Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter examines the historical roots and radical potential of the New International Economic Order (NIEO)—a broad set of economic proposals aimed at improving trade and financial conditions for Global South countries. These proposals were consolidated into a list of demands, which were promulgated as a United Nations declaration in 1974. While critics have viewed these policy proposals as the final gasp of the Bandung era, or as a conservative policy intervention posing little threat to the global status quo, we place the NIEO in its historical context and offer an alternative interpretation. We argue that the need for trade reform should be understood with reference to unequal trade relations established during imperialism and colonialism and reinforced through post–World War II global trade regimes. The specific roots of these policy discussions start with the Bretton Woods negotiations, followed by Global South countries’ economic demands at the 1955 Bandung Conference, and especially to the work of Hans Singer and Raúl Prebisch, who exposed the unequal trade relations between Global North and Global South countries and called for alternative development strategies aimed at achieving greater economic autonomy vis-à-vis the international economy. This chapter emphasizes the radical elements of the NIEO, in terms of both content and political and economic possibilities. We use global trade in cotton and clothing, and related discriminatory trade practices, as a case that demonstrates why a dramatic restructuring of the international economic regime was needed, and why NIEO demands were met with fear and resistance from Global North 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".