Talk:Five-year plans of China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

  • Would this be more useful if the goals were sorted in reverse, oldest first? (User:StephenWeber)
  • Current article has quite a bit of commentary, especially for the First goals. (User:StephenWeber)

Seems positively skewed, especially the discussion of the Great Leap Forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.185.88 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong article?[edit]

Under the 9th FYP, we have this: "Its goals included capping population growth at 300 million," which is silly. The footnote, moreover, refers to a book by Pan Letian about the 1958-62 period. Something is very wrong here! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this deleted section be moved to another article?[edit]

At the press conference announcing the Five-Year Plan by the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabou, on March 14, 2011, there was no mention of a massive security action reportedly taken in recent weeks to stifle calls for a jasmine revolution in China, that called for "Sunday-afternoon protests in city centres".[1]

move? 99.181.159.54 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ "China's National People's Congress: Ask no evil, speak no evilness". The Economist.

Move?[edit]

Just for consistencies sake, on the dab page Five-year plans, all entries except China now have "Five-Year Plans ...." (Y & P capitalised) in the title. I moved a 'redirect to section' for Ethiopia to achieve the same effect. This is a much more prominent page, hence bringing it to talk for consensus.

Now I have found out that the page was moved from that title 2010 [1]. Opinions? - 220 of Borg 05:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic track-record of China's Five-Year Plans[edit]

I propose adding data on costs and benefits on China's more recent Five-year Plans from the Oxford China Study. Please note I am a co-author of the cited publication. I therefore kindly suggest that another editor takes a look at my proposed edit to check and verify that it’s okay and to execute it if it is. If it is not okay, kindly let me know how I can improve it, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atifansar (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-request template and proposed text should have been placed here instead of in the article. However, since nobody has objected to the addition itself in the couple of weeks it‘s been up, I’m leaving it in. Not being sufficiently conversant with the subject matter, I’ve put the template here to keep the page in the relevant category, for review by someone who is.—Odysseus1479 21:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: @Atifansar: As Odysseus1479 already stated, you should've requested the edit on the talk page. Nevertheless, I've had a look and it's all fine. Thanks for your contribution! st170e 21:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - I have reverted the edit. The editor in question may wish to review the relevant guidelines, (The following text is attributed to a reversion answer by The Gnome, as I find it to be particularly helpful - Rmvd student paper citation lacking notability; Wikipedia is not a place where essays are published, nor a scientific journal). Else, it may be an issue of undue weight. Relisting content for further discussion. Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

@VB00: thanks for bringing this to light. I was under the impression that this was a published piece of work by Oxford. In that case, I'd recommend this edit request be declined until further independent sources come to light, which should be provided by Atifansar. --st170e 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure if it varies between different subjects, but shouldn't a single study, even if it is an independent review, not be given so much "space" in the article? Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I originally thought it was published, but a research paper can't be used as a single source on Wikipedia, especially for the length as you've just mentioned. The editor in question may have good intentions, but additional verification is needed. st170e 13:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@St170e and VB00: Although the cited link below goes to the SSRN site, the published version from the Oxford Review of Economic Policy may be found at [2]. I certainly would not have left the content in if it hadn’t been apparently peer-reviewed.—Odysseus1479 20:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Additional information needed @Odysseus1479: This is getting confusing now. The study is from Oxford's Saïd Business School, although it is unclear which position the authors occupy (students/professors) from the brief descriptions on the journal page. If it can be established that the study is in fact reliable, it should at least be compressed into the approximate size of the first proposed paragraph. Regards, VB00 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so it appears that the authors are in fact faculty members, however, the proposed edit is an introduction of another whole section, and without other references provided to back it up, such an addition cannot be done. If the request is to be accepted, the whole section will have to be based on multiple sources to back up the claims. Closing request. Regards, VB00 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request

Economic track-record of China's Five-Year Plans[edit]

China's Five Year Plans have undoubtedly mobilized vast resources, particularly to build new infrastructure. A 2016 study from University of Oxford's Saïd Business School, for example, found that thanks in large part to targets set in Five Year Plans, China is the world’s biggest spender on fixed assets in absolute terms. China spent US$4.6 trillion in 2014 accounting for 24.8 per cent of worldwide total investments and more than double the entire GDP of India. By way of comparison, China’s total domestic investment was merely 2.1 per cent of the world total in 1982. China has been in the grips of the biggest investment boom in history for over 15 years.

However, the study also found that over half of the infrastructure investments in China have destroyed, not generated economic value. The study – authored by Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier and Daniel Lunn – is based on an analysis of 95 large Chinese road and rail transport projects and 806 transport projects built in rich democracies, the largest dataset of its kind. ‘From our sample, the evidence suggests that for over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades the costs are larger than the benefits they generate, which means the projects destroy economic value instead of generating it,’ comments Dr Atif Ansar, co-author of the study.

The pattern of cost overruns and benefit shortfalls in China’s infrastructure investments is linked with China’s growing debt problem. The study estimated that cost overruns have equalled approximately one-third of China’s US$28.2 trillion debt pile. China’s debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds that of many advanced economies, such as the United States, and all developing economies for which data are available, e.g., Brazil, India, and Nigeria. Because many corporations and financial institutions in China are state owned, revised calculation of China’s implicit government debt as a proportion of GDP suggests that China’s is the second-most indebted government in the world after Japan’s. Extraordinary monetary expansion has accompanied China’s piling debts: China’s M2 broad money grew by US$12.9 trillion in 2007–13, greater than the rest of the world combined. The result is increased financial and economic fragility. [1] ---

References

  1. ^ Atif Ansar, Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier, and Daniel Lunn, 2016, Does Infrastructure Investment Lead to Economic Growth or Economic Fragility? Evidence from China, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 32, No. 3, Autumn, pp. 360–390. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2834326

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Five-year plans of China. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Five-year plans of China. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion[edit]

A move to Five-year plans of the Communist Party of China is proposed.

I am not so convinced and believe the idea merits discussion first.

The proposed page title is less WP:concise. I am not so sure "...of [CPC/CCP]" is a common name either. One view is that "...of party" although longer is more WP:precise. I am also not so convinced of this, especially as it raises the contention of whether the correct rendering in English is Communist Party of China or Chinese Communist Party. I am someone who concludes that CPC is more correct, but in any case it strikes me as good to avoid the CPC/CCP article naming contentions unless there is more meaningful benefit.

I am open-minded on the issue but tend to think the article name should stay as is. If the consensus is ultimately to change it to "...of [party]," I would strongly favor starting fresh with the correct CPC rendering. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I think further on this, another reason the proposed name may be less precise is that FYPs are drafted by the CPC Central Committee but approved and further detailed by the NPC. Like many aspects of Chinese governance, they are a mixed party-state process. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"2nd Five-Year Pla" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect 2nd Five-Year Pla has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 15 § 2nd Five-Year Pla until a consensus is reached. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 06:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Second Five-Year Pla" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Second Five-Year Pla has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 15 § Second Five-Year Pla until a consensus is reached. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 06:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Five-year_plans_of_China&oldid=1202034833"