Talk:OECD/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page title

Shouldn't this page be named Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development instead of the current spelling with Organization with a 'z'. Checking their website seems to suggest that the British spelling is the proper name for the OECD. -- Popsracer 10:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If they spell it consistently that way, this seems like a good reason to change it here. -- User:Docu

Criteria for joining the OECD

Could anyone shed some light on what the conditions for joining the OECD are? I assume the country must first be a representative democracy and support free market economics? What other factors are there?

Well, I remebered that some critices said OECD is a community only for the rich courntries. If some country want to be a member of OECD, she must first be a representative democracy and support free market economics and in addition to that she must have relatively high score of GDP. Look at the present member countries, all 30 countries are the rich ones in the world.

That is false, look, Mexico and Turkey are members of OECD. representative democracy and support free market economics are the criteria. MaCRoEco 22:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Membership criteria are provided at the Noboru report. Beagel 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OECC

The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC) should not just be lumped here. It was important in its time for early European integration and should be separate. Non? gren 12:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

French Guyana

Why is French Guyana supposedly a part of the OECD on that map?? Asacarny 07:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Because French Guiana is, as the name hints, French. It is an overseas department, an integral part of the French Republic. Just as much as Alaska and Hawai'i are part of the US, or Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The whole of France (including French Guiana, French Polynesia and Reunion) is part of the OECD.

NPOV?

This (re-)write-up is rather glowing in its public relations styled descriptions of OECD activities. For example, it fails to mention that the OECD has served an active role in enforcing by coercion "taxation harmonization" so that all states worldwide share an approximately equal or greater level of taxation than the OECD deems "acceptable". The OECD also coerces nations into harmonizing their banking systems under the premise of "criminal money laundering", as opposed to people simply seeking tax-shelters -- which only those major world governments (as government organizations) oppose.

The OECD is hardly doing "all good". Read up on the back-catalog from Offshore Finance (still an external link, thankfully) for more information. See the writeup from before editing on September 12th 2005 by DGM for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.42.241 (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The above edit was posted anonymously. This note by La la ohh Nov 2007.

Both statements are very inaccurate. Factually, the OECD doesn't have any way to coerce any country, member or not, to do whatever. However, this is a widespread opinion. I think the proper way to handle this is to create an OECD controversy page and take this off the main page. Jerjer 10:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In tone, the article at present (except for one paragraph) reads as though it might have been written by the OECD itself. A little more penetrating analysis of the OECD's objectives and role in world politics would be nice. Not much history on this article at present. As to whether the OECD can 'officially' coerce any country, Jerjer, i don't know; but its influence on decisions as to where aid is sent, and other economic matters, gives it considerable clout; and governments of developing countries, many of whom are abjectly dependent on financial help from the wealthy nations, can not realistically afford to disregard "suggestions", etc made by agencies like OECD, World Bank, IMF. There is considerable criticism of the policies of the Western industrialised nations as regards how they impact on the Third World, and barely a hint of that in the present article. -- La la ooh November 2007

I challenge that. If Southern countries did implement OECD suggestions systematically, the world would be a much different place. I stand by my argument that the OECD has no power to influence the policies of a country. However there are regularly discussions that take place at the OECD between high-level officials which can have concrete consequences. For instance the "polluter pays" principle was edicted within the walls of the OECD. I am also well aware that many programmes in which the OECD is involved are not making everyone happy. This is why I advocate the creation of an OECD controversy page where criticism againt the OECD could be organized in a more structured form. Jerjer (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The material deleted 12 Sept 2005 read:

The primary activity of the OECD is to monitor international banking activity in an attempt to suppress money laundering, parallel banking, and tax avoidance. Thus, they have come to lay regulatory pressures on sovereignties practicing tax competition, such as numerous Caribbean nations. Many supporters of free markets and globalization view this regulation as a sort of international price-fixing. -- La la ooh November 2007.

EVERYONE: Please take a look at Jerjer's profile. He/She works for the OECD! Please take his/her comments with a grain of salt since he/she has a direct stake here. Jerjer, please refrain from editing/commenting on this Wikipedia article. You have a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.182.225 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI doesn't prohibits his/her editing (not even talking about discussing) as far as WP:NPOV is followed. I am not working for the OECD and I can't see any POV pushing from Jerjer's side (can't say this for the all editors). Also, if to follow the request by anom user 138.88.182.225, also every anti-globalist should be forbidden to edit this article (and how I knew you are not the one?). So, important thing is that every editor follows the WP:NPOV without any hidden agenda.

Spelling of "Organisation"

I think we should defer to the organization's own spelling of organisation - per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English -- undoubtedly in the spelling of the organization's name and preferably consistent throughout the article! Gary 13:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I reverted because somebody changed only a single "z" that made the rest of the article look inconsistent. Even the template spells it with "s". I've gone through the article and found no other instances of "rogue" spelling, so it all should be alright now. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the OECD's language policy, they use officially British English in their papers. So, organisation with "s" is correct (as also co-operation with "-").

Spelling of “Co-operation”

The OECD has official language policy to use officialy British English. For this reaqson, the correct official name of this organization is Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It's different with the OSCE as there is no official language policy (probably, I'm not sure as I'm not specialist on the OSCE). For this reason please don't move and rename the OECD page using "Cooperation".Beagel 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. That’s a good enough reason for me. As you said, the OSCE is a different situation. Where the decision would be arbitrary, we should opt the diaeretic spelling; however, the decision of which spelling to use would not be arbitrary in re the OECD. By the way, I was not advocating the bare spelling (“cooperation”), which is an inferior spelling to the hyphenated form (“co-operation”), but rather the diaeretic form (“coöperation”). Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

political inclinations

It would be nice to have a table for the political inclinations of the member states, as in Barroso Commission and Parties in the Council of the European Union. – Kaihsu 09:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OECD institutions and bodies

I think it could be necessary to add the list of OECD different institutions. When it's not so difficult with list of directorates and departments (or institutions od OECD Secretariate), it will be more difficult with bodies consisting member and non-member countires (committees, working parties, working groups schemes, agencies etc), because the structure of bdifferent bodies is different and at the same time it's very complex. Maybe it could be better to have different page for each OECD body (there are already separate pages for the International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency and Development Centre)? There is also problem with listing members of different bodies, as every committe, working party etc has different set of members and observes. In case of some committees even not OECD all member countries are members of particular committee (e.g. Steel Committee). Moreover, there are plans for OECD reform, which will change overall structure of the OECD after 2008. Any suggestion how to deal with this?Beagel 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Relations with non-members and OECD enlargement

Maybe it will be more practical to divide these issues into separate sections? Also, somebody mentioned that the Republic of China (Taiwan) has observer status on two OECD committees. Actually the correct figure is 3 committees and some more bodies (totally 5). But the question is, where to list the observeships of non-members - under this section or under each committe? There are more than 50 non-members involved in different committees and working groups.

Also, referring to Taiwan, the OECD itself uses officially Chinese Taipei as a reference to this country. I think that we should respect the OECD's policy?Beagel 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Metal umlauts

What's with the spelling "coöperation"? Rōnin 12:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed ... if you go to www.oecd.org it is spelled "co-operation," which was the old name. The edit notes for the move indicate "reasons" but there are no reasons given on this page. Can User:Doremítzwr answer this question? Gary 12:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

See here for a discussion on that very issue, with reasons given be me for the move. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Long list

I took the liberty of creating a new page for the list of committees and subcommittees because, though very detailed and apparently accurate, it was unwieldy and created clutter, taking up most of the page space. Creationlaw 04:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenland

Is Greenland part of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.217.254 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Greenland and Faroe Islands, as a Home Rule territories of Denmark, are not part of the OECD (they are also excluded from the EU).Beagel 12:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether the INDIAN firms are scaled over the TPP(Technological Product and Process)innovation by OECD

Added High income map

Incase no one noticed, I have added a map showing members and members with high income in seperate colours. --Giorgos 13:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Map - Fr. Guiana

Why is French Guiana pictured on the maps of member states if it isn't a member state?

The Talking Sock talk contribs 16:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because French Guiana is a french territory, which belongs to France, thus being a part of France, just like Paris. OK?.Eliko 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All you people are uncivil, discourteous bastards to each other. A little more civility on these pages please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.170.168 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

CHILE was ACCEPTED

OECD was accepted Chile's incorporation.

News of BBC LONDON says that.

Load of rubbish --Nengscoz416 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish... I love the English.. ha ha ha.

world map

can someone make a world map to show all the member countries? Jackzhp (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing

As wikipedia shows the "ideologies" for political parties, i think they could be shown too for this kind of "oriented" organization. Why not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism ? In the upper right corner's box, like for the political parties. To me, that would be useful, as the goal of the OECD is not "stabilizing and harmonizing economies within europe", but the promotion of certain economical ideologies.

After re-reading, the whole article is useless :

setting in which governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practices, and co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The mandate of the OECD is broad, covering economic, environmental, and social issues. It is a forum where peer pressure can act as a powerful incentive to improve policy and implement "soft law" — non-binding instruments that can occasionally lead to binding treaties. Exchanges between OECD governments flow from information and analysis provided by a secretariat in Paris. The secretariat collects data, monitors trends, and analyses and forecasts economic developments. It also researches social changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation and other areas. The OECD is also known as a premium statistical agency, as it publishes highly-comparable statistics on a very wide number of subjects. Over the past several decades, the OECD has tackled a range of economic, social, and environmental issues while further deepening its engagement with business, trade unions and other representatives of civil society. Collaboration at the OECD regarding taxation, for example, have fostered the growth of a global web of bilateral tax treaties.

This has absolutely NO meaning. Could be replaced by "OECD does cool but hard-to-understand economical stuff". OECD, for example, advocates flexibility (deregulation) of the working contracts. Where is it written? Nowhere. OECD is not neutral, neither is EU, neither is the G8, etc.... They have goals, and they ask governments to do things in accordance with their ideas. But this article is only here to replace an empty page, and is absolutely not informative. Good work, wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.196.65.218 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taivan)

The OECD has 30 members. Also the EC participates in the work of the OECD according to the OECD Charter. In addition, several OECD's committees have some participants who are not the OECD members, observers etc. Usually they are these five countries invited to join the OECD or other major economies (Brazil; China), but all together there are 25 observers or regular members in the committees and around 50 countries participating in some way in the work of the OECD. The Republic of China (Taivan) doesn't have any special status in the OECD. It is an observer in the Trade Committee and participates in some minor bodies, but that's all. This is also incorrect to say that Taivan is an observer in the OECD because the OECD as whole doesn't have observers—the committees have.Beagel (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Once more, what is so specific about Chinese Taipei's observership? Chinese Taipei is an observer in 5 committees. At the same time, for example, Russia is an observer in 73, Chile in 60, Israel in 51, Slovenia in 47, Brazil in 43, South Africa in 40 committees, etc. (please see http://webnet3.oecd.org/OECDgroups/internet/ListByMemberObserver.asp?lng=E&Expand=1&type=2). Therefore, describing Chinese Taipei's observerships makes this article absolutely unbalanced. If you think that it is necessary to list all countries who are observers in different committees, I propose to add all 25 countries and number of their observerships.Beagel (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

What on earth is this supposed to mean?

In the 1950s the OEEC provided the framework for negotiations aimed at determining conditions for setting up a European Free Trade Area, to bring the Common Market of the Six and the other OEEC members together on a multilateral basis.--Filll (talk | wpc) 05:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

not according to wiki guidelines

this entry is not ecyclopedic, it is not from a neutral point of view, and it "seems" to be written by an advocate or associate of the entry's topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.68.58 (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please specify, which is not encyclopedic in this article and what exactly violates WP:NPOV. And please provide sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

High income countries

To define, which countries are high income countries, the classification of the World Bank is used. According to this, only 27 OECD member countries are classified as high income economies.[1] Beagel (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the 2008 Poland advanced to the high income economies (incomve above $11,906$ per capita in 2008), so I changed "27 OECD member..." to "28 OECD member..." and removed "*" symbol from "Poland" in the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.25.146 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference, please. World Bank's statistics classifies Poland as upper-middle-income economy. [2] Beagel (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I took GDP which in Poland is 13,820$ per capita, but World Bank classifies countries by GNI which is 11,880$ (so below 11,906$ limit for high income economies).

Free Market Principles / Action against tax havens

I'm a bit surprised that there is no mention in this section that this is a deliberate and concerted effort to expand OECD jurisdiction beyond its own member states. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the Cayman Islands article says "offshore financial centers... came under increasing pressure from the OECD for their allegedly harmful tax regimes, where the OECD wished to prevent low-tax regimes from having an unfair advantage in the global marketplace, and thus be harmful to the economies of more developed nations."

It's ironic that the first paragraph of this article says "OECD is an international organisation of 30 countries that accept the principles of... free-market economy." If they truly believed in free markets, they would welcome competition from "low-tax regimes," as an incentive for all countries to remain competitive by keeping taxes low. It certainly benefits the consumers of financial services, when those services are performed in a "low-tax regime."

So, the claim that OECD accepts the principles of free markets is extremely suspect. 71.219.228.140 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

I'm from the United States and so this page might have been created in a different country, thereby leading to the question I have. In America, we spell Organization with a Z. If it's correct, then disregard my comment. Thanks

216.7.144.62 (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The OECD has an official policy, which says this organization uses British English. Therefore, also this article uses British spelling of "organisation" and "co-operation" instead of "organization" and "cooperation". Please see also archived discussion about this topic. Beagel (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this, organization is spelled with a 'z' in British English (see the wikipedia page on -ize), but the OECD seems to have modelled the spelling of its name on the French -ise endings (its headquarters are in Paris). Marthiemoo (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion. Beagel (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Books published

This article mentions that OECD publishes 300 to 500 books per year, but in the article about OECDsource it mentions 250 books per year. I don't know which one is right, but I just noticed it. Bye, Lalena (can't login) 192.85.60.20 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

edits by IP 189.146.114.200

Anom user IP 189.146.114.200 continues to remove the map showing OECD members, acceding countries and enhanced engagement countries, claiming that 'no such classification, they are not member nor in a list of accession'. However, both group of countries were named by the OECD Ministerial Council in 2007. [3] Therefore, I will restore the map. Before removing it, please discuss it here at the talk page. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, map seems fine to me with that source and the Relations with non-members and enlargement section underneath clearly explaining everything. Shouldnt be removed BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

• How is the Secretary General chosen? What are his/her duties and powers? --Treekids (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

french guiana

is indicated on the map as a member cuz it's a <ahem> department of france? Skakkle (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It was previously discussed here. Beagel (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

k, awesome. there aren't more of these? I dunno, American samoa? any other modern day colonies? maybe they're just not big enough to really show on the map. Skakkle (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Chile already included ?

In December 2009 Chile formaly received the full invitation/admission for the OECD. All pending concerns had been cleared before. How is the status, is Chile already a plain member now? --81.210.217.100 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. Chile has been invited, not admitted. The formal agreement will be signed on 11 January 2009 (a couple of days from now). After that, its admission will be pending the ratification of the agreement by Chile's National Congress. --the Dúnadan 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Although Chile is invited and has signed the accession agreement, it will become a member only after the ratification of the accession agreement by the National Congress and the deposition of the ratification instrument with the depositary Government (Government of France. Before that, Chile has to ratify the accession agreement. As of today, Chile is not a member yet although most likely it will become the member in coming months.Beagel (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As there will be also other accessions in the near future (4 countries are negotiating, of these, most likely three countries will join this year) just the clarification of the accession process:

1. Decision to start accession discussions with the potential candidate country. In case of Chile, this decision was made by the OECD Ministerial Council on 16 May 2007.[4]
2. Official invitation. Chile was officially invited on 15 December 2009.[5]
3. Signing the accession agreement. Chile signed the accession on 11 January 2010.[6]
4. Ratification of the agreement.[7] It is not clear when Chile will ratify the agreement.
5. Deposition of the ratification instrument according to the OECD Convention article 14.[8]

So, the country becomes a full member only after the deposition of the ratification instrument with the French Government. Beagel (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As its a front page news story Chile surely should be included on the map now? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not yet; please read Beagel's exposition. Chile has signed the accession agreement (which shows in the news story), but the ratification (by Chile's national Congress) and deposition of the agreement are still pending. --the Dúnadan 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though that is technically a good point, Chile not being on the map is a bit of a clash with what the front page news story implies. If they didn't think the rest of the steps were just a formality then it shouldn't be on the front page of the English Wikipedia to start with ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether they (whoever chose the news of the front page) believe that the rest of the steps are just a formality or not, it is relevant to note that Chile has signed the accession agreement, just as it would also relevant to have the news of its ratification in the front page, and of its final deposition as well, when it formally becomes a member.--the Dúnadan 22:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Congratulations Chile, welcome to the club! Kentynet (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The accession agreement was ratified by the Chamber of the Deputies. However, the ratification by the Senate is still needed. , This will probably take place in March when the Senat returns from the congressional break.[9]

Data not tracked?

OECD also doesn't track the number of midgets or romantic comedies produced. This section is silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.160.5.251 (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

map update?

Should Chile be added to the map its just the news section on the front page says it joined... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.223.68 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The main page news says "accepts an invitation" which is not a same as "joined" or "became a member". "Accepts an invitation" does not excludes further formalities which are needed to be done before becoming a member. Beagel (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The OECD website does not list Chile as a member country.[10] Beagel (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Planned future membership

User:Alam82 added the 'Planned future membership' section which I removed for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see WP:BALL). It is speculative to say when one or another country will become a member. To give that kind of predictions, it needs reliable references. In this context, the reliable source is probably the OECD itself, but OECD has not gave any dates.
• The list is incorrect. Although the OECD has accession negotiation with Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia, no negotiations are going with India and there is no information that the OECD plans to open that kind of negotiations. India has a status of the enhanced engagement country. All this information is included in the 'Relations with non-members' sections.
• Accession years in this subseaction were unrealistic. According to the latest (unofficial) information, most likely Estonia, Israel and Slovenia all will become members already this year. But again, as a speculation, this should not be stated as a fact (see the first point). Beagel (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I read in the Israeli paper "The Marker" (The economy section of Haaretz) that unless something drastic happens, Israel will become part of the OECD in May 2010 TFighterPilot (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OECD institutions and bodies

Is the long section on "OECD institutions and bodies" really neccessary? Also, isn't "Organisation" spelled "Organization"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.246.172 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Reform and enlargement - Israel

This section gives almost no information about reform and enlargement. What are the criteria for membership? What are the issues?

Instead, for some reason, there is a long screed about Israeli membership in OECD. The views given are not attributed to anyone, and are evidently those of Palestinian "anti-normalization" activists. Is Israel the only country under consideration? Is the major criteria for membership treatment of the Hamas?

How does membership in OECD help the Israeli economy? What specifically does Israel or any other country gain and what is the danger to OECD if Israel or another country that doesn't meet criteria joins?

Why is Israel singled out?

The tirade against Israel takes up most of the section and does not explain much about issues related to reform, nor does it explain anything about what the criteria are and what criteria Israel does not meet if settlers are not included. It simply states that Israel doesn't meet some criteria if settlers are not included. It presents no issues other than allegations of Israel human rights violations that are certainly not as extensive as those of Turkey for example, against its Kurdish minority. No authorities or sources are cited. [[[User:Mewnews|Mewnews]] (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)]

Classification by GDP per capita

I don't see any reason why the member countries are divided as high-income countries and middle-income countries. The OECD website does not have that kind of division between its members. This division was probably inserted to the article to illustrate the point that the OECD is a "club of rich countries", but this is definitely POV which should be removed. Any objection if I remove this division between high-income and middle-income members? Beagel (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if the OECD does not make the distinction of high- and middle-income countries, then we shouldn't include it. But I actually believe that it was probably inserted to illustrate the point that the OECD is not a "club of rich countries", because it includes some "middle-income" (i.e. developing) countries, and that, arguably, only high-income countries are "truly rich".

The phrase, "club of rich countries" was used extensively in the media in the past—and it is still occasionally used today—simply as a "description" or even "synonym" of the organization, with no "bias" intended. With the accession of some "developing" nations, it has become in disuse, but not entirely (e.g. Argentine, Chilean, American, Korean, French, Spanish and Swiss German media, to point a few, have used the phrase; and even president Michelle Bachelet herself, said that "the OECD is sometimes referred to as a club of rich countries... in an address to the OECD). --the Dúnadan 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Turkey* ?

Why is there an asterisk next to Turkey? If there is a reason, then it should be linked to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotband (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Turkey's a part of a list, and the asterisk signifies that it (as well as a few other countries) are upper-middle economies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.192.105 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Date of Chile`s membership

As I understand it, the country is still not a member. When will the instruments of ratification get disposition ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.3.134 (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The treaty was deposit in France in May 7th, 2010. [11] --200.89.69.169 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Article lead

The article lead desperately needs a brief summary of what this organisation does. As I don't understand what this organisation does, I can't fix it myself, but perhaps someone else does and therefore can? --Dweller (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Dweller ;-). Apparently we were drawing the same conclusion (see below) almost in the same minute! L.tak (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

goals/achievements in the intoduction

The introduction now only indicates that it is an int. economic organization; and only much further goals and successes are shown. Could someone with a good overview on the subject write 2-3 lines on what this organization does/achieves? I am not comortable doing it myself as it remains a bit vague to me, but it would be a strong improvement for me... L.tak (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

GDP per capita

Why do you use that data? Would not the International Monetary Found be more proper to seek for those statistics? I can not even find the data in the web page of the link it is written there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordenskjöld (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Membership process

Membership process in the OECD has following steps:

1. Decision to start accession discussions with the potential candidate country. In case of Estonia, Israel and Slovenia, this decision was made by the OECD Ministerial Council on 16 May 2007.[12]
2. Official invitation. These countries were officially invited today.
3. Signing the accession agreement. Estonia is expected to sign on 3 June, Israel on 29 June and Slovenia on 1 June.
4. Ratification of the agreement. It is not clear when these countries will ratify their accession agreements. Countries will do this individually not all together.
5. Deposition of the ratification instrument according to the OECD Convention article 14.[13]

So, the country becomes a full member only after the deposition of the ratification instrument with the French Government. Therefore, it is not correct to add Estonia, Israel or Slovenia in the members' list before deposition of their ratification instrument. The OECD has at the moment 31 members, not 34. Beagel (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The user:HOOTmag states: "The formal sources I've added indicate explicitely that once the country signs the accession agreement it becomes a full member". Actually, the source e.g. for Israel says: "An Accession Agreement on the terms of Israel’s accession is scheduled to be signed in Israel on 29 June 2010. Israel will become a member once it formally accedes to the OECD Convention." According to the OECD Convention article 14 "This Convention shall come into force ... as regards any other Signatory upon the deposit of its instrument of ratification or acceptance." So, the agreement should be ratified and ratification instrument (letter) should be deposited. Beagel (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The user:Frichmon changed the number of member countries to 34. This is incorrect as Estonia, Israel and Slovenia are not members yet. According to the source added by Frichmon "At a ceremony on 27 May 2010, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi extended formal membership invitations to the Prime Ministers of the three new members". So, they are invited, but not members yet. The OECD website does not list these three countries as a members. The membership procedure is described above. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Estonia a member since June 2010?? Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not (and the Russian Wikipedia is wrong). On June 3, Estonia signed the accession agreement, but is hasn't signed the OECD convention yet. For more details, see:

At the end of the first paragraph, and:

At the bottom of this page, and:

Here.

Estonia will be allowed to sign the OCED convention, once the Estonian parliament ratifies the accession agreement.

Hope this helps.

Eliko (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indicators

There seems to be little indication of which indicators are displayed and which are not - so if those included are relatively arbitrary, I would suggest including a measure of equality such as the GINI coefficient would be helpful. Income equality is an important indicator for a country's standard of living, which is, according to the "Objectives and activities" section, a key aim of the OECD.

NZUlysses (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Income inequality measure added. NZUlysses (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Germany

Admitted later to OEEC (listed chronologically with year of admission):

Germany (1955)

Germany didn't exist in 1955, from the context I assume this was West Germany? --86.173.140.91 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It was West Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949. From 1949 until 1990, it was colloquially called 'West Germany'. However, 'West Germany' was the same state as is called 'Germany' now, and the name has not changed; it has simply become larger, having absorbed the former German Democratic Republic. When listing present members, therefore, 'Germany (1955)' is correct. However, when discussing history in depth, it would be useful to refer to it as 'West Germany' (as it is important to emphasise that the country that joined in 1955 was a western, capitalist country, not the communist East Germany). Bastin 13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The text has been modified to show the name as "Germany, Federal Republic of", to distinguish it from the GDR. This, the official name in 1955 and now, and is preferable to "West Germany" which was only the (unofficial, colloquially) name, when there were two German states. Davshul (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Israel is a new officially member in the OECD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.94.160 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. As the next step, Israel has to ratify the accession agreement. After that, the agreement should be ratified and the ratification instrument should be deposed at thee French Government. Beagel (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of "Organisation"

Isn't "Organisation" spelled "Organization"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.246.172 (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the OECD itself spells "organisation " with "s". Therefore, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English the spelling used by the OECD should be followed. Please see also the previous discussion is archived here. Beagel (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong

The OECD has 25 different observers or regular members in the committees and around 50 countries participating in some way in the work of the OECD. Therefore, why Hong Kong should be mentioned as observer if we don't name any other observer in the different committees. There is also no accession negotiations or enhanced cooperation. Therefore, I removed mentioning Hong Kong's observer status. Beagel (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus

The article says that Cyprus applied in 1995 but was blocked by Turkey. It is true that these two countries have rigid relations and they blame each other in every case. I also believe that Turkey would like to block Cyprus accession and have blocked in several OECD committees and programmes. However, from technical point of view it can't block the Cyprus accession in 1995 as after accession of four CEEC countries which was decided already in the beginning of 1990s, there was no further enlargement strategy and no countries were invited to join the OECD (again, technically country application is a political document which has no legal status as the OECD invites itself its members) until the results of the Noburus working group were presented. As the working group never proposed inviting Cyprus, there was nothing to block by Turkey. Of course, the working group was aware of the Turkey's position and it may (or may not) had influenced their decision but this is a pure speculation. Therefore I think that we should avoid spreading the conflict between two countries into this article and keep only solid facts which is that CYprus applied in 1995. Beagel (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The giant box obscures the main text

Visually impaired persons need to enlarge the screen. The box enlarges, and the main text shrinks to a thin column with just a couple of words on a line, then disappears completely below the box.

The problem can be addressed by making the box narrower.

The box has a standard size. You probably have to address this issue at the template's talk page. Beagel (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Indicator data updates

Quite a bit of the indicators data has just been updated, without explanation, and without any changed references. If these are good faith edits, please update the references accordingly. It may be necessary to revert these changes otherwise. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

slovenia missing from title box image

estonia and israel along with slovenia joined the oecd in 2010 so i´m guessing slovenia´s omission from the map is due to its small size making it easy to miss. i´d correct it but i have no idea how to... --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltheblunt (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Prose

Thinking that I should have a better idea of what the OECD is, I skimread the article. Or rather, I tried to. I quickly became sleepy and gave up. This was not because the OECD is an unglamorous subject. Rather -- well, let me illustrate by randomly plucked example:

The countries contribute to the OECD's work in a sustained and comprehensive manner by direct and active participation in substantive bodies of the Organisation determined by mutual interest.

This strikes me as having a peculiarly high bullshit ratio. No apologies for the vulgarism: it's one that has been supported by Princeton University Press, no less. For I mean, of course, bullshit in the the Frankfurtian sense: language designed to lull or impress or both, rather than to communicate information.

Let's have a bash at that one sentence. On a single word, "substantive": We can assume that what's talked about is substantive: if it weren't substantive, either we wouldn't talk about it, or we'd qualify by pointing out insignificance. And likewise for other verbiage in the sentence, resulting in:

The countries contribute to the OECD's work by participating in its bodies.

To which one might respond "Well, yes, obviously", and want to scrap the sentence in any form.

Is there something that I misunderstand here? -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstood that a sentence like that is to be deleted and rewritten, without this attempt at sarcastic superiority masquerading as humour on the talk page. You are not George Carlin. Just fix it. 203.161.10.6 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Version of English

What version of English should we use on this article? --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As OECD itself uses British English, it should be British. Beagel (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

There is also special template at the top of this talk page. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

|

Latvia

It seems that with Latvian membership is the same story as was few years ago with Chile, Israel and Estonia, while editors tried to add them as members before they actually became members. There are different steps before becoming a member. The country becomes a member only after deposition of its adherence document (ratification letter). Before that, the country is not a member. Please see also similar discussions about above-mentioned countries which are available in the archive. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Latvian Parliament approves the Agreement on Latvia’s accession to the OECD. Davis121 (talk)

Yes, but Latvia has not presented its ratification document to the French Government yet. The last step of the accession process is still has to be done. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see also http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/ . Latvia is not included as a member yet. Beagel (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I am copying here from the 2010 discussion what are the steps of the accession process:

1. Decision to start accession discussions with the potential candidate country. This is done on 30 May 2013. [14]
2. Official invitation. Latvia was officially invited on 11 May 2016. [15]
3. Signing the accession agreement. Latvia signed the accession on 2 June 2016.[16]
4. Ratification of the accession agreement. Latvia ratified the agreement on 16 June 2016. [17]
5. Deposition of the ratification instrument according to the OECD Convention article 14.[18] Not done yet, Latvia is not listed as a member on the OECD's website. [19]

So, the country becomes a full member only after the deposition of the ratification instrument with the French Government. It is very close to Latvia but still the final step should be completed. Beagel (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the OECD, a "genetically" Euro-pacific organization?

Every OECD member turns out to belong, either to the Apec (the organization of countries bordering the Pacific Ocean), or to the Council of Europe (with only one OECD member as an exception). Furthermore, all four current candidates which are about to join the OECD soon, are Euro-pacific as well. Really, from a formal viewpoint - being a Euro-pacific country - has never been put as a condition for being an OECD member, but from a practical point of view - the facts are unambiguous. I wonder, if the OECD has something in its "genes", that makes it have such a salient "Pacifico-European" orientation. HOTmag (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A new RLI report has been issued.

HOTmag (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

“Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development” should redirect here. Hopefully, the title of this very article will be moved to said place; it would happen, if the Brits didn't insist on writing ‹organisation› instead of the more-fonetic ‹organization›, and the EU bureaucrats didn't insist on writing ‹-isation›.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The redirect is there. I just missed it when I put the spelling with ‹-ization› in the wiki-search-box; the spelling with ‹-ization› somehow did not come up bold when it should've.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 17:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development → OECD – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACRONYMTITLE ... "acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". Cf. OPEC, NATO, NASA, FIFA, etc. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nominator Mélencron (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- econterms (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colombia and Lithuania

Colombia and Lithuania signed the accession agreement but they are not members yet. To become a member a ratification of the accession agreement and a deposition of the ratification document is needed. It the same story as it was with accession of Israel or Latvia. Relevant discussions are available at the talk page archive. For the list of current members, please see the OECD website http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpartners/. Beagel (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition, this source describe the process correctly although not using the correct legal terms.

Membership will take effect once Colombia complies with a series of internal steps, particularly the ratification by Congress of the OECD rules, as well as the presentation of the membership agreement before the French government, a spokesperson of the organization told EFE.

Beagel (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Colombia and Lithuania already participate in all forums of the OECD. Virtually two countries are already part of the organization according to Angel Gurría. I do not understand the fight to not put those two countries in the article. --JShark (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that you are exaggerating with the formalities when virtually two countries already participate in all forums of the OECD. Delete information when the new information in the article will be placed in a very short time means nothing. Be so exaggerated on certain issues is absurd when those two countries are already participating and have the same activities as other members of the OECD. --JShark (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As a first step, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. --JShark (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the responsibility to be accurate. An anticipated change is not the same as a change. Any number of things could happen tomorrow that might delay or negate the process. When the membership formalities are complete we can list them as members, not before. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The formalities that are transformed into an exaggeration are not important or otherwise the OECD is transformed into a silly organization that does not allow the participation of Colombia and Lithuania in the forums and activities. Virtually two countries are already part of the organization according to Angel Gurria. I love that the organization does not behave as certain users of Wikipedia who seem to have a mind closed to cooperation among countries. Mentalities that are inflexible are not the best to work in diplomacy because diplomats have to work with people with very different cultures. --JShark (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Participation at the forums and committees does not mean that the country is a member of the OECD. Colombia and Lithuania will be members soon, but they are not yet. Article 16 of the Convention on the OECD says: Accession shall take effect upon the deposit of an instrument of accession with the depositary Government.[20] Also, the list of current members does not include Colombia and Lithuania. [21] After deposition of their ratification documents I am more than happy to make relevant changes in this immediately, but not before. In 2010, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia were invited to join on 7 May, they signed the accession agreement on 27 May but became members only on 21 July (Slovenia), 7 September (Israel) and 9 December (Estonia). You can see that the process which is still needed will take several months and it depends of the internal procedures in the relevant country. Beagel (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Here we see that some users think that Colombia is the country they see in Netflix and do not recognize that the country has advanced and now they do not want to place the information that everyone knows in the article. Ignorance is bold!!!--Roboting (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong. We just follow the official list of members as it appears on OECD's website, which doesn't support your opinion, and that's because Colombia's parliament hasn't ratified the agreement (between Colombia and OECD) yet. HOTmag (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lithuania has today deposited its ratification document and therefore became a full member. Confirmed by the OECD itself.[22] Beagel (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Costa Rica has been invited to become a member of the OECD, but it is not the member yet. Before becoming the member, it has to sign the accession agreement, to ratify it, and to deposit the ratification document. E.g., in the case of Colombia, it was invited to join on 25 May 2018, but it became the member only on 28 April 2020. Beagel (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

OECD members

The same is also mentioned in Category talk:OECD members, but I want to add Category:OECD members to United States, Mexico, Latvia, Turkey and Israel, but I cannot because the articles are protected. Can someone please add them? As for Slovenia, I added the category after my edits here. --Hatto (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)