Talk:Dependency theory
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Aid dependency was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 March 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Dependency theory. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgallaga. Peer reviewers: Ericwilcox, Jgallaga.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Last “criticism” listed not backed up by source
editThe last criticism listed, about “subjectivity”— “A large argument opposing the Dependency Theory is the subjectivity in the theory and the terms that are often used. Words such as developed and underdeveloped that construct the argument of dependency theory are subjective and different people will view these different terms in different lights”—is not reflected in the (extremely sparse!) source cited, which states, rather: “It has also been said that dependency theories are highly abstract and tend to use homogenising categories such as developed and underdeveloped, which do not fully capture the variations within these categories.” 67.173.178.159 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- That source is also incredibly vague... 'it has been said'? By who? When? Where? I don't think this would in the slightest cut the mustard here, and so for a source I don't think it does either.
- Additionally the site it is on, sociology discussion, appears to be more or less just a wiki itself, having apparently open submission and only basic guidelines on who can submit an 'article' to their database and what it can say. I believe this, essentially, qualifies it as self-published, again rendering it unsuitable as a source here.
- Finally, and I admit this could simply be failure on my part, I can't really find anything out about the author of the source; no journal articles indicating they are an expert/academic, no newspaper articles indicating them to be a journalist, etc. And so their word seems impossible to back up even setting aside the other issues.
- I am going to simply delete the relevant paragraph from the article for now, pending adequate sourcing.
- -Joey- (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Content on Armenia
editThe inclusion of the following statement has been subject of dispute:
- Armenia's economy depends on its ore exports as the country lacks the technology to produce high-value consumer goods from these ores. Therefore, other countries produce goods with these ores with which Armenia then buys from them.[1] Armenia-Russia trade is an example of the Dependency Theory. The largest export from Armenia is heavy metals which increased during the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Armenia also expanded its exports to Russia in the food sector. Exports of vehicles for land, air, and sea have also increased.[2]
I would argue that as it is expressed here it does not belong in the article since it presents a subjective evaluation as a fact. It also contains some unfortunate oversimplifications like "other countries produce goods with these ores with which Armenia then buys from them" that are not properly backed by a studt of supply chains. Lappspira (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hergnyan, Seda. "2020: Armenia Mainly Exported Mineral Ore; Imported Equipment, Natural Gas". Retrieved 11 December 2021.
- ^ "Armenian trade with Russia raises questions about re-exports | Eurasianet". eurasianet.org. Retrieved 2022-12-08.
Relevance of aid dependency section
editThis section seems to be on a completely different (albeit related) topic that also happens to use the word "dependency." I've not read the work of dependency theorists, so I don't know their views on aid or its place in the larger theory, but aid is not mentioned in the rest of the article, except in the poorly-written criticism section where it's not being mentioned by a dep. theorist. Certainly the Millennium Challenge, conceived by the W. admin and the Heritage Foundation, isn't coming from the position of DT.
If aid does play an important role in DT, and the other sources and perspectives used in this section are coming from DT, then the connection needs to be made clear, because there's certainly no clear relevant at the moment. If, as I suspect, this is a completely different topic that someone put here because they didn't know what DT was, it needs to be split off or deleted. We already have Aid#Criticism and Aid effectiveness, both of which are much better than this section, so at most a "split" would just mean salvaging any worthwhile points covered here but not there and moving them over. Nicknimh (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)