User talk:Jacobseilo/Political Economy of Poverty

Nice start Jacob. Here are some comments for improvement

Political Economy of Poverty ...

I find this sectionoverly general. First, define the analytic object: a term, approach, school of thought? instead of just telling us what it "uses" and "seeks". "The Political Economy studies the interaction between markets, laws, politics as well as the relationship between individuals and society", as opposed to. . . pointing out its unique parameters, lens, methods, and assumptions will add specification to your definition of this approach. Does this approach share some consensus as to the main causes or mechanisms by which poverty is caused or ameliorated? this would be helpful in giving texture to the approach.

Proposed structure of the article

Contesting views

I can't really comment on this section because you do not anchor it to the analytic object. For instance poverty is not mentioned once. I am still not sure what this article is supposed to define. An approach to studying poverty or different political economies (or as it seems from this section "views" -a very vague term) that might create poverty. I also adamantly disagree with both your definition of neoliberalism and socialism. I'd be happy to discuss with you on both and point you to some articles - but i'm not sure if any of this is relevant to your article.

2)History

There is no need for either of these long passages. Furthermore it is unclear how either of these paragraphs connect to your topic. the term "Political Economy of Poverty" probably did not even exist until 1970, when the approach was first adopted to studying poverty explicitly (as opposed to "Political Economy" which already has its own encyclopedia entry). when did the political economy of poverty emerge? - this is confusing as there were several political economists before Adam Smith concerned about Poverty. I would also say that the main debates in the political economy are not situated between Marx and Smith, but rather around a Varieties of Capitalism literature.

3) Free Market Ideology

4) State Controlled Economy

3 & 4 are uneven: free market "ideology" vs state controlled "economy". you would need to compare apples to apples. but i still find this fruitless as the article seems to be more about economic ideology in general than political economy of poverty in particular. Friedman never had a theory of poverty, or political economic approach to poverty. I'm still unsure of what you're trying to do with this article.

I would suggest trying to Sketch out the approach: its methods, arguments, key contributors, journals and what makes it distinct from other approaches. If there is some logic to this organization than its beyond me, and will likely be to your general reader as well.

Substantive Review
Hi Jacob - hope these edits are helpful.

Political Economy of Poverty ...

1.I agree with Chris that the introduction is still overly vague. I'd like more context regarding the political economy of poverty, even though you delve into some of this in the history section. Esp. The political economy of poverty as opposed to what? This might be a good place to mention the "culture of poverty" theory, (non)rationality, isolation theory, etc. - as competing analytical lenses. Think of this definition as your abstract.

2.Does this just study poverty in capitalist economies? Seems like PEoP is a more useful, more expansive term. Consider changing to "interaction between markets" or "between economic systems..."

Poverty

1. Missing space after the first sentence.

2. You should also mention that the US does use a relative measure. A longer explanation of the various benefits and shortcomings of each measure would be useful.

3. "defines this threshold as having less than $1.25 adjusted for local cost of living." Revise this sentence for clarity. Per day? Per week? Per average? I'm unsure what this means. I'm interpreting it to mean less that $1.25 per person, per day. But this measure is unclear in the context of a developed nation where $1.25 is hardly sufficient. So how does "local cost of living" adjustment work? Some relative or absolute measures might be useful here.

4. "There is currently" should be "There ARE currently" [And according to what/who's measure - cite]

Contesting views

1. "Several countries draws on Karl Marx'" should be "DRAW on" and "Marx's"

2. There is a pretty large range between neoliberalism and socialism. A more through explanation of the scale, as you see it, would be useful for the reader.

3. Link to Marx, Cuba, China, and Venezuela.

History

1. "earlier usages of the political economy aspect" Revise "earlier" to "earliest" and "aspect" to "theory" or "study."

2. "understand the interest of society" INTERESTS.

3. This first paragraph is very dense. I would consider trying to block quote from Smith to try to condense the meat of his argument. You can paraphrase or explicate the rest.

4. Again relating to the first paragraph: Smith seems to be arguing for a fairly neoliberal conception of wealth production - people with capital put more money in, they get much more wealthy and everyone gets a bit more wealthy. Regulation would stifle that process. How does this differ from your definition of neoliberal explanations of poverty? And how does this relate to your definition that political economy is a study of the interaction between markets and political institutions? Smith has thoughts on this, but I'm not sure I understand how they're reflected here in your analysis.

5. Good summation of how Marx thinks wealth is created and distributed.

6. Are these the only two theories at work? And again, how are these different from the "Contesting views" you mention earlier? Are those the "Contesting views" at play in political economy analyses or the views that differ from political economy? I'm unsure.

Free Market Ideology

1. Is "night watchman state" a better term than the more recognizable "laissez faire" term? If not, I'd substitute the latter.

2. "complex interactions in the marketplace" should be "OF the marketplace"

3. Break up this paragraph into 2 short sections. Start #2 at "even the US..."

4. The last 3 sentences are the theory of how wealth will be distributed in free markets, according to free maret proponents, right? I would indicate this and also counter-theories to how else this might function. How do we explain, for example the enormous prevalence of poverty in thriving free market economies?

State Controlled Economy

1. "on behalf of the workers" Get rid of the "the."

2. "A common view" of or by whom? Maybe better to situate this as the theoretical understanding of how a state controlled economy might/should work.

3. "redistribution of wealth is seen as necessary to eliminate poverty." should be "ARE seen" explain, for example the enormous prevalence of poverty in thriving free market economies?

Political economy of poverty in present times

1. This title is odd. Maybe "Current state of Political Economy Theory"?

2. "In the 1950’s the debate" - which debate?

3. "distribution of wealth was tied to the level of development" in a country? A region? Be as specific as possible.

4. "Kuznets curve,an inverted U-hypothesis, " add space before "an"

5. A sentence summarizing the "washington consensus" would be helpful.

Areas of agreement and contestation

1. "agreement for both neo-liberals and their challengers." Are you suggesting that the study/theory of political economy is inherently tied up in neoliberal theory? If so (and that is the sense I'm getting) this is a point to make more strongly throughout the piece.

2. "Many scholars contest that the poor benefit proportionally less from growth than the affluent and furthermore that the poor are impacted more by fiscal setbacks than the rich. " Citation or 2 needed

3. "Some researchers contest both this views and argue that only growth that is sustainable has any lasting value." A) This VIEW and B) Again, citation.

4. "Their simulations show that for a majority of their sample, redistributing wealth would reduce poverty more growth." More THAN growth.

Overall Comments

I'm sure you've changed some things since the first edit Chris did, but I still have some of the same concerns he rose in his critique.

First, I'm a total novice to the political economy of poverty discussion, but for the purposes of this review that might actually be helpful. If I pretend that I'm a simple curious wikipedia user using the site as a dictionary for a term I know nothing about, I think I'd still be confused. You say in your definition that this is the study/theory of how income relates to markets and political processes. And then below you lay out two general theories about which kind of economy (neoliberal/free vs. marxist/regulated) might better ameliorate poverty. But I'm unclear as to which is the theory ("I support x kind of economy and think it works in y, z ways") versus what social scientists have observed about the functioning of various economies/societies and the implications they have for poverty. I'd therefore suggest a much stronger distinction between theory and data/evidence. I'd also be more careful to be deliberate about the two views you're profiling. Is the "neoliberal/free vs. marxist/regulated" dichotomy really the primary source of tension or, as Chris suggests, is there more fodder in the Varieties of Capitalism literature? My overall concern is that the reader is left unsure about what are the theories of political economy versus what researchers believe is the affect of different political economies.

Further, I am unsure, exactly, how your article speaks directly to the political economy of POVERTY. I understand and appreciate the places you've tied in income/wealth disparity, but with regard to poverty I still think the discussion is thin. I've tried to suggest a few places I think you could insert this discussion, but my overall sense is that you need to do a rewrite while constantly keeping in mind the question "how/why do theorists believe poverty is created and lessened in x or y political economy?" And ask that question from both supporters and detractors of a particular system. And then ask whether we know anything about whether that theory holds true.

Finally, I think the tone is still a little scholarly. You can lessen this by using more block quotes and endnotes rather than embedded citations. But it would be good to break up the text and use additional subheadings and signposts in header sentences. Think about the usual wikipedia article - it is scanable and puts the most important information at the top of the page. Think of this more like the inverted pyramid of journalism and front-load details and salient distinctions in your first 2-5 paragraphs.

What you have here is interesting and informative but needs more to be clear to those not currently taking a soc of poverty course! Please let me know if I can clarify any of these comments. LeahEdith (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC) LeahEdith