Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is now more than fifty years since the United Nations system and the Bretton Woods institutions were created. The world has changed since then, and so have its governance needs in terms of institutions and rules. It is time to think about the contours of institutions and governance that would meet the needs of the world economy, and also polity, at least for the first quarter of the twenty-first century. This book is among the first to examine the subject in depth. The study is divided into four parts. The first situates the subject in the wider context of globalization which has shaped development in the world economy, affected the living conditions of people, and constrained the role of nation states. The international context and the national setting are explored. The second part analyses some issues of emerging significance in the contemporary world, such as global macroeconomic management, transnational corporations, international capital flows, and cross-border movements of people, to suggest that there are some missing institutions which are needed. The third part provides a critical evaluation of the existing institutions, in retrospect, with a focus on the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. It analyses how existing rules need to be modified or existing institutions need to be restructured to meet the present and future needs of global governance. The fourth part explores some important elements of governance which are critical for any vision of the future. It suggests some changes in existing institutions and points to emerging governance needs where new institutions may have to be created. This authoritative volume will be of value to readers with an interest in international economics, development economics, and international relations. It will also be of value to practitioners, both policy-makers and diplomats, concerned with problems of global governance, and should become the standard reference on the subject. Contributors to this volume - Yilmaz Akyuz (UNCTAD, Geneva) Amit Bhaduri (Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi) Andrew Cornford (UNCTAD, Geneva) Richard Falk (Princeton University) Gerald K. Helleiner (University of Toronto) Devesh Kapur (Harvard University) Sanjaya Lall (University of Oxford) Deepak Nayyar (University of Delhi) Jose Antonio Ocampo (ECLAC, Santiago) S. P. Shukla (Independent Consultant, Delhi) Joseph E. Stiglitz (Columbia University) Lance Taylor (New School University, New York) Jong-Il You (Korea Development Institute, Seoul)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".