Jump to content

Talk:Emerging market

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

Where is Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh??

[edit]

I believe most of the countries in South Asia should be regarded as emerging markets and should be in the list, so should Nigeria, after all it did achieve significant growth since the 90s. Sri Lanka has an educated work force and its economy has a bright future, so does Bangladesh. It is one of the handful of nations which has successfully combatted terrorism in home ground and it has higher GDP than many couuntries from the 2nd world. So why are these 3 nations not mentioned here? I would be glad if explained in detail. Thank you.

Nigeria and Bangladesh have big populations, but not Sri Lanka. Usually institutions who released table of emerging market countries have some own reasons, but mainly based on growth of several consecutive years. If small country such as Maldives has good growth, so the market is to small and no one of the institutions will list Maldives in Emerging Markets table. In the table on Section Commonly Listed, we can see Bangladesh and Nigeria, but not Sri Lanka.Gsarwa (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

[edit]

I recently added information to the Emerging Markets entry in Wikipedia and noticed that there's been a request for a citation. When I made the entry, I included the citation so I'm not sure why I'm being asked for one. Here's the entry:

Emerging markets can be distinguished between three sub-groups according to market size (population) and economic attractiveness (GNI per capita in purchasing power parity terms).

I cited Vital Wave Consulting, a company that specializes in understanding emerging markets and accelerating business for technology companies in these new markets.

Can you explain?

Efreeley 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please see WP:REF and WP:EL, that explain what references are and look like and the guidelines on external links. Short form: a reference should have the specific point you make, not simply be a place where someone else can look. And, as the message in the edit history put it, "a link to a consulting firm's web-site is not a reference." Both because it does not fit the ref criteria, and because it looks like advertising - either would be valid reasons to bin it.

You may also want to take a look at WP:Notability. I did not get into the editing, but questioned when I saw it how notable this particular way of slicing and dicing emerging markets is. I mean, I could group emerging markets according to any criteria at all (percentage of protein in diet), but is it meaningful, significant or (most importantly) a widely accepted way of distinguishing between emerging markets?

As a suggestion: some of the more detailed stuff might fit better further down in the article. Take a look at WP:MOS, the wikipedia manual of style. And welcome aboard.--Gregalton 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've seen your most recent edit - the link is better, because it leads right to the part that does the classification - i.e. the ref is specific. I have three comments:
  1. The document linked to is advertising content. The puffery about the company is not needed for an encyclopedic reference; surely better sources can be found (without the ad content).
  2. To repeat a point above: is this company's classification notable or important in some way that I have not yet noticed?
  3. Regardless of the relative merit, content of this level of detail should really go in a section further down. The lead is getting too long.--Gregalton 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Efreely - Welcome!.
I'm the editor who removed the original refs you put in. And I did so because, as Gregalton mentions, you simply used a url to the home page of the consulting company (see your edit here). This wasn't a proper reference as nothing on the page linked to mentioned the dicing of markets as described and there was no detail to tell me where else to look. You've now put in a reference with a direct url to a pdf. While the link provided does contain evidence that this consulting firm uses this method I echo Gregalton's concerns about the validity of stating the practice of a single consulting firm as though it were canonical within the sector. I think for an assertion like this in a general article about emerging markets we need something that indicates this is a widely used or important practice. -- SiobhanHansa 21:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Gregalton and SiobhanHansa,

In response to your comments, I'd like to say that while no single definition for emerging markets exists yet, based on the work by analysts at Vital Wave Consulting with mulitnational companies such as Microsoft, AOL and Intel, how they define emerging markets is quickly becoming the defacto standard. Just as you have various definitions from other researchers, Vital Wave Consulting is a leader in its field and a company that should be taken seriously.

Thoughts?

Erin Efreeley 19:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim this is a de facto standard: could you provide a non-biased, notable reference to support that claim (and related claims, such as 'leader in its field,' etc)? The point that both of us are phrasing somewhat differently is that it should be notable to merit inclusion.
And, if you don't mind, could you clarify if you have any connection with this company? Not that it's necessarily a problem, but if so, you may want to look at the conflict of interest guidelines.--Gregalton 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I ended up taking the information down after learning that the definition I provided is an appropriate classification for ICT MNCs looking for business expansion in EMs, but it's not appropriate for the broader emerging-market universe.

Sorry for all the back and forth!

Efreeley 17:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and welcome...--Gregalton 18:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello,

My name is Jonathan and I am part of the founding team of Emerginvest - a Boston-based startup that provides unbiased data, and information on the world's emerging markets (think of a Yahoo Finance for emerging and frontier markets). I was writing because I think it might be a good resource to put in the external links section. Again, we don't offer investment advice or anything along those lines - simply data that people can use to keep track of these economies.

Thanks for your time. Irishness1 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit war over Israel

[edit]

There is a strange edit war going on over the inclusion of Israel in the MSCI list of emerging markets. Israel is clearly there in the cited list. Would those who want to delete Israel please explain why it should not be included?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute seems to be that Morgan Stanley has stated that it intends to reclassify Israel in 2010. I think it's best to wait until 2010 if this reclassification actually occurs to redo the list, but I believe it would be fair to note in the text that MS currently has indicated they plan to change the classification. All articles classifying countries are subject to a good deal of edit warring, presumably from editors who object to their nation's placement. An editor was recently deleting the Russell Index which listed South Korea as developing. These articles require a good deal of vigilance to prevent nationalist agendas. --JayHenry (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is Morgan Stanley a reliable source or not?? South Bay (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should Wikipedia "wait"? Israel will be reclassified - just in 2010, and by then - it's still classified by MSCI as an Emerging Market, so by then - Wikipedia should put Israel in MSCI Emerging Market list, and In 2010 Wikipedia should update its lists. Anyways, your suggestion of noting what MSCI has indicated they plan - is acceptable, so I added a footnote in the txet. HOOTmag (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MSCI is a major producer of such indices, and we're only presenting its list as an example of an institution's classification system. It's certainly okay for this purpose and the article does note there are limitations to any such list. I think the footnote is a good solution that we can all be comfortable with? Thanks HOOTmag! --JayHenry (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea classified by FTSE as a developed market in today.

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} South Korea classified by FTSE as a developed market in today. This references (<ref>Will be classified by FTSE as a developed market in September 2009. See: [http://ftse.com/Indices/Country_Classification/Downloads/FTSE_Country_Classification_Sept_08_update.pdf FTSE Country Classification, September 2008]</ref>) change to this references (<ref>Classified by FTSE as a developed market. See: [http://ftse.com/Indices/Country_Classification/Downloads/FTSE_Country_Classification_Sept_09_update.pdf FTSE Country Classification, September 2009]</ref>). --Werewaz (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  229° 36' 45" NET   15:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change FTSE emerging markets part.

[edit]

United Arab Emirates is not classified by FTSE's Secondary Emerging Markets list. But UAE will classified by FTSE's Secondary Emerging markets list. I have requested this part (The '''Secondary Emerging Markets''' are: {{flag|Argentina}}<ref>To be moved to Frontier September 2010.</ref>, {{flag|Chile}}, {{flag|China}}, {{flag|Colombia}},<ref>Possible change to Frontier.</ref> {{flag|Czech Republic}}<ref name=Ch_AdEm>Possible change to Advanced Emerging.</ref>, {{flag|Egypt}}, {{flag|India}}, {{flag|Indonesia}}, {{flag|Malaysia}}<ref name=Ch_AdEm />, {{flag|Morocco}}, {{flag|Pakistan}}, {{flag|Peru}}, {{flag|Philippines}}, {{flag|Russia}}, {{flag|Thailand}}, {{flag|Turkey}}<ref name=Ch_AdEm />, {{flag|UAE}}<ref>From September 2010.</ref>.)

change to this (The '''Secondary Emerging Markets''' are: {{flag|Argentina}},<ref>To be moved to Frontier September 2010.</ref> {{flag|Chile}}, {{flag|China}}, {{flag|Colombia}},<ref>Possible change to Frontier.</ref> {{flag|Czech Republic}},<ref name=Ch_AdEm>Possible change to Advanced Emerging.</ref> {{flag|Egypt}}, {{flag|India}}, {{flag|Indonesia}}, {{flag|Malaysia}},<ref name=Ch_AdEm /> {{flag|Morocco}}, {{flag|Pakistan}}, {{flag|Peru}}, {{flag|Philippines}}, {{flag|Russia}}, {{flag|Thailand}}, {{flag|Turkey}}.<ref name=Ch_AdEm /> * {{flagcountry|United Arab Emirates}} will be classified by FTSE as a Secondary Emerging market in the September 2010 indices.<ref>http://www.ftse.com/Indices/Country_Classification/Downloads/FTSE_Country_Classification_Sept_09_update.pdf</ref>). --Werewaz (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

naming

[edit]

can someone take the "s" out of the page name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.104.118.88 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

In the article it reads: "Emphasizing the fluid nature of the category, political scientist Ian Bremmer defines an emerging market as 'a country where politics matters at least as much as economics to the markets'."
Is this supposed to be a definition? What is the precise meaning of "to matter" and of "politics" in this statement? And, is the fact that politics "matter" just as much as "economics" (?) any different from countries that are not the "emerging" status?
We ought to either clarify or delete. 80.108.15.242 (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The header of the article lists China and India, but the map state they are Newly Industrialized Countries. I will change this to reflect the NIC group.Gabriel arisi (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Financial sector development

[edit]

Trying to get a consensus on taking the stub article 'Financial sector development' and merging it into this article. It's an orphan, and isn't a lot of content to bring over. Post replies here or on my talk page. --Alang814 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map Correction

[edit]

In the map shown here, why did Palawan was highlighted as a part of another entity, while it is a part of the Philippines?--180.193.3.8 (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image

[edit]

The image shown here is completely ridiculous. How it came to the mind of the authors to classify Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria etc a 'developing countries'? Is there any source that claims these European Union members are 'developing'? Who came to a conclusion that being an 'emerging market' means being 'developing country'?--MathFacts (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article and "Newly industrialized country"

[edit]

There is a lot of overlap and some contradiction between this article and the Newly industrialized country article. I wonder if a merge or co-ordinated editing might help to create better consistency. Roger (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any contradiction. What do you think is contradictory? Thanks. I don't think these articles should be merged, because both concepts are completely different. Plus emerging markets is a purely economical term, and NIC is both a socio-political and economical category. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 22:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CIVETs

[edit]

I feel like the CIVETs don't belong in the main table of comparison. Strictly speaking they're a list of a subset of especially promising emerging markets, as defined by the Economist, with a focus on young populations. I've expanded the BBVA list to include all their emerging markets, however we already have the full Economist list separately. Since it will be a pain to go through and remove the entire CIVET column though, I'm going to post my objections here for now, and clear the CIVET column at some indefinite point in the future. I'm playing around with maps right now for this and other articles and the way I do things, hopefully if anybody has any compelling reasons to keep them that I'm missing (again, subset of a larger list; as with BBVA) this will give plenty of time for you to chime in. —Quintucket (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

There are a number of broken links under the references section.

Merge of Emerging Markets Index

[edit]

On its own, Emerging Markets Index does not seem all that notable. It could be turned into a single table that includes both countries and cities, whether or not it is merged. But doing that would also make it fit pretty well in the existing section in Emerging markets. -- Beland (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the 10th BEM economy?

[edit]

From the article: "The 10 Big Emerging Markets (BEM) economies are (alphabetically ordered): Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, South Africa and Turkey.[19]"

But these are only nine countries ... And I believe the cited page doesn't work.141.22.66.232 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The 10th one was South Korea, and I change the citation, because it linked to a main website, not the actual article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Park's comment on this article

[edit]

Dr. Park has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The article is a bit narrowly focused on the terminology and some indexes. This may include typical features that define emerging market economies. The table of various sources for emerging markets index is very useful, but what follows the table should cover major sources first, rather than going to new subcategories such as BBVA's EAGLE, 3G, etc. These have not gained much traction, and can be listed separately as part of See also.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Park has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Park, Cyn-Young & Lee, Jong-Wha, 2011. "Financial Integration in Emerging Asia: Challenges and Prospects," Working Papers on Regional Economic Integration 79, Asian Development Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emerging markets. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Market Global Players (EMGP)

[edit]

Emerging Market Global Players is only a project on FDI from leading institutions in emerging markets to gather original data from company surveys and additional research and to produce annual reports based on their findings. Those EMGP reports identify the top multinationals from each of a number of emerging markets, provide detailed information on the key features of the firms’ activities abroad, and discuss other issues, including the underlying policy context influencing outward investment from those emerging markets and the impact of the MNEs on sustainable development. So, the participate countries in the project are not reflect the emerging markets in all over the world due to only one institution of the countries involve in the project and the reports are different each other with each different titles. IMHO, the column of Columbia University EMGP on Section Commonly Listed should be deleted.Gsarwa (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emerging markets. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2018

[edit]
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. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging markets → Emerging market – The article should use singular title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). The current lead section also uses the singular form ("An emerging market is a country that has some characteristics of a developed market..."). Neo-Jay (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The first sentence in the second paragraph in the Terminology section needs to be fixed: Who is Sherzodbek Safarov?

Old: "Originally coined in 1981 by then World Bank economist Antoine Van Agtmael,[7][8] the term is sometimes loosely used as a replacement for emerging economies, but really signifies a business phenomenon that is not fully described by or constrained Sherzodbek Safarov;"

New: "Originally coined in 1981 by then World Bank economist Antoine Van Agtmael,[7][8] the term is sometimes loosely used as a replacement for emerging economies, but really signifies a business phenomenon that is not fully described by or constrained it;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7936:A000:85F9:2C6B:5180:449 (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor error in Terminology section

[edit]

First sentence of second paragraph of Terminology section:

"Originally coined in 1981 by then World Bank economist Antoine Van Agtmael,[7][8] the term is sometimes loosely used as a replacement for emerging economies, but really signifies a business phenomenon that is not fully described by or constrained Sherzodbek Safarov;"

Who is Sherzodbek Safarov?

Change to: "Originally coined in 1981 by then World Bank economist Antoine Van Agtmael,[7][8] the term is sometimes loosely used as a replacement for emerging economies, but really signifies a business phenomenon that is not fully described by or constrained by it;"

2001:56A:7936:A000:85F9:2C6B:5180:449 (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Nishant 20191029[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging Frontier markets into Emerging market. I think the content in Frontier markets can easily be explained in the context of Emerging market, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the latter article. The existence of multiple articles on what is basically a slight variation on the same concept leads to worse article quality and wastes the efforts of editors. Thenightaway (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emerging_market&oldid=1247422119"