Talk:Index of Economic Freedom

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

America is free?![edit]

Oh come on, this is just blatant propaganda. You have to some brainwashed nut-job to think America is free at all, let alone free market. God. Where to start really--82.43.47.6 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Go live in Zimbabwe or China and complain about their country if you think it's bad here, life is prison is lots of fun there I hear. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because those are free countries, which fit my clear preferences. Oh wait, you were trying to be sarcastic, you're so funny! And America has a far far higher incarceration rate than even those two exemplars of totalitarianism. FAIL.--82.43.47.6 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm. I would like to see an index that simply measures the amount of regulations that oppose the formation of a small business. America would rank among the lowest and "3rd-world" countries among the highest. What this index appears to measure is safety, rather than freedom. 74.140.199.156 (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... no Afghanistan[edit]

From the table: "Due to economic or political instability, Afghanistan, Angola, Bhutan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa), Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Serbia and Montenegro were not ranked." So there you go. —Gabbe 14:42, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
And what's more, Somalia would rank very low if it were ranked, because it doesn't include many of the necessary criteria, such as enforcement of contracts and property rights. The Heritage folks aren't anarchists, after all... --Delirium 15:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Is this type of information not subject to copyright? Presumably, the WSJ and Heritage Foundation paid big bucks to study all of these factors and may have some claim to copyright about the information in the study. I guess that the main question is whether or not this information can be considered as objective fact. I don't think that it is; there is a lot of research that has gone into this information. Feel free to explain why Wikipedia should copy the table of statistics. --timc | Talk 04:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Information cannot be copyrighted, only the means of expressing information. - Montréalais 08:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Economic Freedom for Who?[edit]

Full disclosure up front: I distrust anything the Heritage Foundation publishes, so I can't claim to be unbiased.

The so-called "Index of Economic Freedom" could be re-titled as the "Index of Ease of Foreign Ownership". It doesn't measure actual economic freedom as lived on the streets and storefronts of countries around the world. If it did, it would reflect that countries like Vietnam (which I just returned from) are among the freest, most entrepreneurial, least-regulated of all. Instead, the Heritage "Index" measures the amount of foreign ownership that a country permits, its restrictions on foreign ownership of a country's banking sector, and the degree to which labor, environmental, and accounting laws impede foreign companies' ability to maneuver freely in overseas economies. Dissenting views are welcome, but my own experiences around the world tell me that economic freedom is best measured by referring to the average citizen, not the multi-national concerns seeking entry to new markets.

It measures property rights, which do indeed affect every citizen. The least economically liberal countries are those that have the most difficulty (or choose not) to protect or establish such rights for their citizens, and thus are those with the lowest GDP per capitas (which is the disposable income of the average citizen of a particular country). I have to say I distrust anyone who argues that socialism is the key to properity for a nation. Might we look at Cuba and see what a paradise it is? Do citizens have "economic freedom" there? Those "evil" multinationals give their workers in developing countries wages that are anywhere from two to eight times as high as the incomes they would earn from domestic industries. Explain how this doesn't affect the average citizen?

(Not the same person) If you look at the list you'll see economic freedom as measured by Heritage doesn't necessarily come with prosperity, just look at Estonia and Hong Kong, most people live poorly there, while the French, who sit at 44th place, have a good living for the most part. Some situations in the list are just weird. If we take all the Maghreb countries for example, Lybia ranks by far the worst, but it's where the people are better off (though I'm sure Lybia will be one of the most improved countries now). El Salvador seems pretty good at 24th, but do people really live better there than in Venezuela, Honduras, heck, they're worse off than in Cuba! And I'm 99,99% sure that the Portuguese are much, much more rich than people in Botswana. Etc.
Although your question was adressed to the other guy, it's fairly simple. If for example a country doesn't have much salary restrictions (which helps rise in this list), that means it can make more profits, thus benefitting the GDP/Capita of the country, but not necessarily the average workers.

It should be pointed out that what we ought to be talking about are growth rates rather than general prosperity as some countries have larger initial endowments or have been more free economically for many years than countries above them on the list.

Economic Freedom of the World?[edit]

Cato puts out a similar index, but is not covered on Wikipedia. It should be added to its own thread and linked to the other indices.

Burkina Faso[edit]

Since it is placed simultaneously at 102 and 155 on the index, I nominate Burkina Faso for having the most interesting economic freedom status. Can someone sort that out? Jdcooper 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the second one should be Myanmar, also called Burma. The map provided shows Burkina Faso as orange, and Myanmar as red; it isn't anywhere on the list, and I'm wondering if someone used BUR as a redirect for Burma, rather than Myanmar. I don't know how to edit the table, though. --ByeByeBaby 06:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I fixed it. I took a guess that Myanmar was MYA, and it took. I hope I didn't mess it up. Sandy 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia missing[edit]

Slovenia is missing from the rankings and after a quick glance I noticed that a few countries are misranked compared to the official website of Heritage [1]. edolen1 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know how to edit the table, but also missing are Cameroon and Moldova. --ByeByeBaby 06:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just edit Template:Index of Economic Freedom/Ranking 2006. Slovenia had 2.41, Cameroon 3.46 and Moldova 3.10. Unfortunately editing tables like that is a hell, because of need change rank of more that hundred records. --Jklamo 17:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Article's Concept Of "Economic Freedom" Is Right-Wing Propaganda[edit]

The extreme-right-wing Heritage Foundation's concept of "economic freedom" is highly misleading. Basically, it's just code for "lack of unions and worker's rights." It's also code for giving corporations the ability to run amok, with no responsibility to society (even if that society's population strongly wants corporations to be controlled in some way). Therefore, for all the references to "freedom," it's clear that what the Heritage Foundation considers "freedom," is deeply anti-democratic. Incidentally, outside of giving corporations free reign, this "economic freedom" index doesn't seem to be very helpful to the small mom-and-pop business owners. As evidence for this, I'd point anyone to places like Asia and Continental Europe, where small and medium sized businesses thrive to an extent far beyond what we see in the American economy (which is heavily dominated by giant corporations). I find it interesting how U.S. right-wingers would consider a country like Japan to be anti-business-friendly. The fact is, Japan (with less than one-half of America's population) in fact has a greater number of businesses than the U.S. does.

Right. That must be why bastions of right-wing, laissez-faire economics like Denmark are ranked higher than the United States, land of socialism and economic equality.
Look, this is an index of "economic freedom" as measured by what amounts to the ease of moving capital around without official state impediment--from both a domestic AND international point of view (which is why Japan gets such a mediocre score). You can call that "right-wing propaganda" if you wish, but the results clearly show welfare states with some of the lowest Gini coefficients on earth ranking right next to states with much higher ones, with plenty of the former ranking near the top of the scale. That should indicate to most fair-minded people the ideological neutrality of the measure.
At any rate, the arguments for its supposedly "biased" nature have been included in the article. 24.72.6.129 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is indeed politically biased. The choice of colors (green vs red) and the mixing of multiple types of "freedom" in one metric is highly misleading. The following aspects are counted as net negative: "minimum wage, laws inhibiting layoffs, severance requirements, and measurable regulatory restraints on hiring and hours worked". This clearly right-wing propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.117.59 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia is Freer than Turkey??[edit]

Now, that cracks me up...American way of thanking for all the petroluem they got from Sauds..

My friend, this has nothing to do with Oil. If you'd keep thinking this way then it's better to say why Armenia or Jamaica or Colombia were ahead of both Saudi and Turkey? is there a conspiracy???!!!! please note that this is not a football league so you can get irritated when you don't perform well. And believe me, complete economic freedom is not the surest way to have a prosperous life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.215.209.31 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to take into account the omnipresent Turkish Military, the great overseers of Turkish democracy, cracking down on whatever they feel is against their agenda. Turkey is not as free as you'd like to think. The only reason why they don't get lambasted by the westerners is because they follow a fairly secular life style, as opposed to many other Muslim majority nations. Agendas, agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Economic freedom[edit]

I suggest moving the contents and redirecting the article to Economic freedom. This because there are actually two very similar incdices. Much of the research mentioned here is actually from using the the other index and it would be better to discuss both in one place. Objections? Ultramarine 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have strong objections since "economic freedom" is a discourse in the philosophy of political economy that has a long history and which is highly controversial. The articles concerning the two indexes by no means represent a general consensus concerning this discourse. Moreover the articles strike a scientific pose constituting the grand pretence that not only is "economic freedom" known but that in can be quantified, and this is being promulgated primarily by minority groups of right wing economists and think tanks. The articles should be merged under the title "Indices of Economic Freedom" and an article referring to the term "economic freedom" should rather reflect the wide-ranging discourse on the subject. BernardL 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many peer-reviewed articles have used them. However, you are right that the concept existed before these surveys. Moving to Indices of Economic Freedom.Ultramarine 19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sachs bit[edit]

"Sachs pointed out, as examples, that countries with good ratings such as Switzerland and Uruguay had sluggish economic performances, others, like China, with poorer rating had very strong economic growth."

Is Switzerland's economy is "sluggish" with one of the highest GDP per capita in the world ? Must be kidding. Arronax50 (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing apples and oranges; a country can have a high income and grow very slowly, there is no contradiction there. His doesn't realize that if a country already has a high income, it needs an even higher level of economic freedom to induce growth, and since Switzerland and Uruguay have not gotten even freer than they are, they are not growing very strongly. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted wholesale removal of sourced material[edit]

This change removed several paragraphs of properly sourced criticism with an inadequate explanation. If there are problems with individual claims or sentences, they should be addressed one at a time.Notmyrealname (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think this article is beyond salvaging. Essentially, the owners want to present this tendentious concept in an uncritical fashion, and rule out all responses on the basis of spurious claims of one kind or another. I think the best response may be to delete this, and similar articles altogether.JQ (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is pretty standard on ideologically contentious articles. Let's keep plugging away, stick to the rules, and hopefully we can all end up with something we can live with. Notmyrealname (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

left business observer[edit]

A recent edit removed: "According to Left Business Observer, the Index has only a 10% statistical correlation with a standard measure of economic growth, GDP per capita" Comparisons of Index of Economic Freedom with GDP/capita

There was no explanation for the edit. Explain, please? CRETOG8(t/c) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

It seems odd to have a specific article about Index of Economic Freedom 2003-2006. Those years seem arbitrary, for one thing. But also, it seems as though this main article is small enough that the list could be added without trouble. So, merge? CRETOG8(t/c) 16:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article should be merged with List of countries by economic freedom. -- Vision Thing -- 18:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please merge. It makes no sense for that article to stand apart from this one.Notmyrealname (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Index of Economic Freedom 2003-2006 and Index of Economic Freedom historical rankings should both be merged into List of countries by economic freedom. When you put all this together, it's probably too big to go into this particular article, so I suggest this one is kept separate. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note also my comment on Talk:Index of Economic Freedom historical rankings: some of the data seems to be wrong. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Needs to be merged. --MeUser42 (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the picture, Lithuania is yellow?[edit]

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotsitemo (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 ratings[edit]

Under "Ratings" there is not currently any discussion of the 2012 Index results, so I've drafted up a paragraph to add to this section, based on the Associated Press coverage of the Index and the Edwin Feulner op-eds from the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times. I work for The Heritage Foundation, the creators of the Index, so I potentially have a conflict of interest in making additions to the article. Due to that, I'd like to run this by others rather than making the edit myself. Please make this addition if it looks ok to you. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The results from the 2012 index showed an overall decline in global economic freedom; according to The Heritage Foundation, the average score in its ranking was the second lowest of the last ten years.[1] In particular, the U.S. dropped to 10th place in the ranking, and has now fallen three places since 2008, when it was 7th.[2] A report issued by the Foundation stated that government spending was the cause of the decline, and had "not only failed to arrest the economic crisis, but also—in many countries—seems to be prolonging it."[3] According to the report, activity in the private sector is threatened by the greater government spending, which has increased public debt and led to more bureaucracy.[1]
 Done. No-one has offered to make this addition, or objected to it, so I have gone ahead and added it to the article. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This probably needs to be done again now that the 2013 data is available in the article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Global economic freedom dipped last year, annual survey says; Hong Kong remains world's freest". Washington Post. Associated Press. January 12, 2012. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
  2. ^ Edwin Feulner (January 17, 2012). "Still in top 10, but falling fast". The Washington Times. Retrieved January 24, 2012.
  3. ^ Edwin J. Feulner (January 12, 2012). "A Step Backward for Economic Freedom in 2012". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 24, 2012.

2013- update needed[edit]

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking?src=home — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.242.0 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I just added the data for full list of countries for 2013. The 2013 data for the first 5 and then the highest ranking 10 countries were originally added back on 10 and 11 March 2013 (by someone other than me). --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing data for 2009, 2010, and 2011[edit]

The article is missing data for 2009, 2010, and 2011. The data is available on the Heritage Foundation's web site. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update Map[edit]

Bump Canada down, please. 71.255.140.6 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Index of Economic Freedom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 index[edit]

Can someone update the index please; it seems that only the top 15 were updated for 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.142.154 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One Shade of Grey[edit]

The "grey" countries need to be explained in the color key for the 2016 map. Presumably it is "undetermined" because of an inability to obtain reliable info due to wars, political instability, etc. (?) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:476:A710:819B:7961 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should changed to "The Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom"[edit]

The current title grants the organization an undue weight of authority that should be better reserved for accountable and impartial organizations such as the UN. Or alternatively have the article list other organization's indexes of "economic freedom". We don't title "Time's Person of the Year" article as simply "Person of the Year" and the same standard should apply here. 2A02:8084:4EE0:6900:5C4:84A4:B98A:BE1C (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Index of Economic Freedom. 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) 06:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Index of Economic Freedom. 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) 00:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Index of Economic Freedom. 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) 09:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article[edit]

I am considering to split this massive article into two: This article and '2013 - 2016 Rankings of Index of Economic Freedom'. As you can see, the previous rankings portion/section takes up 300,000 bytes of the article size, so I am willing to split the table in HALF. Any opinions? zsteve21 (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there would be no point in doing that. Splitting them up by years would change the historical purpose as it would be harder to compare information over years. It is true that various tables are at a fixed wide size however and don't display properly on smaller screens. The tables should be reorganized to better support viewing on smaller screens. Ergzay (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna have to go with Ergzay on this one. The issue seems to be more with excess wikitext than actual article length. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Index_of_Economic_Freedom&oldid=1207708619"