International development and the private sector: The ambiguities of “partnership”
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
Historically, the relationship between the private sector and international development has been deeply ambivalent. For many, a vibrant private sector and competitive markets are the essential prerequisites of development. For many others, development is principally concerned with ameliorating the dislocation associated with capitalist profit seeking. In the last generation, this ambivalence has given way to an emphasis on the complementarities between the private sector and development. Yet skeptics have continued to criticize the form of development this trend has promoted. We review the historical conditions behind this trend; the controversies concerning transnational corporations and foreign direct investment; the rise of corporate social responsibility; the parallel rise of philanthrocapitalism; and the growth of micro-credit as a market-oriented vehicle for poverty alleviation and empowerment. When taken together, it is clear that private sector actors have become increasingly influential in the new landscape of development, yet their effects remain ambiguous.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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