Stalemate in the North-South Debate

Strategies and the New International Economic Order

Bibliographic Data

ID6410482
AuthorsMichael W Doyle (0000-0002-3560-3966, Princeton University, corresponding author)
Year1983
Volume35
Issue3
Pages426-464
Publication date1983-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueWorld Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0043-8871 • E-ISSN: 1086-3338
PublisherProject MUSE (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2307/2010160
OpenAlexW1985453239
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited12

A review of the recent literature reveals that during the 1970s there were three major positions in the North-South debate over the New International Economic Order (NIEO). Each represented a relatively coherent perspective on and strategy for reforming the international economy. The Structuralist position, advocating the NIEO, captured the allegiance of much of the South (the developing countries). The Functionalist position, supported by most of the governments of Northern capitalist societies, rejected the NIEO and sought to promote stable and dependable change through the specialized international agencies, such as the IMF, in which the North has considerable influence. A third position, with nongovernmental adherents from both North and South, urged Neofunctionalist reform directed toward global human rights, both civil and economic. Each of these perspectives represented a significant aspect of the actual condition of the international order, but none had the capacity to carry out its strategy. The result has been stalemate both in the negotiations for a NIEO and in the debate over the direction future international change should take

Allegiance · Economics · International relations · Negotiation · Order (exchange · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Position (finance · Sociology · Stalemate · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Development and Aid · Law

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub