The United Nations and Human Development: From Ideology to Global Policies
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".