one that is wrong here. The bottom line is we need to find other people to arbitrate. Is there a good place to ask for help in a case like this? WAS 4.250 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there's supposed to be a WikiProject on Economics, but I haven't found it after a quick search. I see no reason why this can't be resolved by discussion. I can accept your criteria (although I would probably choose/word them differently), and I've tried to apply them honestly and rigorously. I suspect this isn't so much a question of detailed economics as taxonomy, which can be sorted by simply looking at the articles and discussing what we want this template to be used for. I can certainly tell you that the ins and outs of the Mycenaean bureaucracy aren't required knowledge to get rid of 'Palace economy'. To be honest, I'm a bit baffled by what exactly you want. At the moment, we've got a load of derivatives, 'ism's and stubs - exactly what you've said you don't want. If my contributions don't fit with your idea of the template, could you explain where it is I'm going wrong? --Nema Fakei 00:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's give it a try. Instead of definitions for the template, how about if I just verbalize my thinking and we see where that takes us. OK? WAS 4.250 12:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My thinking
There was a stupid back and forth battle at Mixed economy over whether to use the progressivism or liberalism or socialism templates. Use none, one of the three, two of the three, or all three. And if not none or all of them then which. The last revert in that war was someone deleting the then existing template from the mixed economy article saying well then let's not have any isms here, or some such comment. Which made me think to look for a template on actual economies by looking in the category called economies. Well it turns out that the articles in the category economies lacked any templates so I created one and put all the articles in the category economies into it (except one or two that seemed they didn't belong in the economies category in the first place). Well, then people added and subtracted to the template bringing us to here and now. The main thing is a template for some of the template-less articles that are in and should be in the economies category. I don't want to add others that are of poor quality, nor do I want to remove templateless articles in the economies category from this template cause I want people to be able to find them and improve them. You cite the article capitalism as an ism, but the article we link to is not just about the ism but also about the actual real world exampes of it. Real economies. On the other hand the participatory economy article looked to me like it was all theory as opposed to identifying and describing actual places and times and workings of actual economies. Maybe it has changed or I missed seeing something or you could improve the article with specific example. Maybe the economies category needs a massive overhaul. Maybe some of the poorer articles could be combined. But who will do all the work? So is this working? Or do we need to call in some third party? WAS 4.250 12:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright. I think I see how this came about, just not why we should keep the status quo. Look at it from the reader's point of view. This is a navigation aid. It's going to be a list of articles, united by a single theme. That theme should be fairly obvious to the reader. All articles within the list should be a part of the theme (obviously), and the list should contain all the articles that satisfy the requirements for that theme (else we fail to inform the reader properly).
 * It's no use to the reader if the uniting concept behind the template is 'Articles on economics with no other templates except the ones that don't talk mostly about the real-world examples'. The template has to have some point other than just to make up for the failures of the Wiki. And remember, there's the category infrastructure (what about putting them all in Category:Economic systems?) to unite the pages, if need be. Perhaps add the portalpar template to them to link them to WP:BEP?
 * Bear in mind also that unless there's some consistency, then there'll be a fair few more editors (including those willing to revert reverts) inserting new articles based on what they perceive to be consistent with the existing list, or removing 'odd ones out', and you risk a template being permananently in flux. At the moment, it has the contracdiction of being a 'articles needing attention' list and having the 'good quality articles only' criterion.
 * I think there's a way of woking it, though. If we're a bit more discerning, we can have an article that accomplishes your goal of uniting all the templateless pages and still manage to be consistent. The most obvious way is to divide up the template - either into multiple templates (perhaps Economic Sectors and Real-World Economies - I'm not sure), in which there'd be some crossover, of course, or simply to insert some kind of subheading into the template itself.
 * Oh, I've just found WikiProject Business and Economics, by the way. It's certainly worth making them aware of the stubs. I don't think there's a "need to call in some third party" (3 people is hardly a quorum for a casting vote to determine consensus anyway - better to try to actually find a solution we can all agree on), but equally, I see no reason why more voices shouldn't be added to the debate. --Nema Fakei 13:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only is three a quorum; even one can be a quorum. For example, now that I think this template is in good hands, I withdraw from the debate. You are now a quorum of one. Do what is best for wikipedia. Maybe I'll come back next week or next month and spend a few hours debating with you and whoever else has taken an interest in this template. As for now, this template seems in good hands (yours). Cheers. WAS 4.250 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was that 3, 2, and 1 can each be a quorum, but only if they are in consensus. As it stands, you still baffle me. However, since we've both pointed out problems with different versions, I'll try to find a way of resolving them. Please do point out any problems you do happen to notice, though. --Nema Fakei 16:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Current categorisation
Right, the system I'm working on is this:
 * As far as I'm concerned, anyone can add economies they come across. I'm sure I've left some out.
 * Articles that deal with sectors of economies (e.g. Underground economy) which can be attributed to at least one historical or present-day example should be placed in the Sectors and Systems group, unless:
 * The article describes an instance or group of instances, rather than a generic srchetype, in which case, it belongs in the Real-World Examples and Models group (e.g. New industrial economy).

--Nema Fakei 15:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles primarily concerned with philosophies, ideologies, political theory, or anything which is not discussed in economic terms (and can not be discussed without recourse to ideology) belongs with Ideologies and Theories (e.g. Socialist economy; for non-ideological realisations, see Planned economy and Participatory economy).
 * Articles dealing with types of economy which have never ventured outside controlled lab conditions or the imaginations of their creators also belong in Ideologies and Theories (e.g. Token economy).

gold bars
hello, I added the tnavbar at the bottom. This should make it easier to view, edit & talk about the template. I also added a pic of gold bars; I hope this doesn't offend anyone. I know not all economic systems are based on, or even use, gold. But personally I like it when templates have some kind of identifing icon. I choose gold bars b/c it is on the portal page. Na uf an a : talk 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Token Economy
Shosystems of the world? It appears to refer to a single one-year psychological study. I'm going to any major impact on human history. --Kris Schnee 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

use of sidebar
There is heated debate over at the Economics article on the use of the Economic systems sidebar. My position in the debate has been that there's one over-riding reason that use of the sidebar on that page is inappropriate which is that the Economics article is not part of that series. Another editor strongly disagrees with that reasoning. I would be grateful if others can either authoritatively clarify this issue or add their own opinions. Cretog8 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree: economics isn't an economic system, so the template is out of place. Of course, I'm not a disinterested party, so I'd appreciate an outside opinion just as much as Cretog. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Due to the disputes over using the "Economic system" sidebar in economics articles outside of its scope, we've created a new economics sidebar. The new Economics sidebar contains all the information currently presented on the Economic systems sidebar.  I thought I would mention it in case there was interest in retiring this sidebar in favor of just using the Economics one.  Cheers  Morphh   (talk) 11:18, 01 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I !vote for retirement. It does appear that this template is superseded. Though I'm totally open to arguments to the contrary. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of pure information content, the old template is superseded. In terms of "feel", I would prefer this "Economic systems" template for those particular articles. However, I'm not particularly invested in those articles, so this is a soft keep, I suppose. Again, getting strong feedback might require making the substitution and seeing if the regular observers of those articles object. An intermediate choice could be to copy the "Economics sidebar", but switching the "Economic systems" to being expanded by default, and the "Methodologies", "Fields" etc. being compressed by default. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Both "By coordination" and "coordination" sections
The template currently has two similarly named sections; "By coordination" and "coordination". --Vinsci (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove "Communism" from the list of Major types at the top
Should we remove "Communism" from the list of Major types at the top? –Vipz (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Communism is a major economic ideology (at least within the socialist movement) but it is not a "major" economic system, because it has never been tried. Capitalism and socialism are the major economic types of systems, with most countries having mixed economies and varying welfare programs, a result of combining capitalistic with socialistic practices (somewhere less socialistic (e.g. United States), somewhere more socialistic (e.g. Nordic model)). What was witnessed in the 20th century was state capitalism with strong social welfare, that is, trying to progress to a socialist system. Communism should be removed because just like anarchism, it hasn't been tried, and therefore is not near "major". –Vipz (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not altogether convinced that this RfC is necessary. Has there been any discussion about the removal of Communism? I think not, unless i'm looking in the wrong place.  As far as i can see two stages of BRD have been followed ~  was BOLD and removed it, then  disagreed and REVERTed it ~ but there has been no DISCUSSION here, the logical place.  An RfC is really for disagreements which are not being resolved by discussion and the attempt to find consensus.  I suggest that you un-RfC it (by which i mean unlist it and, perhaps, hat this section), Vipz, lay out your argument (as you have above), then wait a reasonable time for discussion.  If none arises, that can be taken as consensus, alternatively, ideally, consensus will arise from discussion. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 11:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with LindsayH, though I have an opinion on the topic so may as well express it as part of the discussion LindsayH advises. I would oppose removal of communism. Vipz is comming from an "old textbook" definitional angle, of what communism was supposed to be or become under the ideas of Marx and Engels. But this is not how the word is generally used in English, which is to refer to the politico-economic systems of PRC, Cuba, USSR, etc. If there is another word for the system that  been tried, then I wouldn't object to using that in place of "communism", perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended discussion
@SMcCandlish: "communism" is generally used as a buzzword, but most scholarly sources covering the topic care to use precise terminology when describing economic systems of nominally socialist states. They were, as already said, state capitalist systems with strong social welfare; some of them played with the concept of actually democraticizing workplaces (i.e. workers owning the means of production), the bare minimum for describing something even remotely socialist, but this mostly failed due to obstructions of the bureaucratic class.

At the best stretch of the definitions, you could describe these systems as socialist (authoritarian socialist that is), as many of them did and some still do. But if you want to describe these systems as "communist"... which countries' systems are socialist then? –Vipz (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to calling them "authoritarian socialist" that's what reliable sources generally call them, instead of "communist". I remain highly skeptical this is the case, though. What we have here is a term, "communist", with two widely publicised meanings that do not entirely agree. You are favoring one highly academic, technical definition (and not, incidentally, the only definition used by all academics), while 99% of our readers are going to understand and expect the more popular one. If your definitional exclusivity idea had merit, then going to Google Scholar and doing searches on terms like "communist regime" and "the communist government of" should produce basically no results, because there would be no such thing as a communist government of or regime in anywhere. But we actually get thousands and thousands of academic journal hits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish: "communist regime" and "the communist government of" as in ideological orientation, not the economic system. These are instances of "communist" that are used interchangeably / synonymously with a more precise label "Marxist–Leninist". When referring to the economic systems of these countries we've went over, "communist" and "socialist" are never used simultaneously to refer to different things. And if you search Google Scholar for "communist economic system" you will see that it has much less in results than "socialist economic system". –Vipz (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't think communism (under either definition) is an economic system, I don't think you've read much Marx. And of course there should be more hits for "socialist economic system" since there are many more countries with such a system than what we might call communist ones.  Anyway, we don't need to keep going back and forth. I've said my piece, and other people will probably want to weigh in here. Maybe I'll be shown to be completely wrong-headed on this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish: could you please quote the parts of my posts that tell you I don't think communism (under either definition) is an economic system? Which countries have a socialist economic systems then (apart from those you call "communist"), could you provide a few examples? –Vipz (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure: 1) "communist regime" and "the communist government of" as in ideological orientation, not the economic system. 2) Google "socialist country". Second search result (in my hit list, anyway): – Every Communist Country in the World (circa 2021): ... [list provided] Socialist Countries of the World: Countries that have constitutional references to socialism and are thus considered to be socialist states include: ... [list provided]. I shouldn't have to be showing you how to use the Internet. :-/  Why are we still having this discussion? At some point you need to realize that your insistence on imposing your personally preferred pair of definitions on everyone else is not going to fly here, and neither is repeatedly badgering anyone who responds to an RfC you open until they give up and let you WP:WIN in frustration. Again: We two have said enough here, and this RfC isn't going to go anywhere without input from other editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sigh... believe me, I don't want to go back and forth on this neither. I'll happily wait for other editors, but I don't feel it's right to stop replying when you misinterpret my messages too badly. 1) "communist" in these two specific phrases refer to ideological orientation, that's what I stated. 2) This website (World Population Review) is anything but a reliable scholarly source on the topic. These countries either call themselves socialist despite reality or have constitutional references aiming to establish socialist societies in their countries but that's it. It would be like including Democratic People's Republic of Korea in a list of democratic states. Portugal is such a flourishing socialist country, right... Anyway, I'll stop replying for some time now. –Vipz (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Soviet-type economic planning article refers to the specific forms of planned economy used in historically existing Marxist-Leninist party-states, without much commitment to whether they represent genuine socialism, communism, state-capitalism, etc. as economic systems. However, it would be odd to use such a specific term alongside much broader ideal systems of 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. 2003:D4:DF00:3393:1489:D2B0:B2FE:6F1F (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. –Vipz (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)