Talk:Economics of religion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archived template: {{EducationalAssignment}}

References

Who is responsible for removing defunct tags, like the source tag on this article? Second, the formatting of the current references seems off, I think there are explanations in the manual of style, or perhaps we should look at examples, like the Max Weber bio article, which was featured before. --Htw3 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Great progress

Great progress everyone! This entry is really coming along. The section on the development of the theory needs work, as does the section on debates. Also there needs to be a section on current research (not all the current work is embroiled in debate with people outside the research tradition, though much is). I know that Dr. Paul Froese at Baylor University has done a bunch of work related to religion and atheism, especially documenting changes in the former soviet union. --Htw3 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Many (all?) of the changes and additions I made a couple seeks ago seem undeveloped. It would be very good to see some new progress. --Htw3 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

supply side form of theory?

Is this a supply side form of theory? How does it explain the difference in religiosity in western Europe and the USA when both have had religious freedom for a long time? Andries (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Andries. Yes, this is a supply side theory. There is not shortage of articles on the topic, and the specific contrast between USA and W. Europe is a well discussed topic. See an introductory set of readings, below: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386688 http://arhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2000/00000039/00000001/art00003journals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.261?cookieSet=1&journalCode=soc http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2000/00000039/00000001/art00003 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0021-8294.00054 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2657339 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386686 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1386556 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2096331 --65.24.145.136 (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

the above was me. --Htw3 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Misguided suggestion

Andries has suggested that this article should be folded into his article on theories of religion. That document is more apprppriate as a senior thesis or a draft of a review article than an encyclopedia. It is too long and not clearly focused on a single topic. While the current article on Religious Economies is largely the product of undergraduate students, it is, however, entirely consistent with the notion of an encyclopedia, in terms of focus[narrow], and is far more attuned to contemporary research in the scientific study of religion than is Andries' personal essay on Theories of Religion.

I would also point out that the template spam at the top of the religious economy entry is a rather thin attempt to bully the situation to one authors personal goals. Sadly, I have little to no time to devote to this topic. But don't take my word for it. In short, any literate person can simply perform basic searches in Google scholar and reveal a number of obvious facts: (1) the theory of religious economy is a vibrant contemporary area of research (2) there are several scholars [e.g. PhDs in sociology, political science, etc] actively involved, including at least: Stark, Bainbridge, Iannaccone, Finke, Gill, Froese, Warner, Lu, Bader, Grim, Lang, Chesnut. . . . (3) Religious Economy is the proper term to define the field, as it refers to the unique contribution of the theory to the debate, rather the than the generic and implicitly derogatory 'rational choice' label. I hope that the many good Wikipedians can weigh in on this situation after doing a modicum of background research. Once again, I ask you not to take my word as an assessment of the situation-- Google can illuminate far more persuasively than I. and this.--Htw3 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed one template, but I think there is very good reason for the other three templates.The topic is not properly introduced and contextualized.

The language also needs a lot of work and questions in an encyclopedia article is not the appropriate tone. Examples of sentences that need work are.

"The reason European churches have such low attendance is because they don't believe. But they churches are not offering what the religious market wants."

"Why are strict churches growing in popularity in US and around the world? Are less strict churches in decline, or are they simply later in their organizational and demographic life cycles?"

""See Liberal Islam, Liberal Judaism, Liberal Christianity, Conservative Judaism and Conservative Christianity." Comment:the questions are not answered or explained in these articles

Andries (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that this article needs a great deal of work. The main sections are underdeveloped, the language is awkward in several places, and the entire section surveying different types of religions is an unhelpful distraction. Also, I agree that the introduction is overly terse and lacks context. However the intro is largely correct, and can be easily improved. Unless anyone objects I will make changes to the intro, eliminate the lame survey of religions section, clean up some language and make stronger connections to the research literature where I can see the connections. --Htw3 (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I admit that this is a valid encyclopedia subject, but the article as such contains only little redeemable encyclopedic contents and can hence quite easily be included in the article theories of religion. For example, digressions about the contents of the various religions and moral values are off topic here and its relations with the this theory can be described in one or two sentences. Once the rational choice section of that article gets too big than a summary will be kept there and this will be the main article. Andries (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it would be a mistake to fold this article into the longer religion article. In short, the rational choice approach to religion (see Iannaconne's 2006 overview) is both a more general, and less informative title for the specific research tradition associated with the notion of religious economies. In the longer religion article it is helpful to remember that, while the religious economy research program is the largest and most active thread of research applying economic models to understand religious dynamics, it is not the only type of research that seeks to explain aspects of religion with models derived (partly) from economic models. --Htw3 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to edit accordingly. Please note that the intro should contain a complete summary of the article as per WP:LEAD. I will at least wait two more weeks from now before I merge if I ever merge. I find the excerpt that I quoted here above quoted unintelligible. Andries (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this an ongoing assignment?

Is this article an ongoing assignment, or is it open to editing by anyone?--Editor2020 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is open to anyone to edit. It is no longer the subject of an assignment. Please feel free to make it better. I will try to make some substantive improvements also, but can only do so as my other time demands allow. --Htw3 (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Early Development/Research (removed from article)

• H. Richard Niebuhr: In his 1929 publication, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, Niebuhr discusses the competing denominations of Christianity. Niebuhr states that economic factors are the primary cause of divisions of the church. Also, Niebuhr suggests that economic stratification is responsible for maintaining divisions in the church that were caused by other factors.

So, this is a great paragraph, but it doesn't at all deal with the topic of the theory of religious economy. In grossly oversimplified terms, ToRE advocates say religion is an exchange of goods between men and gods--worship for eternal life, for instance. Niebuhr, on the other hand, and again grossly oversimplified, said that rich folk don't like to go to church with poor folk. I'm sure this paragraph can find an appropriate home here in Wikipedia somewhere, but this article really isn't the place for it, despite the similarities of terms used. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Further reading versus notes/references

Can you please seperate the books and papers that have been used for the article from the further reading section? The first should go into a notes/references section. The section further reading should only contain works that have not been cited. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout.Andries (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, new editors!

Hi, and thanks to all of you who are learning to edit Wikipedia by expanding this article. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, please understand that the edits that I and others make have the goal of IMPROVING your contributions. A couple of quick points:

• Additions to the article are not signed, but contributions to the talk pages (i.e., here) are.
• References to the same souce (e.g., Stark's Sociology book) can be combined, rather than repeated. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Jclemens, References to the same book should be made more detailed with page numbers, not combined. Andries (talk)
  • Err, right--that's another improvement. What I MEANT to convey is that even in those cases, there's certainly no reason to have the same ISBN and publisher in the reflist 20+ times. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictness and such

I have several problems with the sections entitled "growth of strict religions" and "Strict Regulations to enforce Strong Ties".

• I perceive "Strict" to be pejorative. In all of Stark's writings with which I'm familiar, he uses the terms "church" and "sect" to differentiate between what he characterizes religious movements that maintain low and high tension, respectively, with their societies. Is there a good reason to use "strict" instead of calling out tension between religious movement and society?
• Overall, the use of cult, church, and sect in these sections seems confused and imprecise.
• Is there a good reason to include questions in the text? I'm inclined to rephrase them as statements.
• Last I heard, it was free rider problem not free loader...
• The starting point of the second quote (which ends with "... comply earnestly.") is not indicated.
• ... and there's a few other grammatical errors, tenses and whatnot.

Please feel free to alter your text to make it more clear. I could (and might) fix some or all of these, but I'd rather give the right of first refusal to the editor who included the section. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So what do you suggest as an alternative term for "strict"? The term is used in at least one cited source i.e. Iannaccone, Laurence R. “Why Strict Churches are Strong” American Journal of Sociology. March, 1994. Issue 5. (1180-1211) Andries (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The boundaries between sect and churches are clear only rarely. I will remove the factual accuracy warning because I do not see any in the article or a complaint about it on the talk page. Andries (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute for sub section 'Growth of religions after fall of secular states'

There are very large differences in the level of religiosity of ex-Soviet states. E.g. Estonia is largely irreligious. This should be stated. Andries (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Any particular reason why you tagged it instead of augmenting it yourself? Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a citation at the moment, but here is what the Wikipedia article about Estonia says. (I did not know this from Wikipedia though)

"Estonia has the highest level of irreligious individuals in the world, with over 75% of the population stating no specific religious affiliation."

Andries (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ex Soviet states Lithunia irreligion percentages is 19.4% . For Estonia 75.7%. Source Dentsu Communication Institute Inc, Japan Research Center (2006) http://www2.ttcn.ne.jp/~honkawa/9460.html

Andries (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Ratzinger's 1985 paper

Researchers in the field of religion-based economy and economy-based religion have found insight in the 1985 paper Market Economy and Ethics by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who clearly points out the links between trust-based economies and faith-based morality. Along with many Christian theologians, he claims that trust is in fact a special kind of faith, in close relation with love and hope. It has been said in press articles that Ratzinger was the first to predict the current economic crisis, and therefore this seems quite relevant to the topic. ADM (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of complete section

Feel free to re-add statements to this article or another article in Wikipedia from this removed section that I removed after organizing it per subject. The organization in Wikipedia should be organized per subject, not per research report. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_religious_economy&diff=323531978&oldid=323529688 Andries (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-added all that I thought was interesting and informative enough i.e. only the contents of one subsection of the section that I had removed. Andries (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger

Another editor, not me, proposed to merge Economics of religion into this page. I would oppose doing that, but it might make better sense to merge this more narrowly-defined page into the other, broader page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the titles of the articles are synonyms, so I think that we should merge into the most common name, as per Wikipedia conventions. Not sure now which one yet. Andries (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When I think of "economics of religion" I think of the various systems by which clergy are paid, not religious economy. Right now, Theory of Religious Economy is a very clear and specific title. Rather than merge the content of economics of religion into the ToRE article, I'd rather see EoR rewritten to focus on real economics related to religion, not religion-as-economic-model which Stark and company discuss. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, on second thoughts I agree. Andries (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merger of Economics of religion into Theory of religious economy for the reason stated at the top. No one disagrees on that to this point.

If there is a consensus against that merger (without necessarily requiring unanamity), as determined over some period, say a week, I'd like to propose:

(A) withdrawing the current proposal.

(B) if (A) is accepted, offering for consideration the alternate proposal of merging Theory of religious economy into Economics of religion, as suggested at the top. I believe that the argument against such a merger as given above can be met. I'd of course be open to counterarguments. — Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While we are at this, should we also take a look at the relationship of Wealth and religion to these two articles? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a valid exploration, but that article looks pretty ugly. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: merging this article into Economics of religion... I would strongly oppose such a move. It seems to be the worse direction of the potential merges, and I see no benefit to such a merger. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced that we need to merge anything, although there is a clear need both for article improvements and for better linking between articles. I do not, however, buy the argument that "economics of religion" is generally understood to mean how clergy are paid. I would understand it to refer to how religion and economics impact one another. Even if the "theory of religious economy" has a basis in scholarship, I find it unlikely that general readers, unfamiliar with the subject matter, would search first for that term, whereas they would be more likely to come upon it by way of "economics of religion". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From the above, there is no consensus for merger of Economics of religion into Theory of religious economy, which the current template at Theory of religious economy ("{{Merge from|Economics of religion|discuss=Talk:Theory of religious economy#Merger|date=June 2010}}") at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_of_religious_economy&oldid=370431868 suggests. Indeed, the WP user who proposed the merger has not defended the proposal. Therefore,

Therefore, as indicated above, I'd like to withdraw the proposal of merging Economics of religion into Theory of religious economy alone. However, instead of proposal (B) above, I'd to offer a slightly different proposal, that achieves the same broad result as (B) but in a different way. Call the amended proposal (B1). Discussed below.

Proposal: Merge 'Economics of religion' into 'Theory of religious economy' & change title to 'Economics of religion'

Proposal (per previous section): (B1) Merge Economics of religion (ER) into Theory of religious economy (TRE) & title change of Theory of religious economy to Economics of religion.

Rationale: Practicality, generality, and common usage. For ease of reference:

1T. The TRE article has been around been around since 18 October 2007 compared to 30 December 2009 for ER. The many past editors of TRE might understandably wish to preserve their part in TRE article history, compared to the few at ER. Not a problem if the latter agrees to (B1).

2T. ER is the more general term including not only "theory" but, by common usage, testing of the theory and empirical uses of the theory. ER is the more inclusive term. In practice, a search of http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Theory+of+religious+economy%22&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=80000000000001&as_sdtp=on reveals that most uses of 'TRE' are not purely theoretical but theory plus empirical application. It's fine to mention "religious economy" in ER (as about 30 percent of scholarly articles on ER do), but then why not embed 'religious economy' in the broader term (ER)? Not including that broader usage in the article title is misleading.

3T. TRE has small scholarly usage compared to ER: about 26 Google hits for TRE compared to about 1460 for ER. Why not use the much more commonly attested term in the title?

A merge plus title change will not happen without acceptance. I would hope that there would be enough support, or at least non-opposition for this to happen. In any merger+title change, acknowledgment should be made of the contributions by social scientists outside of economics (most prominently from sociology.

I'd like to welcome further comment, say in the next week, followed by action one way or the other. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think that's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Support for the merger w title change to Economics of religion leads me to conclude that that merger may proceed. I reproduce below how this can be done. It is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Is merging article B into another article A & changing title of A to that of B feasible? (probably to be archived there in another month. It is addressed the Admin/Merge expert.

For completeness, in the subsections following the next one, I include the current Economics of religion content, its abbreviated history, its Talk-page content, all to be archived a month after merger.

Following the advice immediately below copied from User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Is merging article B into another article A & changing title of A to that of B feasible?, I'll merge Economics of religion content into the current article first. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Done with the typical WP-efficient wizardry of User:Anthony Appleyard, merger extraordinaire. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is merging article B into another article A & changing title of A to that of B feasible?

...

I have another proposal now, but I'd like to confirm first that it is technically feasible. The proposal is to merge article B into artlcle A at the same time as changing the title of A to B (or shortly thereafter). Assuming that there was such a merger+title change, could the longer history of A then be preserved in the history of the article? (I understand that the history B would be destroyed in the merger.)

A is Theory of religious economy (started 18 October 2007). B is Economics of religion (started 30 December 2009).

• Thank you for your assistance. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• After the text-merge, ask me to do the move, as only admins will be able to do that move because of existing pages in the way of the move (including moving their talk pages). I will first move the old Economics of religion to Economics of religion/version 2. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• OK, thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Content of 'Economics of religion' article to be merged into 'Theory of religious economy'

The economics of religion applies economic theory and methods to explain:

• religious behavioral patterns, whether of individuals, groups, or cultures
• the social consequences of such behavior.

An example of the first is the seminal analysis of Adam Smith (1776) as to the effect of competition and government regulation (or support) among religious denominations on the quantity and quality of religious services. An example of the second is the thesis of Max Weber (1920) that the 'Protestant ethic' promoted the rise of capitalism.

A microeconomic theory of the household production function and time allocation is associated with the work of Chicago economist Gary Becker. An influential approach dating from the 1970s adapts that theory to explain religious participation and a resulting formation of norms. It postulates stable preferences and rational choice constrained by limited human and social capital to explain behavior.

Religious (or theological) economics is a related subject (sometimes overlapping or conflated with the economics of religion). It uses religious principles to evaluate economic perspectives or vice versa. Another smaller literature considers such practical economic concerns as church growth and efficient resource use.

Recent research on the subject has expanded on various fronts including:

• religious services as consumer goods
• religious organizations as firms
• religious benefits, costs, and markets
• economic analysis of religious doctrines and incentives
• club models of religion
• religious militancy in various forms
• religion as social capital and in cultural interactions
• effects of religious capital
• church-and-state relations
• macroeconomic effects
• demographic relations
• economic development
• historical, national, and cross-national analysis

See also

• Buddhist economics
• Cultural economics

• Economic imperialism (economics)
• Institutional economics

• New institutional economics
• Theory of religious economy
• Sociology of religion

External links

• Economics of Religion Gateway: "What is the economic study of religion?" from the Association for the Study of Religion, Economics, and Culture.
• European Network on the Economics of Religion
• 2004."Economists Are Getting Religion," Business Week
• 2005, "The economics of religion" from http://www.religionlink.org/ for and by journalists

{{DEFAULTSORT:Economics Of Religion}} [[Category:Cultural economics]] [[Category:Study of religion]]

Abbreviated history of 'Economics of religion' article

13:30, 23 June 2010 Thomasmeeks m (25,296 bytes) (?External links) (undo)

...

20:58, 19 June 2010 Tryptofish (25,301 bytes) (fix template) (undo)

08:26, 19 June 2010 Andries (25,238 bytes) ([Template:] It has been suggested that this page or section be merged into Theory of religious economy) ...

13:12, 26 April 2010 FrescoBot m (23,350 bytes) (Bot: links syntax and spacing)

...

00:18, 27 March 2010 Pigman m (22,979 bytes) (clean up, removed stub tag using AWB)

...

00:22, 1 January 2010 Eastlaw m (16,377 bytes) (Quick-adding category Study of religion (using HotCat))

19:33, 30 December 2009 Thomasmeeks (16,308 bytes) (New article)

+ 33 other edits by Thomasmeeks

Content of 'Talk:Economics of religion:Economics of religion'

{{WikiProject Economics|class=|priority=}}

Not CSD worthy, but messy

This article seems messy, and should be organized. Cheers, --Stevedietrich (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good eye. Still, onward & upward, with the help of others one hopes. And may it at least whet the appetite for some of the great sources I drew on (Smith, Iannaccone, et al.). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation Overkill

There are way too many citations and references on the page, far more than needed. any statement that would be enough with a single citation has 3-4 or sometimes 7 citations(71 total at the time of this post), the reference section is larger than the article section, can someone please look into the citations and refine them to one or two appropriate ones, I am not familiar enough with the topic to judge. Thanks --Theo10011 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx for comment. Well, not everyone has access to that one or two perfect citations per subject. Many of the citations are illustrative, not something to be taken as definitive. If this were a fully fleshed out article many of the citations might be weaved into a narrative. In the absence of that, some readers might like more or less. At least those who would like less can just stop at the first reference. Those who really want to get into a subject might prefer to have the choice. Still, I'll take another look at pruning. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, the article is very well cited almost to its fault. If you are familiar with the topic yourself and have access to all these citations might I suggest expanding the article yourself, perhaps you can mention different sources for the definitions separately in the article, at this point the reference section is twice as long as the article itself. One rarely comes across articles with as many citations mostly because some over-zealous editor or administrator will trim them down to conform to guidelines, My reason for leaving the message above was only hoping that someone familiar with the topic can trim or expand it rather than someone who might know little or nothing about the topic just policies and guidelines. Anyway, thanks for your reply and I hope you understand my intention here.--Theo10011 (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I did follow the suggestion of the essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill for combining each batch of citations into a single footnote. This has the added advantage of allowing the reader to demarcate each batch more readily, besides reducing the number of footnotes. Each batch would allow an energetic editor to expand the article carefully using influential sources. Because most of the citations have links, it also allows the interested reader to follow topic threads to investigate those subjects in more detail. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to archive all sections up to "Ways to improve article" in a week

Per the above, nothing recent has been added to earlier sections since July when the article merger and name change were completed. This has the advantage of focusing attention on issues going forward. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. This article still needs plenty of work, so I think WP:Bold is in order however you see fit. Ocaasi (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)