¹ See “The Fraternity of the Impatient,” U.S. Department of State Press Release 335, 07 22, 1964Google Scholar, subsequently published in the Department of State Bulletin, 08 17, 1964 (Vol. 51, No. 1312), pp. 241–248Google Scholar. Assistant Secretary Cleveland included the United States in the fraternity. Noting that the post-UNCTAD joint declaration of the 77 developing countries expressed great impatience, he said to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC): “For our part, we not only honor and applaud their impatience—we share it. Welcome to the ‘fraternity of the impatient,’ we say.” (Ibid., p. 246.)

² Asher, Robert E., “Economic Co-operation Under UN Auspices,” International Organization, Summer 1958 (Vol. 12, No. 3), p. 300CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ For details see Edward M. Bernstein's lucid essay elsewhere in this volume.

⁴ “Although such concessions were, of course, extended by the MFN [most-favored-nation] rule to developing countries as well, they were in general irrelevant to the latter.” “Tariff Averages for Products of Interest to Developing Countries as Compared with Other Products” (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Research Memorandum No. 13/2, 08 4, 1967 [provisional draft, mimeographed], p. 8.)Google Scholar

⁵ See the essay by Raúl Sáez elsewhere in this volume. Nevertheless, by comparison with present arrangements in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East the Alliance for Progress constitutes a long step toward a multilateral approach to development.

⁶ Walter M. Kotschnig in his essay calls attention to the newly revived and strengthened Committee for Program and Coordination and strikes a more hopeful note concerning the prospects for coordination.

⁷ For perceptive accounts of the problem of aid coordination see Hoffman, Michael L., “The Co-ordination of Aid,” in Effective Aid (London: Overseas Development Institute, 1967), pp. 65–84Google Scholar; and Rubin, Seymour J., The Conscience of the Rich Nations: The Development Assistance Committee and the Common Aid Effort (New York: Harper & Row [for the Council on Foreign Relations], 1966), especially pp. 12–20Google Scholar.

⁸ Friedman, Irving S., International Problems of Economic Development, Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, Canada, 06 7, 1967 (Washington: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1967), p. 8Google Scholar. Mr. Friedman goes on to say,

By planning technique … I do not mean a detailed control and regulation of economic activity. Rather, it is the method by which governments make commitments to future actions and policies, thus extending the time horizons within which economic calculations based on objective criteria can play a greater part. The planning technique then becomes an important instrument for coordinating development activity on a number of different fronts, and for maintaining some sort of continuity in the pace of development.

⁹ See Jan Tinbergen, “Wanted: A World Development Plan,” elsewhere in this volume.

¹⁰ “The United Nations Development Decade at Mid-Point: An appraisal by the Secretary-General” (UN Document E/4071, June 11, 1965), p. 32.

¹¹ See Stanley D. Metzger's trenchant analysis of investment issues elsewhere in this volume.

¹² Richard N. Gardner finds “the ratio of talk to action … still distressingly high” and concedes that the UN got off to a slow start insofar as family planning assistance is concerned. He regards 1962–1967 as the years of the breakthrough, however, and calls attention to the record of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and agencies bolder than WHO. See his essay “Toward a World Population Program” elsewhere in this volume.

¹³ de Vries, Margaret G., “Trade and Exchange Policies for Economic Development,” Finance and Development, 06 1967 (Vol. 4, No. 2), p. 116Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Because it deals with processed rather than primary products, the Cotton Textiles Arrangement is not a commodity agreement in the usual sense of the term.

¹⁵ This should not be construed as an argument against the establishment of heavy industries. A number of less developed countries have passed the “initially at least” stage to which I refer or can justify capital-intensive undertakings on other grounds. See, for example, Myint, Hla, The Economics of the Developing Countries (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), pp. 136–142, 157–159Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See Johnson, Harry G., Economic Policies Toward Less Developed Countries (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1967), especially pp. 78–110Google Scholar.

¹⁷ 1963 report on the World Social Situation (United Nations Publication Sales No: 63.IV.4 [UN Document E/CN.s/375/Rev.1]) (United Nations, 1963), Chapter I.

¹⁸ This summary of the postwar record of the less developed countries draws heavily on Asher, Robert E., International Development and the U.S. National Interest (Washington: National Planning Association, 1967), pp. 21–24Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Black, C. E., The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 154Google Scholar.