Talk:Deindustrialization

Development of the article

I've made a start on some of what I see as the appropriate headings, but don't quite have the stomach to give it my best shot at the whole thing in one go! Will do it bit by bit (in no particular order of importance). This is probably a better way to go aboout it anyway, allowing others to contribute their ideas as we go along. --Nmcmurdo 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

References

I find the refereneces tag a bit odd - a lot of this stuff is well-referenced! It would be too cumbersome to reference widely accepted facts (such as the fall in manufacturing's enployment share across OECD countries)--Nmcmurdo 00:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Experience of Deindustrialization in OECD economies during the Twentieth Century

I deleted this section pending some clearer explanation of this crucial phenomenon. First of all, using the Twentieth Century as the temporal scope is silly. Mass production manufacturing didn't really become a major economic force until Ford's auto plants, so it isn't reasonable to compare manufacturing output at the start of the twentieth century with manufacturing output at the end of the twentieth century. Most commentators on deindustrialization refer to a phenomenon occurring during the last few decades of the twentieth century. Secondly, the kind of deindustrialization referenced should make use of the distinction between the 4 definitions provided at the start of the article. If OECD economies have, in the last 3 decades of the twentieth century, actually increased their per capita, inflation-adjusted manufacturing output, then just come out and say it and point to the prior definition of "deindustrialization" that matches a per capita, inflation-adjusted growth of manufacturing output.Jim Bowery 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible systematic synthesis/OR by several users

It appears Piotrus (talk · contribs) has been using this article for a university experiment/project or something similar. Much of the text from the students he apparently directs sounds like a university essay where they are encouraged to make analysis of data.

For example "Because of its increased production rates in industry, it can be ascertained that deindustrialization has not occurred in Sweden." or "At first glance, these ups and downs could be interpreted as a product of deindustrialization, but after interpreting the available data, we see that Germany is simply evolving while dealing with its difficult past." or "Overall, Italy does not seem to be deindustrializing" etc etc.

Or take Piotrus comment to one of the students: "You may also want to indicate you have used OECD (2008) data for the rest of your analysis." [1]

I'm afraid the article will require careful review of the sources to ascertain what conclusions are actually supported by the sources, and what conclusions are synthesis done by Piotrus students using data from the sources.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly further rewriting and improvement of the added material is needed. I am looking forward to an expert review of this article one of those days.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deindustrialization in city-level

I understand that there is no decline of industrial production in the U.K. and the U.S. (overall in the country-level), but how about Manchester, Liverpool, Detroit (and also former Soviet cities like Ivanovo)....those once heavily industrialized cities? --Kerry7374 (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that the claim that there is "no decline of industrial production in the U.K. and the U.S." is in any way valid despite the allusions to the contrary in this article. Your question is spot on since the OECD data cannot seem to account for the obvious decline in industrial cities(areas) in many western countries, the massive trade deficits particularly in the U.S., and the overall evacuation of entire manufacturing sectors in both the U.K. and the U.S.

The seemingly insane notion that the U.K and U.S. are increasing the level of manufactured output through productivity in the face of the Asian tigers with their export oriented economies and tremendous trade surpluses is just not credible (or is at least lacking in explanatory adequacy). The numbers and their derivations need to be carefully scrutinized before they are crunched into factual (phony, self-serving??) claims as the current (2008) "economic crisis" has made painfully apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.189.202 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"there is no decline of industrial production in the U.K. and the U.S." <-- That's basically what I got after I read this article (Deindustrialization), this article basically says that deindustrialization doesn’t exist in the U.S. and U.K., and true, we can’t see any sign and trend of deindustrialization from official economic statistics (prior to current economic crisis). What I felt (from place where I live) is pretty contrary to what those “experts” said, and these confuse me a lot. --Kerry7374 (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. At least here in the U.S. "the experts" who read the data as though deindustrialization does not exist are now distancing themselves from that position. Even in the mainstream media we are now hearing noise about a "manufacturing renaissance" and calls for an end to the ideology of "Asia makes and the U.S. takes" e.g. http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/29/manufacturing-productivity-stimulus-oped-cx_jk_1230kotkin.html?partner=contextstory

I also agree with you about the confusion, again here in the U.S., deindustrialization is not only an economic phenomenon but is also a social and cultural phenomenon as well. The educational system, the media system, corporate system, the "experts" and politicians, as well as individuals have --for at least the past 40 years-- all willingly participated in this process, making it difficult to get at the facts. And moreover --in my view in a kind of Foucaudian compliance-- for the most part (until recently) American economic leaders have been unwilling or unable to accept any analysis that fundamentally challenges the "correctness" of the mainstream view that deindustrialization either is not a problem or does not occur.

Of course, there are those with great concern about deindustrialization here in the U.S. such as Barry Bluestone, and like experts could be more adequately highlighted (IMO) in the main article (Deindustrialization) plus they are well worth investigating for the interested. I recently added some additional sources to the reference list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.189.202 (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Deindustrialisation in India in the nineteenth century

One of the earliest instances in the history of the notion of deindustrilisation has been that of India in the nineteenth century. over the long period of study, various historians have udnerlined the collpase of the traditional handicrafts industry, from tis state of prisitne glory, once it started being exposed to the competition from the cost-effective industrial goods, particularly textile with which the country was inundated, thanks to the fretrade regiome , which it had as a colony to the British. The classic paper in this regard is by A K Bagchi(1978), who compares and juxtaposes the data provided by Francis Buchanan Hamitlon in 1809-1913 to the data of Census of India 1901 of the districts in Gangetic Bihar, indisputably proving the reduction in the share of population dependent on industry for their livelihoods. To see the reduction in employment as a logical fallout of the process of industrialisation, in the case of India, as in the the case of other countries , is highly unwarranted, for the latter witnessed new industries and modern factories coming in the place of the old , whereas , in the case of India, there was hardly any industry, which came in the place of the traditonal industries displaced. The growth in industrial employment could hardly compensate for the growth in population during the period. Bagchi further tries to extend the argument, which he based on the district level data of Gangetic Bihar, by corroborating and collating evidences from across the country. He further reinforces his argument by putting across the studies by N K Sinha relating to loss of employment in Eastern india, particularly Bengal, the reduction in real wages in nineteenth century India, the crest-fallen weaver, whose wages turned out to be very trivial, even lower than that of agricultural labourer by the end of the nienteenth century. Further he uses the evidences provided by different colonial documents and reports of officials to further the case of deindutrialisation in colonial India. In fact, the deindustrilisation debate had particpants like M D Morris , who refuted the same tooth and nail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.73.229 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ceterus Paribus

I swapped out 'ceterus paribus' with the more common 'all other things being equal.' I am in no way an advocate of dumbing down wikipedia, but I also don't think superfluous inclusion of sophisticated esoteric verbiage contributes a qualitative increase. aremisasling (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikilink Consumption (economics) for consumption in "... whereby durable goods production for domestic and export consumption, ..." ?

Wikilink Consumption (economics) for consumption in "... whereby durable goods production for domestic and export consumption, ..." ? 99.19.42.118 (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The entire phrase is questionable. "Export consumption"? Perhaps "domestic consumption or export"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment: Avoid Edit history comments, such as the vague "Nullity" please.

Just a comment: Avoid Edit history comments, such as the vague "Nullity" please. 99.190.85.197 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC) See Interpolation (disambiguation) also ... I assume this just a common usage of roughly speaking "combining". 99.190.85.197 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant wikt:interpolate (verb, 3): "To introduce material to change the meaning of or falsify a text." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For wikt:nullity too ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.86.115 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that one is an wikt:oxymoron (2), rather than a wikt:nullity. My mistake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It was an earnest question, so as a reminder, non-"verbal" is lost in text. 99.181.130.125 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I can no longer accept that, unless you have too little knowledge of English to participate in en.Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Limits to AGF goes many ways; Wikipedia:Do not insult the Vandals. If you want respect, give respect at length. 99.19.43.126 (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Any proof for this section? There has been no references to actual OECD reports or news articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.226.53 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this section needs to be properly referenced additionally it needs to be expanded, I am not particularly knowledgeable on the subject but feel I know more than is written here at least terms of a frame work, I am not the person to expand on it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardasnejonas (talk • contribs) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deindustrialization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060923102510/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061121132950/http://team.univ-paris1.fr/teamperso/boulhol/flashEN/desindusEN.pdf to http://team.univ-paris1.fr/teamperso/boulhol/flashEN/desindusEN.pdf/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927165557/http://www.praxis.ee/data/WP_17_20042.pdf to http://www.praxis.ee/data/WP_17_20042.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Jim.henderson (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference to patents seems incorrect

This sentence: "Research has pointed to investment in patents rather than in new capital equipment as a contributing factor." is not supported by the referenced working paper, so I added a 'failed verification' tag. Perhaps the person who originally added the sentence can explain their reasoning?