Talk:Hernando de Soto (economist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Peru WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. | ||
| ??? | This page has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. See how to rate it. | |
|
WikiProject Peru To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Other path
The original Spanish-langauge title of De Soto's 1986 book is El otro sendero. This does, indeed, translate as "the other path", but in a Peruvian context at that time, it seems almost certain to me that the title must be an allusion to the Maoist Sendero Luminoso ("Shining Path") guerrillas. Does anyone think otherwise? -- Jmabel 20:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC) --- I believe de Soto actually makes this connection explicit in the introduction to his second book - I don't think it's extremely important - the fact that his policies undermined Shining Path is far more important than a literary allusion - but I certainly wouldn't be against adding a mention of it. Chris Edgemon 06:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article as it is is POV, almost flamingly admiring of de Soto who is not an undisputed figure. If I have time, I'll add some of the critiques leveled against both him and his work, until then I just wanted to draw attention to that. The Milton Friedman prize pretty clearly gives away what political side de Soto is on (and revered by). bastel (19 July 2005)
I have done a major expansion, adding a lot of criticism and some praise. While I'll freely admit that I myself am not necessarily unbiased against de Soto, I've tried my best to be fair towards him and his followers. If anything turned out POV, I'll be glad to consent to any edits. I've also added quite a number of links that I found very interesting. I was considering taking out the nobel prize link, because that seems extremely unrealistic and it's a couple of years old, I decided to leave it in for the moment, but if other people agree, I'd suggest taking it out. bastel 05:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Indian wars to the east, Indian wars to the west - the POV of this article swings back and forth! All I could do is add the fact that all sides of this issue have idealogical biases. --L. 21:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- One way to make the POV back and forth a little less jarring, and perhaps more professional, is to source the criticism. I notice a lot of pronouns, but I have no idea who "they" are. Presently it reads like two competing presuasive essays instead of an encyclopedia article. Coleca 11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone dropped an entire interview into the article. May be a copyvio. Could someone look into this? Meanwhile, I've moved it to Talk:Hernando de Soto (economist)/interview -- Jmabel 15:30, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] & Marx
I've cut the following recently added passage:
Of course, de Soto's own work is as dependent on Marx's central theorems, such as the role of capital. The brunt of criticism directed towards de Soto's theory revolves around the fact that it does not address inequality, as the World Bank's own redistribution with growth policies did.
- "Of course" is pure POV.
- I'm unaware of anything in de Soto's work that draws on a specifically Marxian understanding of capital, let alone on Marx's central theorems. Are you just talking about reinvestment of surplus, or what?
- "…de Soto's theory… does not address inequality&hellip" Seems utterly wrong to me. He may disagree with some of us as to the causes and remedies of inequality, but he certainly presents himself as addressing precisely that.
Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sources? Studies?
Could (should?) we have some more detail and/or sources for this?
- Critics, however, argue that the so called Fujishock had devastating social consequences.
It looks vague and unsupported, as is.
Also, have any studies (preferably independent) been done assessing the impact of his work on poverty and the economy?
Take a look at Prof. Erica Field's work (Princeton and Harvard). Her stuff comes up on Google.
--Singkong2005 01:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- On critics of Fujishock, you might see Alberto_Fujimori#Legacy. I believe that you can find citations there. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
One fairly standard and in depth critique of de Soto is: Bromley, Ray (1994): "Informality de Soto Style: From Concept to Policy", in: Rakowski, C.A. (eds.), Contrapunto. The Informal Sector Debate in Latin America, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 131-52. This one mentions some of the implications of de Soto style policies, too.
Most of the ILO overviews of the literature discuss the limitations of the "legalist" school, which they explicitly associate with de Soto, for example this report.
The "independent" studies is a tricky question, Bromley is an academic author, does that count? I think the Slate article mentions a couple of social scientists, too. bastel 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] de Soto and Chavez?
I read this article on Venezuela which says this:
- "In cities across the country neighborhoods are organizing, with help from the government, to draw up maps of the settlements where poor people have built houses on public land so they can get titles to their houses, thereby creating massive amounts of private property in the form of titled real estate. The government has been quite encouraging to capitalist development in general, seeing it as fundamental to a prosperous society."
This sounds to me like a de Sotoist plan. Does anyone know of de Soto's influence in Hugo Chavez' Venezuela? Seabhcán 11:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV insertions
The following edits by KDRGibby appear to be pure POV insertions. They are also not very well written. Some of the surrounding material also has POV problems: while I believe it to be an accurate summageion of what de Soto's critics say, it lacks attribution. KDRGibby's insertions, however, seem to be nothing more than his personal response to those critics, and the use of "should" seems particularly inappropriate. The previous wordings may have been weaselly as to attribution, but the additions are outright POV in the narrative voice of the article.
The additions are bolded in the following; I've also provided the relevant context.
- The lack of a significant increase in lending to the poor by private banks leads critics to believe that his policies are oversold. Though they do not take into account possible regulatory interferences with the bank and problems with legal contract law.
- Others have claimed that by legalizing the property of the poor, de Soto's policies have led to their land being subjected to higher taxes and regulations than they were in the informal economy, thus leading to more inefficiency than under an informal property regime. But this should not be viewed as a criticism of De Soto, but as a criticism of big government interference as De Soto criticizes.
My gut is simply to remove Gibby's passages, but I will allow a few days for someone to see if they can reword this in a way that is at least no worse than the surrounding material. - Jmabel | Talk 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism Section
A criticism section aggressively defensive of de Soto is not a 'Criticism Section'. Haberstr 16:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Does this seem a bit long? I did not know that de Soto had so many mainstream detractors. Any sugegstions to prune/modify before I take my shears out? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- He's definitely a controversial figure, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way: he has many supporters and many detractors. He is pretty much the point man for the positive potential of "underground" free markets. This has led to opposition from two directions: on one hand, the legalists (and elite capitalists) who like markets but dislike and distrust these "irregular" markets that form among the poor, and, on the other hand, those who dislike or simply distrust market capitalism itself. Both groups doubt the efficacy of the policies he advocates, often for starkly contrasting reasons. - Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I just rewrote this to include the citations for the various points of view that were mentioned and to eliminate some weasel words. Please feel free to add more, or re-insert some lines of thought that I may have inadvertently missed. It would be especially helpful to have sourced responses from de Soto and admirers. Either way, PLEASE attribute them to a certain person and avoid weasel words. Trailer1
DeSoto wants people who live on unregistered land in illegal housing, usually in slums, to have ownership rights to that land so they can borrow from banks. The problem is, when that happens, most of the holders then sell the land for needed cash. The result is that instead of helping the local people, we end up with a typical development project where the land is cleared and rebuilt. But the people wholived there have been further marginalized.
We need to face the fact that the current operation of capital is, on average, to concentrate wealth and increase poverty at the margins. As an Indian Economist I know has said "The international business community knows how to create wealth, but not how to distribute it." Dougcarmichael 02:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Article talk pages are for working on the article (and secondarily for making queries when you figure that someone watchlisting this article is a good candidate to answer your query). They are not intended as a place for general open-ended discussion and expression of personal opinions. - Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Criticism really the correct heading for this section? No one seems to have issue with De Soto's point that property rights are a good thing. The "criticisms" posted either are directed to uneducated readers who interpert De Soto's advocaty of property rights as a silver bullet, or they claim that De Soto has overstated the benifits of property rights, but none that I saw said that property rights are a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.45.160 (talk) 22:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
The article has been vandalized repeatedly over the past few months, and there are still sentences missing in some places. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the article would give it a thorough review. Wachholder0 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- As of 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC) nothing looks vandalized (and unfixed) since late December. Can you be more specific about problems? Or perhaps they were fixed since your comment. - Jmabel | Talk 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PHOTO
I don't know how to add photo's and am too busy today to learn, but de Soto has a great look, so someone should do a google image search and put one up. That's all. Thanks.
[edit] Puff Piece PR, not an article
This reads like public relations for De Soto and ILD, not an encyclopedia article about him/it. Even the "Criticisms" section (the best part of the article) seems heavily biased towards Hernando. There's no need to mention The Economist's lavish praise twice in one article. Economists (and legal scholars and others) have for 100 years emphasized the role of property rights as a fundamental building block for the poor and middle class. Neither intellectually nor in policy measures (designed nor implemented) has De Soto had as much impact as his ego/PR machine would like to claim. He labels as "enemies" those who call attention to all his PR efforts. That's pretty extreme language -- especially to apply to those who are simply 'calling a spade a spade.' DBrnstn 18:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
