Talk:Official development assistance

International development Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International developmentWikipedia:WikiProject International developmentTemplate:WikiProject International developmentInternational development articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Comment[edit]

I have no idea why there was a redirect on the talk page, so I took it off. I'm against the merger because Official development assistance is a subset of Development aid, which was made clear in the article. -- DSGruss 18:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNP or GNI[edit]

"It is also the country that produces the greatest value of goods and services, i.e. GNP. However, the US federal government's budget is ~0.2% of its GNI, whereas Norway's is ~0.9%."

Confusing, first GNP is mentioned, and in the sentence before, then GNI.. I checked that they are basically successors (gnp of gni) but someone might check this and make consistent. SuperMidget 07:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg[edit]

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements made in March/April 2021[edit]

Hi User:Mrmedley, I see you have made a bunch of improvements recently to this article, that's great! Could you please indicate here what the main aspects were that you worked on. I am asking because I also have this article on my to-do list of articles to improve. This is part of this project. At first glance I notice these shortcomings:

The lead should be expanded, to become a better summary of the article.
The article's short description is still missing (I think that is important for WikiData).
I see some external links in the main body.
Also seeing external links in the image captions which is probably not ideal. Replace with in-line citations?
Wondering if some of the section headings could be shortened - not sure if so many of them need to repeat the words ODA in their titles?
I think it's not common practice to number the images in their captions (Chart 1, 2, ...). It creates superfluous additional work further down the line when images are moved around, added or deleted. EMsmile (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EMsmile. Thanks: it's nice to get feedback. Basically, I have been updating and expanding the quantitative analysis of ODA, using charts to illustrate this. The possibility and appropriateness of such an analysis for ODA seems to differentiate the role of this article compared with Aid and Development aid, so I have moved some material to those articles from the ODA one. I have also included details about debates and developments over the exact composition of the ODA category. You can see the overall effect of my recent work by comparing the present version of the article with what existed in late January. I agree with your list of still-existing shortcomings. The unusual profusion of charts led me to try numbering them, but I agree this isn't satisfactory. Mrmedley (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like your approach on making this different to Aid and Development aid. The thought had also crossed my mind on how this is different, particular when it came to the "criticism" section. I guess we should also check how Aid and Development aid talk about ODA and whether it's in syn c with this article. (and not repetitive)

If you "view history" of Development aid you'll see I've done a lot of work on that article too, bearing in mind the desirability of making the articles complement rather than duplicate each other. Also on Aid effectiveness, where many criticisms are to be found. This follows a kind of agenda I set out in a contribution you can see at the end of Talk:Aid. I haven't yet done much work on Aid, but I intend to get round to that. Mrmedley (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I have added this item to the bullet point list above: I am also wondering if some of the section headings could be shortened - not sure if so many of them need to repeat the words ODA in their titles? EMsmile (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename section heading that is currently called "criticism"?[edit]

As per WP:CRIT we are not supposed to have a section heading of "criticism". Could we change it to for example difficulties or challenges or reception or something like that? EMsmile (talk) 04:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content of "Criticisms" is mainly about problems with making ODA a meaningful and useful category of measurement, so I'm thinking that most of this could be turned into an introductory caveat for the quantitative analysis, or even integrated with "Developments since inception". Mrmedley (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, please go ahead. EMsmile (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the section heading now from "criticism" to "problem areas". Do you agree with that, Mrmedley? And is there still anything else that you think should be moved to "Developments since inception" or elsewhere in the article? EMsmile (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, EMsmile, that's an improvement. There is still a lot of room for further improvement along the lines you previously suggested, and other things. I've been busy with something else recently, but will try to get back to this soon. (Unless you make all the other improvements in the mean time!) Mrmedley (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on SDGs[edit]

I have added a new section regarding the SDGs and how they use ODA as targets and indicators. Please check and let me know if I've chosen the right level of detail. We might be able to find other references that shine a light on SDGs plus ODA in more detail (I haven't searched yet). EMsmile (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]