Talk:International economics/Draft

I have chosen to concentrate this article on the main issues and leave some topics, that could be included, for treatment in linked articles on (I suggest) currency areas, exchange rates, IMF, World bank, WTO, Bretton Woods. Any comments? Nick Gardner 02:42, 28 January 2008 (CST)

Martin - I am tackling the paragraph on migration with trepidation. I'm convinced that it should be part of the article, but I know little about it. I am counting on you to correct my errors. Nick Gardner 00:57, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Subject to second thoughts and comments as above, I think I have finished this article (but landed someone with a lot more articles in the "see also" list)- Nick Gardner 10:23, 3 February 2008 (CST)

Hayford Pierce - Thank you for your interest. Have you any comments on the text? Nick Gardner 16:55, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

Hi, Nick -- The text is *well* beyond me, I fear! I was just doing a little casual formatting, of the sort I do if I happen onto any given article by clicking on "Recent Changes" or some such. It does look like a v. professional job, however! Hayford Peirce 21:27, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

Yes, it does. Very nice! Nick Gardner 01:03, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

Update

On second thoughts I have withdrawn this article from the "Ready for Approval" list pending the completion of the paragraph on international financial stability. Nick Gardner 05:13, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

I am inclined to believe that the paragraph on international financial stability now says all on that topic that is appropriate for a general article, and that work can shortly begin on a separate article on the current financial crisis. On that basis, I have restored the article on the "Ready for Approval" list. Nick Gardner 05:03, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

I'va made some small changes to the text on migration, and hope that this will not preclude me from approving the article. However, would any other economics editor like to approve it? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:32, 11 May 2008 (CDT)

Related Articles?

Nick, I'm not sure why you deleted this section? Won't this be expanded in the future and required for cross referencing? Chris Day 15:35, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes, but not as you had done it. Thank you for reminding me - but as elsewhere, the suggestion is helpful, but the execution is unhelpful. See below. Nick Gardner 16:32, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

At least the reminder was good. I cannot comment on what you plan but isn't there a more standard approach to the format of the Related Articles subpage? Chris Day 16:43, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

All the cross-references that could be useful to a reader of this article already appear as links within the text of the article. Consequently I see no merit in using the "canonical headings" format in this context, and I do not propose to use it. If anyone wishes to create a "definitions" subpage and transfer to it the definitions paragraph now on the related articles subpage, please feel free to do so.Nick Gardner 05:13, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

But what if someone comes to this articles RA subpage from a different article? The real strength of the RA subpage is as a tool to navigate through the whole of the ecomomics topic. The [r] link that appears after each articles name when using the {{R}} template crosslinks all RA subpages, so it is possible to delve deeper (subtopic) to a different RA subpage or higher to the RA subpage of parent article. This creates a hierarchial network for exploring the different levels of a topic independantly of the articles. Then, when the reader finds the desired target (the definition is useful in identifying the target), they can click on the article that is most suitable for their purposes. Clearly this won't work now as the RA subpages are under developed but it will work when there are many well developed RA subpages. Chris Day 07:15, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

I am afraid that that is all to clever for me. If there is some organisational necessity for such material, I leave it to others to provide it. I would only add that I suspect that to do so effectively requires a reasonable good grasp of economics. Nick Gardner 16:08, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Housekeeping amendments

I have introduced a large number of minor edits that do not affect meaning but should assist readability. In particular, I have taken advantage of the use of a definitions subpage to avoid interrupting the flow of the text - following the practice that I have adopted in other articles. Subpage material will follow. Nick Gardner 16:39, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Environmental issues

I think the article is in good shape right now and presents the subject in a way most people in the field would probably consent with. However, as is common practice, it completely ignores any role of the environment (e.g. providing resources, absorbing waste - very international operations of high economic importance, yet with limited capacities). Given that such matters are starting to penetrate into the field from neighbouring disciplines (and assuming that, hopefully, the article will not only be read by insiders), I think it is worthwhile to weave them in at some points, e.g. in sentences like "There is a strong presumption that any exchange that is freely undertaken will benefit both parties, but that does not exclude the possibility that it may be harmful to others.", which could be extended by something like including the environment (with the following lines adjusted accordingly). No separate paragraph needed, and details can be left to intralinks and related articles, but in my opinion, the topic should be referenced a few times at relevant spots in the text. -- Daniel Mietchen 08:11, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

I do not consider that an article on international economics is the right place to introduce the topic of environmental economics. It is a subject that is widely misunderstood and frequently misrepresented by non-economists. In my opinion its treatment in CZ should be based upon careful economic reasoning and sound empirical evidence. I suggest that you start drafting an article along those lines, to which other articles such as this could then link.Nick Gardner 15:57, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Hello Nick, I agree that topics should not be mixed up where there is no need, but I repeat that I see the need for some reference to the environment here, since any economic system ultimately cannot be described properly without considering its boundaries. However, as economics is neither at the core of my expertise, nor the focus of my interests or CZ activities, I refrained from doing such suggested edits myself. For the same reason, I will rarely start economics articles, but I would welcome your collaboration on Steady-state economy which is close in concept to the steady states that I know from other metabolic systems. -- Daniel Mietchen 10:24, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Daniel. You will have to forgive my ignorance about environmental economics. I have tried to keep up with developments in economics since I retired in 1985, but this topic has escaped my attention. I do not even know whether the subject has any established rationale. I have found popular writing on the subject rather confusing (but, admittedly, I have not given it my sustained attention).

So I am prepared to accept the ruling of the economics editors as to whether it should be introduced in this article, but I do not feel able to do so myself. For the same reason, I shall watch the development of the article on "steady state economics" with interest (especially the references) , but I do not feel qualified to assist with it.Nick Gardner 10:28, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

We have to share a common understanding of what CZ articles should be trying to do. My opinion is that they should describe the state of knowledge in a field, complete with dissenting and minority positions, whilst conveying to the reader what are (and possibly have been historically) the mainstream positions. Whereas environmental issues can be seen as having had some role in the history of international economic relations, these are not represented in the literature as far as I know. I cannot imagine how we could include this topic here, because I think we would have to formulate our own hypotheses and theorems: whilst that would be acceptable if any of the authors or editors here were a world authority on the matter, such is not the case. Unless someone can come up with references to serious scholarship that includes the environment in this area, I think it should be excluded. I cannot even think of a way to express reservations about the article, w.r.t. the environment: even that would be original work. So, let's leave it as it is. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:08, 20 May 2008 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Congratulations! Another economics article approved --D. Matt Innis 21:18, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.