Global Economic Governance: The Antithesis of Trade Liberalisation Paradigm in Africa and the Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing fragmentation of the global economy and politics, coupled with the profound and unpredictable diversity of our society, renders the idea of courteous and open-minded discourse seemingly unattainable. The centralised and uniform global economic governance orchestrated by pivotal entities like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and the World Bank (WB) has had detrimental effects on emerging nations. This dynamic has facilitated the rise of nativist and populist leaders who promote mercantilist and protectionist policies, thereby eroding the foundational principles of a "liberal" international order. This trend is particularly evident in scenarios where globalisation has intensified economic inequality and poverty, as recent historical events demonstrate. International financial institutions frequently advocate for a uniform strategy in development, focusing on neoliberal economic policies like free trade, deregulation, and limited government involvement. These models have faced criticism for not aligning with the unique socio-economic realities of developing nations, which can sometimes result in stagnation or economic dependency. This paper will explore the origins of the global economic imbalance initiated by the Bretton Woods System and will critically examine whether any developments have occurred since that time to reduce global economic inequality. The assessment will determine if the ambitious initiatives proposed by the International Financial Institutions (IFI) aimed at enhancing living standards across nations have resulted in a transformative shift that influences the ongoing economic challenges faced by developing countries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".