The Oecd at Fifty: Some Observations on the Evolving Nature of an International Organization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was created in December 1960 and Convention establishing it came into force in September 1961, but OECD was not created from scratch. The OECD is, technically speaking, successor to for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC)1. The future of OEEC came into question soon after establishment of European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958. Created ten years before to administer aid provided by Canada and United States for reconstruction of Europe under European Recovery Program, known as Marshall Plan, OEEC had effectively fulfilled its mandate.2 The discussions on a possible transformation of OEEC had already started in 1952, following end of Marshall Plan, but these talks accelerated in late 1950s. On December 21, 1959, Heads of State and Government of France, United States, Federal Republic of Germany, and United Kingdom met in Paris to discuss the important changes that have taken place in international economic situation.3 The communique that was issued on that occasion is worth mentioning in some detail. First, four countries: agreed that virtually all of industrialised part of free world is now in a position to devote its energies in increased measure to new and important tasks of co-operative endeavour with object of: a) furthering development of less developed countries, and b) pursuing trade policies directed to sound use of economic resources and maintenance of harmonious international relations, thus contributing to growth and stability in world economy and to a general improvement in standard of living.4 Second, The Heads of State and Government, recognising that method of furthering these principles requires intensive study, have agreed to call an informal meeting to be held in Paris in near future. They suggest that members and participants of Executive Committee of OEEC and Governments whose nationals are members of Steering Board for Trade of OEEC should be represented at this meeting. It is proposed that an objective of such a group should be to consider need for and methods of continuing consultations dealing with above-mentioned problems.5 A few weeks later, in January 1960, a meeting in Paris of a Special Economic Committee, consisting of ministers of thirteen countries and a representative of EEC, adopted a Resolution on Study of Reorganisation of OEEC.6 The Resolution appointed, inter alia, a group of experts7 (the of Four) to prepare a report on reorganization of OEEC, and, notably, to identify those functions at present performed by OEEC which should continue to be subject of international economic co-operation under aegis of proposed improved organisation8 The Group of Four submitted its report, A Remodelled Economic Organisation: A Report by Group of Four (Report), in April 1960, which included specific proposals for new organization's membership, name and structure, [as well as] necessary juridical and transitional arrangements, and conclude[d] with a suggested draft Convention.9 This Report served as basis of Report of Preparatory Committee of reconstituted Organisation which led to adoption on December 14, 1960, of Convention establishing for Economic Co-operation and Development. In analyzing these historical documents, in particular Report produced by Group of Four, it is striking to see both degree of continuity between OEEC and OECD, in terms of substance, structure, and methodology, and at same time, extent to which OECD has evolved to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As Group of Four indicated in its Report in remarkable foresight: [i]n short, it became clear that, while some of objectives of OEEC had not yet been completely achieved, Members would in future be devoting a greater part of their collective efforts to dealing with problems and tasks arising out of their relationships with rest of world. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».