The United Nations and Human Development: From Ideology to Global Policies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Building on the work of the United Nations Intellectual History Project , this article argues that the ideology of human development has now become the driving normative force behind the global policies supported by the UN in the area of development. The first part focuses on the UN’s official discourse of the past two decades, and shows how it has been influenced by the concept of human development. The second section examines a set of global policies that illustrate how the UN has sought to put the principles of human development into practice. The article concludes that while human development ideology has represented for twenty years the most credible critique of mainstream development policies, its impact – like that of the UN in world affairs – remains nonetheless limited. Policy Implications Human development currently represents the most credible alternative to mainstream development thinking and the most effective approach to fostering global justice. The UN must provide greater leadership in showing that the future of global order will depend on the future of human development. The UN should be far more pro‐active in identifying and fighting against the national and international factors that impede human development. The coherence of global policies affecting human development needs to be strengthened. The UN must cooperate much more closely with like‐minded social forces to effectually promote human development.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it