Colonel William A. Phillips

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

According to this: http://www.proi.com/resources/doing_business_in/netherlands.htm and this: http://www.dutchpress.nl/geninfo/poldermodel.html water has nothing to do with it, it seems to be about the economy. Pete.

Both texts suggest that the term was introduced in the 1980's. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a pre-80's text that mentions it, which would refute that. The texts seem to be written by economists, who have a tendency of not getting things quite right (sorry if I step on any toes now). Anyway, why do you think it's called 'polder model'? DirkvdM 17:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... so it's sort of like the opposite of the Tragedy of the Commons? Potatophysics 07:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interresting one, worthy of a mention in the article (as a 'see also' for now). But I wouldn't call it the opposite. One might say it circumvents the problem due to the fact that it is different in nature. It's about active cooperation (1), not to avoid a major setback, but the complete annihilation (2) of competing societies, not individuals (3).

Come to think of communal use, the Polder Model can be seen as an alternative to communism. But I'm not sure about putting that in the article. DirkvdM 08:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added criticism, which however was removed, and restored the addition again.

Apparently, the addition of the criticism needs to be discussed. Let's do so, polder-wise.

Please read Collapse and the links in the criticism.

Colignatus 18:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was quite possibly the worst article on wikipedia. FYI.

is Colignatus's beef with the Netherlands?

Seriously, if his English were better I would know what his angle was, but as it stands I'm willing to chalk it up to another dumb European tribal rivalry. Considering that the 'polder model' is actually a fairly well-observed historical attitude, more criticism on the subject than actual explanation of what it is / what it means seems fairly uncalled-for; in addition, the 'criticism' section is seemingly inchohate with rage that the bloody Dutch are so much as considered.

The criticism section is supported by a single link, which is original research, as it's a Wikireason page (what the hell is Wikireason - where the Objectivists among you go to masturbate?) created solely by Colignatus himself -- and itself inspiredly incoherent.

Note that the criticisms are not at all of the 'polder method' itself, but seem to prefer to snipe at the Dutch people. And while I'm not Dutch, I find overt bigotry against them fairly silly.

Especially when it gets in the way of valid history/economics.

68.104.94.68 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Please don't hide behind a URL or nickname, but give your full name and address so that everyone can note that you reason and talk like this. (2) Check out wikireason before you judge. (3) The polder model is NOT a "fairly well-observed historical attitude". There are only people who tell stories like that, which can be recorded but needs to be treated cautiously. PM. I am an economist, what are you ? (4) I don't have anything about the Dutch people, just want this issue to be straight. (5) My English is fine, don't mix up your lack of understanding with my English. (6) For readers of Dutch: a recent article by Wouter van Dieren points to another problem in Dutch society - which shows that there is no polder model. See http://www.imsa.nl/Publicaties____pagina26_168.html (7) To be sure: This page must be developed into a decent entry. Colignatus 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colignatus, I did not write the previous entry but I see one problem with your last entry. A wikipedia-article should not be discussion between two side on the merit of some social phenomenon, instead it should be a neutral point of view presentation of some social phenomenon. I agree with you that this page should be developed into a decent entry. I will try to change the article as soon as I can. C mon 07:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've radically revised this article, atleast hoping that it is no longer the worst article on wikipedia.C mon 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. I added some links and included the role of the CPB. Colignatus 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually dutch -> Dutch, and Corporatism -> corporatism

I don't quite follow your definition: "The polder model is the dutch version of corporatism. The term is now used to describe all similar phenomena of Consensus decision-making, which characterize the dutch political system."

Can it become: "The polder model is the Dutch version of corporatism. The term could be used for similar cases of consensus decision-making."

Colignatus 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Dutch Disease' has nothing to do with the polder model, its about relative de-industrialisation due to increased dependance on resource exploitation, first characterised by the Netherlands in the 1960s and 70s as a result of the oil/gas boom, before the whole 'Polder-Model' vibe took off. Indeed, the the very link to the Wiki-Entry on Dutch disease confirms this.

Also i'm at pains to understand what the polder-model has to do with Theo v. Gogh's murder, or do Islamist cells use the polder-model too? "Social problems stiring below the surface"? Are countries that don't subscribe to the polder-model somehow immune to this? Issues about identities and tolerance and suspicion of certain (often muslim) immigrant groups are a fairly Europe-wide phenomenon at the moment, not exactly uniquely Dutch.

The more obvious critique that the polder-model only works when there is concensus (and the lack there of as well as a degree of discontent with the traditional political order is in part the reason behind present Dutch political woes) seems to be missing, though i guess that should be blindingly obvious.

I guess what i'm trying to say is that the critique section seems a bit weak, with some of it being rather irrelevant.

Over the years, the article has gradually shifted to economics, pushing the more general meaning of the polder model (cooperation despite differences) to the background. I'd say it requires a major rewrite, but I'd prefer some input before I start that. DirkvdM (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I think actually that the term polder model was first used to refer to the economic system and only later the the political-cultural phenomenon. Sites like parlement.com (of Leiden Univeristy) and the NRC (a major Netherlands quality newspaper) sustain this. C mon (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the name 'Poldermodel' was much older and only later applied to economics. But I find different sources saying different things. A good illustration is on this page: "Natuurlijk lopen ze daarbij allemaal aan tegen de vraag wat dat poldermodel nou precies is. Dat is nog niet zo eenvoudig. Tekenend is dat deze fine fleur van de vaderlandse historici er niet in slaagt om de exacte herkomst van de term te achterhalen. Wel staat vast dat hij voor het eerst gebruikt is in de jaren negentig van de vorige eeuw waarbij hij aanvankelijk betrekking had op de manier waarop werkgevers en werknemers in Nederland met elkaar omgaan. Daarna begon het begrip aan een enorme vlucht, ...". So that suggests it's the other way around. It also mentions "een pragmatische erkenning van pluriformiteit". And this page, says that Pleij, the author of Erasmus en het poldermodel calls the Poldermodel "de eigenzinnige combinatie van conflictmodel en consensusbereidheid". Which is pretty much the meaning I ascribe to it.

Whatever the origin of the term, it is certainly used for both economic policies (apparently the original meaning) and 'cooperation despite differences', as I prefer to describe it. The article should reflect that, I'd say. So not mention the non-economic meanings more as an afterthought. The word now has both meanings. Two book-titles I keep on finding are the aforementioned Erasmus en het poldermodel and Harmonie in Holland. Het poldermodel van 1500 tot nu, two rather suggestive titles (although I should of course read the books in stead of just the titles :) ). But what I mean to say is that one should distinguish between the phenomenon and the origin of the word.

Note that there is a strong case for the broader meaning, in the use of the word 'polder' in the name and polders being something that is typically Dutch that forced people to cooperate whatever their differences might be. But that's original research. DirkvdM (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just realised I have an old discussion (1997 or 1998, because it is mentioned that D'66 has still 24 seats) between Bolkesteijn and van Mierlo in 'Buitenhof' on tape, which I have now started watching (a left-wing vs a right-wing liberal icon - I love it!). Bolkesteijn says the poldermodel is an economic thing which started with the hard political battles in the 1980's. Van Mierlo points out the human factor and says that the word stems from the democratisation that started with the 'inpoldering' of the Netherlands, which led to the 'ingepolderde mens' of the 'zuilenstructuur' (damn, this is hard to translate :) ), who was, however, not free and became that in the 1960's. And then the disucussion moves elsewhere. DirkvdM (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reaction yet, so I'll work this into the article. Also, the article had a mix of English ('labour') and American ('revitalize') English. I consolidated this to English English, the Netherlands being a European country. DirkvdM (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the current version as it gives the current economy & cultural history both the attention they deserve. References though would be very nice. C mon (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how Fortuyn's murder and election results are important parts of this article. Even the mention of Fortuyn is somewhat dubious. I have therefore removed those parts. Of course, if anyone disagree, I'd be happy to polder. ;) Kevinklop (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuyn's dubious unscientific claims have no place in an encyclopedia (it was and is a self promotional book of fiction) Markthemac (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated on this talk page, there is no criticism at all of the Polder Model. For example, decisions take much longer than with a more hierarchical structure and no individual necessarily is responsible (though whether that is a problem is debateable). Finally, the article says that the model is "international acclaimed". Really? Citation? --Robinson weijman (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]