Talk:Democracy and economic growth

Latest comment: 1 year ago by 2A00:23C5:6429:601:6D12:64AA:4D4E:9C25 in topic The article is largely unsupported by research on the issue

New article

edit

I just passed this draft for inclusion into Wikipedia. I think this topic passes notability guidelines but in some ways this reads like an WP:Essay. This is wiki and content can be developed over time but to start here are some ways to improve this article.

  1. Use Wikipedia:Citing sources to format citations beyond bare URLs
  2. Identify the highest quality sources among those cited and present them here on the talk page to guide future development. The highest quality sources will feature "democracy and economic growth" as their own subjects and discuss the concept at length
  3. Try to remove all information in the article not backed by citations

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article is largely unsupported by research on the issue

edit

Most reviews on the relationship between democracy and economic growth have found very little empirical evidence of any direct connections between the two. There is a large body of literature supporting the opposing viewpoint, that autocracy is conducive to growth, but the article (particularly the introduction) seems to indicate that the question of a positive relationship is settled and the debate relates only to the nature of the relationship.

--Bratthees (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree. This article seems to be simply a poor undergraduate essay (or a moderate senior high school essay) and my own view is that it isn't improvable. If Democracy and Growth should exist as a single Wikipedia article, then it should be started again and written much more carefully with appropriate citations and balance. The flaws in this article do not simply reflect poor citations; its framing and structure are simply awful. Much of it is simply nonsensical, beginning with the lead itself: "While evidence of this relationship's existence is irrefutable, economists' and historians' opinions of its exact nature have been sharply split, hence the latter has been the subject of many debates and studies". This literally does not make sense. I'm afraid I don't have time to write the article, but if someone does then they need to take out almost all of the content and start again. 2A00:23C5:6429:601:6D12:64AA:4D4E:9C25 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply