This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economics imperialism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Non-economic areas of life? This must be the work of a non-economist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.78.50 ( talk) 10:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
STRONGLY agreed!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.99.58 ( talk) 23:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The pre-25 April 2008 Edit of the article was restored (wiht slight editing to restore a link). The reason is that the 25 April Edit completely changed the subject of the article and usage of the article title, which is a valid usage attested at for example the top Google Scholar hit: Edward Lazear, "Economic Imperialism". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. February 2000, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 99-146
Another usage, to which the recent Edit was referring, is that at the above Google School hit #6 for the same term: David S. Landes, "Some Thoughts on the Nature of Economic Imperialism," The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Dec., 1961), pp. 496-512.
A suggestion wiuld be the other usage have a separate article & title (say "Economic imperialism (politics)"). -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"Economic imperialism" is definitely a term used within the social sciences to describe this phenomenon. I think it's an unfortunate term when put into a dictionary like this because it really confuses with the broader, more natural notion of imperialism of an economic nature. Fine [1] suggests economics imperialism instead:
“I prefer the term economics imperialism, as well as colonisation of the other social sciences, but not economic imperialism - favoured by the mainstream despite total neglect of the latter’s incidence in reality [...]. Note that Olson and Kähkönen (2000) reject the term imperialism on the grounds that no force is used in the cross-disciplinary expansion by economics. They prefer the equally revealing metaphor of economics as the metropolis, extending its influence to the suburban social sciences.” (Fine, note 1)
I'm not sure if we should adopt that because a little bit of searching seems to indicate Fine's expression failing to take off.
My suggestion is we leave "Economic imperialism" to its more natural interpretation, and label this article "Economic imperialism (social science)". CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, the article is moved, and a disambiguation tag is at the top here. The unfortunate thing is that there's no really good article for the other meaning of "economic imperialism". What that means is that I'm not sure what to do with the economic imperialism which is now a redirect here. I think it should properly redirect to an article on the other meaning, but if it gets sent to Neocolonialism, there's no disambiguation link back to this article. Hm. O, hell, I'll just put a disambiguation link there, even if it looks funny. CRETOG8( t/ c) 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to stick this here so I didn't lose it...
Economics offers by far the best insight into the workings of tradition and command-run societies...
If I'm hungry then I'll go to Subway and sacrifice/destroy $5 in exchange for a sandwich. There's an obvious causality between loss/sacrifice and gain/profit. However, if somebody is an atheist then the causality between sacrificing to Great Spirits and finding game is nonobvious. Why do we give our taxes/sacrifices to intermediaries/congress? We do so because we think the causality is obvious when in reality it isn't. Sacrificing to "false" gods is simply a waste of limited resources. Markets produce abundance because each and every one of us is free to make our sacrifices to organizations that we as individuals perceive to have to the most obvious causality. -- Xerographica ( talk) 15:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this a derogatory term, as with e.g. "linguistic imperialism"? If it's not used neutrally we should mention that. Equinox ◑ 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Economics empiricism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
On 9 February 2017 someone moved this article from Economics imperialism to Economics empiricism, claiming “Though economics can be done "imperially", in this case we're talking about empiricism”. This is ridiculous—the concept has nothing to do with empiricism, which is the use of observation. The imperialism dealt with is in both theoretical and empirical contexts. I’m going to move the page back. Loraof ( talk) 18:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)