Talk:Economic Freedom of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] Moldova

There is no data on Economy of Moldova?

[edit] Map of economic freedom

  • I know it comes directly from the Heritage Foundation, but that map is screwed up, and I'm not just talkin' bout the northern hemisphere projection bias! Why is the European part of Turkey a different color than the Asian part, did it secede?? And when did Japan take Sakhalin back from Russia?! --AlexLibman 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section POV

Most of the criticism section, rather than explain the criticism, rebuts it. This could possibly be subdivided or put in its own section, but as it stands the section is more of a point-counterpoint than a criticism section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meviin (talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

NPOV states that the view of all sides should be represented. The section could be renamed to "Criticisms and arguments for". Having two separate sections will make it difficult to follow the debate.Ultramarine 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My point was that all sides are not currently represented. In each paragraph of the criticism section, the first sentence is dedicated to the criticism and every following sentence is dedicated to why that criticism might be wrong. This sounds like one side being given "undue weight" and that only the general idea of the critics is being stated while more complete argumentation for the other side is being presented would indicate bias. There is not one single example given for the critics side, while there are many examples for the proponents' side. The arguments on the critics' side are presented as arguments, whereas the arguments on the proponents' side are presented as facts. Thus, this section is POV and in need of a rewrite. If anyone thinks that my arguments as to why this is POV are wrong, we can debate it out, but in the mean time I'll tag it as NPOV disputed. If noone has any objections, I will soon tag it as biased. Meviin 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research

The argument that economic freedom correlates with "higher life expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption" is empirically wrong. The social democracies and general EU states, as well as Canada, all have higher life expectancies and higher rates of literacy then the United States, even though the US is rated as economically more free. Likewise these listed outperform Hong Kong, the economically freest country, to an even higher degree. In fact, many of the least economically free in comparison to other developed nations listed (Denmark, Sweden, and Norway) have THE highest levels of life expectancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.131.44 (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You forget that the correlation is statistical. The few outlier data you cited are accounted for in the averages. The correlation is not "empirically wrong" just because of your small outlier samples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.51.115 (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is encyclopedic about "criticism"

Seriously,why is there a criticism section?If you want to bash economic freedom,you can do somewhere else mmkay?This has nothing to do with the article and should be deleted.

...it's not about "bashing economic freedom" or even criticizing economic freedom. It's about criticism of these specific politically-biased organizations' definitions of what constitutes "economic freedom". — Red XIV (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism"

The topic of Criticism should not be deleted, as understanding the controversy is part of understanding the index. If you look up any philosophical or academic entry on Wikipedia, you will find a section regarding popular criticisms.

What is odd is that the "Criticism" section is piss poorly written. As stated above, it contains more rebuttles of critics rather than giving those critics a fair shake to make their arguments. This does not serve the interests of education, and thus, this section really needs a rewrite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.23.54 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


Likewise the issue of how only the developed world is presented is not adequately addressed. The counter-critics argue that economic development is not taken into account directly, but that is irrelevant to the claim of sample bias. Likewise why isn't the issue of how certain economies, namely 4th world, have virtually no government regulations due to the fact that they do not have stable governments? Somalia for example has no institutions comparable to the FDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.131.44 (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Likewise there are multiple problems with the rebuttals of criticism. First, the criticism concerning how only first world nations are addressed does not negate the charge of biased sample even if monetary measures are not explicitly used.

Second, arguing that the free economic practices of the country are responsible for the economic growth is possibly post hoc. Likewise the issue of how the economies may have grown due to geography is not adequately taken into account, though geography has been proven to play a major role in the development of inequities between nations in such works as Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel

Third the reasoning in the statement: "Another criticism is that for example China, and more generally several other developing nations, have high growth rates but relatively low economic freedom. However, developing nations should generally have higher growth rates than developed nations, since, for example, they are catching up and do not need to research new technologies initially. China started with very high poverty and very low economic freedom. "To be sure, China's economic freedom measures just 54 percent in 2007. But 30 years ago in 1977, the measure would have been near zero. By quietly setting aside Maoist dogma in 1978, the introduction of property rights for small farmers by Deng Xiaopeng initiated a revolution in economic freedom. As Milton Friedman anticipated, this small infusion had dramatic and positive effects. Within a few years, the Communist Party was promoting the slogan 'It is glorious to be rich.' Looking back, China's economic freedom has grown by 1 or 2 percentage points every year for 30 years, and the economy grew along with it: a growth-growth relationship." Chinese growth may slow if the reforms do not continue.[11]"

Does not address the issue that as a "developing nation" China has an atypically high rate of growth. Why is it China has a higher rate of growth then say India, or Pakistan, even though China is an explicitly socialist state? Remember the comparison was between developing nations among themselves, not developing nations vs. developed nations.

Forth, simply noting that the researchers are biased towards capitalism is not an ad hominem but an accusation of publication bias and possible selection bias.

Last, the issue of why Somalia, and other Third and Forth world nations are not considered "economically free" despite the fact that government regulation is virtually absent likewise is not examined or discussed. One would think, that if economic freedom correlated with economic growth that nations without a functional government (and thereby no basis for regulation or public ownership) would be the most free. The argument then that capitalism, or free trade, requires the existence of multiple public/government institutions, and hence economic infrastructure, for maintenance thus negates many laissez-faire claims. It shows that far from being independent of government, systems of trade are highly dependent on the existence of government institutions such as courts, laws, police, military, and inherited technological advancement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.131.44 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The first point above is difficult to understand. Please explain your allegation of biased sample. Where is the bias?

The second point about geography makes sense, and I hope somebody does more research on this. My hunch is that even if geography is considered, the data can support the unmistakable correlation between economic freedom and well-being of a country's citizens.

On the third point, why China has a higher rate of growth than India or Pakistan is in fact explained by the whole paragraph in question: China started very low and had to catch up by a lot more than either India or Pakistan. May be you are confusing RATE of growth with absolute measure of growth in terms of, say, GNP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.51.115 (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding map

On this map, European Turkey is colored as 70-80% free, yet Asian Turkey is 50-59% free... Which is it? Tomertalk 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new 2007 rankings

Fraser Institute has new rankings: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=934 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.80.179 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)