The Oecd at Fifty: Some Observations on the Evolving Nature of an International Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was created in December 1960 and Convention establishing it came into force in September 1961, but OECD was not created from scratch. The OECD is, technically speaking, successor to for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC)1. The future of OEEC came into question soon after establishment of European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958. Created ten years before to administer aid provided by Canada and United States for reconstruction of Europe under European Recovery Program, known as Marshall Plan, OEEC had effectively fulfilled its mandate.2 The discussions on a possible transformation of OEEC had already started in 1952, following end of Marshall Plan, but these talks accelerated in late 1950s. On December 21, 1959, Heads of State and Government of France, United States, Federal Republic of Germany, and United Kingdom met in Paris to discuss the important changes that have taken place in international economic situation.3 The communique that was issued on that occasion is worth mentioning in some detail. First, four countries: agreed that virtually all of industrialised part of free world is now in a position to devote its energies in increased measure to new and important tasks of co-operative endeavour with object of: a) furthering development of less developed countries, and b) pursuing trade policies directed to sound use of economic resources and maintenance of harmonious international relations, thus contributing to growth and stability in world economy and to a general improvement in standard of living.4 Second, The Heads of State and Government, recognising that method of furthering these principles requires intensive study, have agreed to call an informal meeting to be held in Paris in near future. They suggest that members and participants of Executive Committee of OEEC and Governments whose nationals are members of Steering Board for Trade of OEEC should be represented at this meeting. It is proposed that an objective of such a group should be to consider need for and methods of continuing consultations dealing with above-mentioned problems.5 A few weeks later, in January 1960, a meeting in Paris of a Special Economic Committee, consisting of ministers of thirteen countries and a representative of EEC, adopted a Resolution on Study of Reorganisation of OEEC.6 The Resolution appointed, inter alia, a group of experts7 (the of Four) to prepare a report on reorganization of OEEC, and, notably, to identify those functions at present performed by OEEC which should continue to be subject of international economic co-operation under aegis of proposed improved organisation8 The Group of Four submitted its report, A Remodelled Economic Organisation: A Report by Group of Four (Report), in April 1960, which included specific proposals for new organization's membership, name and structure, [as well as] necessary juridical and transitional arrangements, and conclude[d] with a suggested draft Convention.9 This Report served as basis of Report of Preparatory Committee of reconstituted Organisation which led to adoption on December 14, 1960, of Convention establishing for Economic Co-operation and Development. In analyzing these historical documents, in particular Report produced by Group of Four, it is striking to see both degree of continuity between OEEC and OECD, in terms of substance, structure, and methodology, and at same time, extent to which OECD has evolved to adapt to a rapidly changing world. As Group of Four indicated in its Report in remarkable foresight: [i]n short, it became clear that, while some of objectives of OEEC had not yet been completely achieved, Members would in future be devoting a greater part of their collective efforts to dealing with problems and tasks arising out of their relationships with rest of world. …
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".