Talk:Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

Feedback from Govt Class

Can you change the third paragraph of the intro so that it is about the goals of the PRPS process and then notes the problem each goal was supposed to solve? This makes it less about problems with aid and more about the PRSPs. Let me know if that doesn’t make sense. Under participatory process, I think it is really important to talk a bit about how this actually plays out or not. This will make the section more balanced. I realize this can also be in criticism later, but I think it is better to address it right where you talk about the issue to avoid any bias. Similarly, one could talk about problems of data and information in the poverty analysis part. For the other sections, I think you are on the right track. For a few more sources, try this strategy. Using scholar.google.com, search PRSP. You will get the Dijkstra article you are already using, then under the entry for it, click ‘Related articles’. You will get a ton of articles, then you can go to the Mills library site and see if we have access to any of them. They should help you fill in more about the formulation process and hopefully the others as well. Prof M Johnson (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Professor. Thanks for your input. Please look below in the "Improving this Article" section where I have outlined what new improvements I've made.Cbielass (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer Feedback

This article is really good. In fact, now I'm curious about specific examples. I'd suggest discussing exactly what the analysis was looking for, especially when you're discussing the core principles the government was analyzing the data with. I am particularly interested in this principle "partnership-oriented, involving coordinated participation of development partners (government, domestic stakeholders, and external donors)

Otherwise this is very informative. If there is any specific examples with developing countries that show when this strategy failed and when it succeeded that'd be a good addition, especially if it has the specific factors that contributed to the failure or success. It would be interesting to name the particular policies that were critiqued here, "Critics argue that the criteria used to judge PRSPs by the World Bank and IMF are actually used to impose neo-liberal policies along the lines of the Washington Consensus, and that these policies tend to increase poverty rather than decreasing it."

Otherwise, good job! Super interesting. Duthomas (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am required to write a strategy paper on improving employee engagement in my Buisess. I need a speciment / template of a strategy so that I approach the issue in a structured manner.

Regards

Hassan Aftab Human Resource Manager Polyester Business ICI Pakistan Limited

Wikipedia is not a forum. i get scolded.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Improving This Article

For my Politics of Developing Nations class, I am going to be improving this wikipedia article. Considering there are basically only sentences of information on Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers in this article, any amount of elaboration would be an improvement. I plan on giving a more detailed definition of what a PRSP is and what exactly it entails. I also would like to include how these papers are developed and how external international influence affects the impoverished nations who are applying for relief aid. I would like to include at least a couple case studies. Cbielass (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cbielass,

This is a good idea. I think you will find there is a large debate on how much PRSP's are "owned" by the country's writing them and how much the people effected by them participated in the process of elaborating them. You may also want to discuss how PRSPs are supposed to guide lending and aid from here on out and whether they seem to be doing so. I'm not sure case studies work well in Wikipedia encyclopedia entries, but this is a question you could ask one of our on-line ambassadors as we move forward.

Prof M Johnson (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback!

Actually, I was thinking of including a few case studies to illustrate the implementation and effectiveness of using the PRSPs as a guide for lending and aid. I will ask Neelix once I have a better idea of where I'd like to go with that.

Cbielass (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Article had very little information already. I tried to work with what was already there, but decided to delete the IMF quote because I thought the information could be better paraphrased as part of the explanation of the PRSP. I created two new sections that I am going to want to develop, especially the Challenges section. There has been a lot of research done on the ineffectiveness of PRSP. Tonight I worked mostly on updating the explanation of what a PRSP is and what its intended purpose is. I am still contemplating whether or not I want to give an example of a country's PRSP.

Cbielass (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My edits after first round of review:

• I decided to make things more straight forward by adding a new section just for "Goals" so that the goals of the PRS could be outlined more easily. I changed the structure of the explanations of the goals so that there was a better emphasis on the goals, not the problems from which they sprouted. I believe this is what Professor Johnson was suggesting. I also read two new articles, which I cited, in order to go a bit more in depth with the goals.
• I added a bit more to the participatory process section, specifically in regards the ways it plays out in reality. I read a new article and cited it.

Cbielass (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography for New Content

Fraser, Alastair. 2005. “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Now Who Calls the Shots?” Review of African Political Economy 104/105: 317-340. doi:10.1080/30356240500329346

Grindle, Merilee and Edward S. Mason. 2002. "Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries." Prepared for the Poverty Reduction Group of the World Bank. Harvard University. http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/HD32.pdf.

Ministry of Economy and Development. 2005. "Burkina Faso Poverty Reduction Paper, 2004 Implementation Report". Fifth edition. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRS1/Resources/Burkina_Faso_APR2-PRSP(may2005).pdf

Whitehead, Ann. 2003. "Failing Women, Sustaining Poverty: Gender in Poverty Reduction Papers." Report for the UK Gender and Development Network. http://www.siyanda.org/docs/gad_failingwomen.pdf.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   This ESL finds it reasonable.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article and should not contain any new information. This leads fails that, as it does not provide an overview of major sections (such as formulation or criticism) and makes claims (for example, by mentioning Country Assistance Strategies) that do not appear in the body. Two external links are dead, please review and comment or fix. The article has next to no blue links outside lead (failure per WP:BTW). Too much of the content seems to be in a bullet format rather than prose. There is improper bolding (Public Finance Management (PFM)). There are plagiarism issues, for example at least one sentence in the goals section is a verbatim copy of [1]

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Many references are missing an url allowing for a direct access.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Citation density is insufficient. Most if not all sentences should be referenced, whereas this article has only one-per para reference at first, and than degenerates to no references (content and criticism sections).

   C. No original research:

   Unreferenced criticism section raises an NOR red flag.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Does not answer some basic questions: when have those papers / strategies originated, and who created them? Where have they been used? Trends?

   B. Focused:

   What information is here seems on topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Criticism section is present, but no rebuttals, or praise.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars or such.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No images, no problems.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No images to speak of. Even if taking a picture of the paper in question is difficult, we could at least include a picture of the most closely associated agency or such. I'd like to see a discussion of what pictures could be included, and at least a rationale on why no picture is appropriate.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold awaiting responses. Please let me know if anything is not clear; please consider pinging me on my talk page to ensure I am notified ASAP. If something is addressed, please make a clear note of that both here and in the edit summary. If I am not notified of any changes on my talk page, I may not revisit this page before a week or so, when I will assess the progress made based on the comments here, and if no rationale have been presented for extra time, I'll pass or fail the article based on its state at that time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

   The week mark is close, and I am seeing no sign of life. This is disappointing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus. I will be making edits this evening. Thanks for your feedback.Cbielass (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Please note that if there are no comments here, I'll rereview and pass/fail this article within a week of this comment. Please note, in particular, that this article will be failed if even one of the things I mentioned above is not fixed, so I strongly encourage you to ask questions if anything is not clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see some work was done few days ago, but no comments were left here. There has been significant improvement, but issues I raised at "broad in its coverage" above, "fair representation" and on images still remain as they are. First sentence/para in criticism is unreferenced. Some references are missing a date. I'll give the editors here a three day grace period to respond here. If I see no action here, I'll have to fail this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As the above issues remain undressed, with no further comments here from the concerned editors, I am afraid I have little choice but to fail this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Very poorly worded

Article

Typhoon2885 (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mills College supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)