Broadening the social investment agenda: The OECD, the World Bank and inclusive growth
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
Towards the close of the 20th century, the idea of social investment gained purchase as a way to legitimise social policy as a productive contribution. For those in the North, social investment provided a new rationale to counter neoliberal attacks on the welfare state, while in the South, the idea caught on in the form of conditional cash transfers. The World Bank and Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) played key roles in the development and diffusion of the social investment agenda beginning in the mid-1990s. While hewing to a common core, their interpretations of social investment differed in important respects. The OECD sought to grapple with the emergence of more flexible, post-industrial labour markets, marked by growing precarity, dualisation and feminisation and focused on work–family balance as a solution while the Bank, focused on the South, emphasised social investment in very poor children to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty. In response to new pro-equality movements and intellectual research documenting the growth in inequality, however, a decade later, both organisations moved to incorporate a broader orientation, focused on the concept of ‘inclusive growth’. This article explores these developments.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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