Law and the Culture of Capital: A Critical Perspective on Labour’s Right to Associate in Developing Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed by critical theory, this paper focuses on the dialectical interplay between law and economics evident in the practices and policies of the International Labour Organization (ILO). It is argued, first, that governments do not comply with international labour standards because of the inherent weaknesses of the ILO as the source and enforcer of international obligations. Second, the parochial politicization of rights defers to the arrogance of ignorance. Third, developing societies are overwhelmingly preoccupied with socioeconomic development. In exploring the impact of ILO practices on developing societies within the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), this paper asks the following questions: to what extent does capital form and inform the law in relation to conflicting economic narratives of development and nationhood? How and why does the ILO talk up legal narratives of regulation and contest? How does law hegemonize capital integration? How does law symbolically function to mediate labour relations meanings and manipulate the inaction of civil society? Within the larger structure of “market forces,” the commodity of law is a complex form of social communication that diverts attention away from the political impact of predatory economies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.125 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".