Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

Hélène Rey

I've added some initial discussion of the contributions of Prof. Hélène Rey here: [1]. There's a lot more that can be added, if anyone's familiar with her work and contributions.

To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth?

The article on gross private domestic investment says it "is an important component of GDP because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy." To what extent does GPDI actually determine the rate of growth?

Please answer at Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? thanks. EllenCT (talk)

Davos question listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Davos question. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

Draft:Richard Duncan (economist)

Hey folks! I just created this article and it was moved to the draft-space before I added the references :-/ Could anyone review it and help out with moving it to the article-space? Thanks Fede.Campana (talk)

That's the link for easy access: Draft:Richard Duncan (economist) Fede.Campana (talk)

Proposed deletion of Energy quality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_quality_(2nd_nomination)

Stephen Salant notable?

came across Stephen Salant article, appears written by a StephenSalant in 2010, appears he is most likely not notable by the guidelines going by the "Average Professor Test", but I have no background in economics, maybe someone can take a look if anything he is connected to makes the article worth keeping BenErroneous (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

He's professor emeritus at UMich (above average) with an h-index (33) that's fine but not remarkable for an economist.

IMO you could reasonably argue to either keep or delete his page. But probably it shouldn't be kept in its current form (correctly flagged autobiographical)—should be rewritten so it doesn't look quite so much like his CV. Themrbeaumont (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Economics of biodiversity

Hi all, I have been making some changes to the page Economics of biodiversity since it had not been updated for a while and was lacking in references. I was wondering if someone with an economics background would be interested in helping to improve the article to reflect the debate on economic valuation of biodiversity. Manxshearwater (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Create a category for professional societies of economists?

There are about 10 societies of economists in Category:Business and finance professional associations. That's not quite where they belong, e.g. for societies that are made up mainly of academics not addressing business or finance. We could create a new category for "Economics-related professional associations". It would go into Category:Professional associations by profession, parallel to the business/finance one, and to a natural set of peers in the fields of psychology, architecture, and geography. I would like a more concise name like "Economist societies" or "Societies of economists" but it seemed to make sense to follow the naming system established by parallel groups. Any thoughts? The next step, I think, is to check with category specialists at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, and if there are no objections there, to just create it. -- econterms (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Flag of convenience

Flag of convenience has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata and social sciences

Hi, I am trying to contribute on Wikidata around social sciences themes. I started to list relevant properties here : Wikidata:WikiProject Wikidata for research/Data models/Social science results Feel free to suggest others, for example properties that may help generate infoboxes.

Jeanne Noiraud (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Economic policy of the Joe Biden administration#Requested move 10 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at The Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment and assess it (particularly with respect to WP:NORG and WP:NOBLE). The article was created directly in the main space by a student participating in a WP:WEP affiliated university course; so, it never really underwent any type of formal assessment (e.g. WP:AFC) and it doesn't seem to have yet been reviewed by WP:NPP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Premiumization

I just created a stub for Premiumization. A strategy observed in pretty much all consumer products over the past 15 years or so. Thriley (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for American automobile industry in the 1950s

American automobile industry in the 1950s has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Eurasian Economic Union

Eurasian Economic Union has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of economics films for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of economics films is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of economics films until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, there is a notification about the write-up of economics film as seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Euro area crisis

Euro area crisis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Notability of Reiner Kümmel

There is a relatively new biography of Reiner Kümmel by @Gunnar.Kaestle, created directly in main. It was tagged for notability by Moriwen, and has a few other issues that are somewhat corrected. The key issue is whether he passes any of WP:NPROF. He certainly does not for his work in solid-state physics -- it is good work but does not reach that bar, the citations are too low for #C1 and he has no major awards. His economics work is not well cited, but I do not know the field well enough; the originator states that he is convinced of notability, but of course that does not matter. Please add comments here (or at Talk:Reiner Kümmel) on whether he would pass some aspect of WP:NPROF as an economist.

Depending upon this I will either leave the page, draftify or AfD for further discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The citations are low because he "specializes" in econophysics, a fringe/crank movement that's not included in any mainstream/respectable economics department.*

*Exception: from time to time, a physicist who doesn't know any better will publish solid work on mathematical economics under the label of "econophysics". Having skimmed the citations for the article, however, it looks like he doesn't fall in this category. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to the theory of economic growth, I know two research groups which a) integrated energy as production factor and b) proved it by observation experiments with statistical data. This was the group of Robert Ayres (scientist) and of Reiner Kümmel, sometimes the published together [2]. As far as I understood, Kümmel was puzzled about the economic effects of the energy crises and found a mathematical way to integrate energy as production function (LINEX = a linear exponential function). By doing so, the so called Solow residual almost disappeared which allows the interpretation that actually the use of energy as a third production factor is the so called "technical progress". Then Ayres, improved this approach by using not primary energy as input, but took into account the losses (anergy) in the energy transformation chain and did only count the exergy part of the energy which was taking effect in the production either as process heat or a mechanical drive. This even increased the elasticity of ~0,5 for energy to ~0,7 for exergy.

PS. Please do not only skim the articles, but read a few of them in order to say if the mathematics is solid or not. Gunnar (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI: both notability tag and PROD were contested, so the page is now being discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Reiner Kümmel. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. The Cobb-Douglas function discussed above is the simplest solution of the growth and integrability conditions. However, the C-D function has serious weaknesses. The major weakness from our perspective is the built-in assumption that marginal productivities and elasticities of all factors are constant over the whole century. That assumption would be inconsistent with technological change. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.⁸ [..] Note 8: Kümmel and colleagues have obtained extremely close fits for three countries using the LINEX function with energy (exergy) as the third variable, and fitting the functions a(t) and b(t) by a logistic function or a Taylor expansion, resulting in a five-parameter model. Fits have been obtained for the US and the Federal Republic of Germany (total economy, 1960-98) and for Japan (industrial output) over the period 1965-95. In all three cases, the R² value is 0.999 and the Durbin-Watson coefficient is quite good.

Here is my chain of notability:

• The Solow Growth Model is notable.
• It is also notable, that it does only explain a fraction of the growth which can be observed in real world statistical measurements (Figure 6.4), see Solow residual.
• Therefore, the work to explain the Solow residual not as something like Manna from heaven or technological progress (an expression basically saying "we don't know") but as energy as a third production factor next to capital and labor is notable as well. This combines with a fresh formula and the understanding that the elasticities are not equal to the cost shares for each factor.
• "first demonstrated by Kümmel" means that Kümmel is a significant contributor to this area of work and notable as well. No we don't need to engineer complicated epicycles, as Ayres' improvement to Kümmels approach (= to include the efficiency of the energy conversion chain from energy input to useful exergy output (work but also process heat) for the economic process, called 'useful work' U) showed that the elasticity of energy (precisely exergy) is by far the most relevant one (see Figure 12).

--Gunnar (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is my chain of notability—please see WP:INHERIT. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this here is an issue of inheritance. This could be the case if one argued: Kümmel is notable because he was a student of the famous John Bardeen. But no, Kümmel is not famous for his work on superconductivity that began in the late 60s under Bardeen's supervision [3], he is notable because he found a solution to a notable problem in economics. Obviously many are not aware about the problem, so I indicated that the widely used growth model and its large share of unexplained growth called 'residual' is seen as notable. Therefore, a person who solves the problem is notable as well. Gunnar (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ecological economics and economists: some updates needed.

The page Robert Ayres (scientist) needs some updates, as do almost all the people in the Template:Ecological economics. Just a comment, this is too far from any of my areas of competence for me to do more than point it out here. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I personally am well aware (and I assume most editors here do too) that probably the majority of Wikipedia articles on economics fail either WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE; the main issue is manpower, unfortunately. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you (or any other economists) look at WP:Articles for deletion/Reiner Kümmel? I understand about manpower, I see that too often in materials science articles on WP. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of JEL classification code for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JEL classification code is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEL classification code until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Logoshimpo (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)