Talk:Hernando de Soto (economist)

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

Other path[edit]

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)[reply]

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)

  • Quite. So edit! -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)

& Marx[edit]

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)[reply]

  • I'd like to point out that De Soto talks specifically about Marx contribution and its theory of capital in his book "The Mistery of Capital". In the first paperback edition at page 212 a subchapter is called "Facing up to Marx's Ghost". In it the author argues that Marx's theory on capital gives anticapitalists much better grounding to discuss and debate lack of capital availability for the poor. The subchapter ends with De Soto arguing that supporters of privatization should come to realize that capital inherent qualities derive from its legal recognition (the major point of the book) if they want to defend their achievements from a new generation of communists. I am not sure it's really worth of mention. It's really 3-4 pages of text. Not a central part of the book. CarrKnight (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand why de Soto is described as liberal or Marxist-influenced. His advocacy of property rights and records would seem to place him firmly in the capitalist category. Can we clarify this?Lynxx2 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Studies?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the “Main thesis” section, the entire paragraph beginning “What the poor majority…” appears to be from M. Ziauddin, The Dead Capital (Express Tribune, 1 Sep 2015). The text is not present in the Barry Smith reference given. Would fix this but I’m not well-versed in how it should be done, or how indeed the text should then stand in relation to that section. —Ben Hourigan (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

de Soto and Chavez?[edit]

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)[reply]

POV insertions[edit]

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)[reply]

The following text seems especially loaded:

Populist leaders have used this failure of the free market system to wipe out poverty in the developing world to beat their "anti-globalization" drums. But the ILD believes that the real enemy is within the flawed legal systems of developing nations that make it virtually impossible for the majority of their people –and their assets– to gain a stake in the market. The people of these countries have talent, enthusiasm, and an astonishing ability to wring a profit out of practically nothing.

Lori (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

A criticism section aggressively defensive of de Soto is not a 'Criticism Section'. Haberstr 16:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Vandalism[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PHOTO[edit]

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.

Puff Piece PR, not an article[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree. specifically, what is irritating are the replies by pro-soto-authors in the critique section. it's not a debate-section. so shouldn't the critiques be left unassessed and stand for themselves? i list here an exemple from the article (but see as well the last long paragraph):

In the Journal of Economic Literature, Christopher Woodruff of the University of California, San Diego criticized de Soto for overestimating the amount of wealth that land titling now informally owned property could unlock, and argues that "de Soto’s own experience in Peru suggests that land titling by itself is not likely to have much effect. Titling must be followed by a series of politically challenging steps. Improving the efficiency of judicial systems, rewriting bankruptcy codes, restructuring financial market regulations, and similar reforms will involve much more difficult choices by policymakers. "[13][29]
This criticism is viewed by some to misjudge de Soto's official opinion. His book Mystery of Capital devotes the majority of its contents to the theory that political reform is by far the most significant element of property reform.

Yes, much of this article reads like a promotional brochure for de Soto and his organization. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Claims of the reach and impact of de Soto projects are far fetched. Also, many of de Soto's ideas are not original. This article should point out the many men and women who studied development of Peru's shanty towns and the titling issues long before de Soto. This would include José Matos Mar, William Mangin and John F. C. Turner. The fact that de Soto never acknowledges the prior work while hyping his own contributions, plus his failure to properly document facts and assertions in his published work, cast doubt on his claims and scholarship. Lastudies (talk) 09:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article if full of inflated claims about the subject's work; it has been crafted to exploit Wikipedia for self-promotion. Many of its claims for de Soto have been given citations to make them appear substantiated. But, upon inspection, the references are circular. Many of the claims in this Wikipedia article link to unsupported claims by de Soto and his organization. For example, the first claim in the section "Reforms in Peru and elsewhere" says that de Soto and ILD "were responsible for some four hundred ...." Where does the 400 number come from? It comes from the ILD. The citation is to a PR blurb that appeared on a website called The Globalist. The language is ILDs, and it is identical to the language in this Wikipedia article. ILD seems to have written much of this Wikipedia article, and then for authority it references stuff copied from this Wikipedia article!

The next claim is that ILD's work in Peru benefited 1.2 million families and 380,000 businesses. These impressive accomplishments also are given a citation in the Wikipedia article. But, what is the authority for the claim? It is a speech given by de Soto himself. Part of the mystique surrounding de Soto outside Peru is ILD's claim that he confronted the Maoist Sendero Luminoso and helped defeat it. I don't believe this claim is taken seriously inside Peru. In Lima's shanty towns, it was unarmed grass roots activists, not Hernando de Soto, that had to confront Abimael Guzman's Shining Path terrorists. Many of the activists were leftists and some, like María Elena Moyano, paid with their lives. The supporting citation to de Soto's Sendero claim is the Economist of January 30, 2003 (Wikipedia article footnote 10). There de Soto claimed that he survived three attempts on his life. The article continued: "Mr de Soto concedes that it was lucky the Shining Path were so cruel to their potential supporters among the poor; Che Guevara would have been harder to beat, as 'he was a nice guy'." So, for de Soto, the Sendero murders of Moyano and others apparently were blessings. "Lucky," indeed, for de Soto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastudies (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a way to make clear that there are a number of sitations directly to Soto's own webpages is to not just make a citation, but to write something like Soto's group writes that it's responsible for blank. Then the next step would be to integrate the criticism section into the main body of the article - so instead of people having to wait until the end of the article (which some may not even scroll to), a claim by Soto's group is followed directly with a comment from a party that disagrees with the claim. That would balance the article.--RossF18 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article is disgraceful, obviously written for promotion, clearly to create a favorable view of De Soto now that the Peruvian 2021 elections are coming up. De Soto oftentimes boasts the international recognition of his work. Obviously, now we know why.Amalamagama69 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hernando de Soto Polar. 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) 02:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hernando de Soto Polar. 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) 11:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De Soto or De Soto Polar[edit]

Someone has appeared to have moved the page back to Hernando de Soto (economist). He is most comonly known as Hernando de Soto Polar to outside media outlets. The outside world outlets count, too. It's not only Peru. I will revert the move back to Hernando de Soto Polar.

Sorry if I made anyone angry Mausebru (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources in the article there is not even a mention of his second surname, so it is incorrect to say that he is better known by his full name. You have to show sources to prove that it is better known by the name that you say is more common. Besides, since the transfer was reversed, you have to open a transfer inquiry to change the name of the article and not reverse the transfer of the other user. --2x2leax (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize[edit]

This is minor compared to the larger puff piece argument, which I agree with, but Nobel prize finalists in economics are not made public for 50 years. The cited source is just repeating his PR claims without further validation. That should be removed. Since finalists are private, I don't know who they were in 2002, but Nobels are not awarded for the type of work he does. It's an implausible claim without validation. 73.229.169.126 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hernando_de_Soto_(economist)&oldid=1207505377"