Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T04:22:38.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Global Economy and the Third World: Coalition or Cleavage?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Douglas C. Smyth
Affiliation:
Florida Technological University
Get access

Abstract

Positions taken by delegations in the U.N. General Assembly during debates of the Sixth and Seventh Special Sessions are analyzed to determine clustering on economic issues and their sources. Third-World states took positions consistently distinct from those of Eastern and Western countries, and economic attributes appear to explain this. Differences within the Third World were not consistent, however, and were more apparent in the Seventh Special Session. Divisions found between Third-World states on issues such as resource allocations and monetary reform included: states with slow versus fast economic growth rates; states dependent on Western versus Eastern aid; and regional differences. Neither OPEC nor a “fourth world” appeared distinct from the Third World as a whole. Coalitions, varying by issue, appeared to overlap to build the Third-World “bloc.”

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Alker, Hayward R. and Russett, Bruce M., World Politics in the General Assembly (New Haven: Yale University Press 1965)Google Scholar; Russett, , “Discovering Voting Groups in the United Nations,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 60 (June 1966), 327–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alker, , “Dimensions of Conflict in the General Assembly,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 58 (September 1964), 642–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lijphart, Arend, “The Analysis of Bloc Voting in the General Assembly: A Critique and a Proposal,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 57 (December 1963), 902–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vincent, Jack E., “Predicting Voting Patterns in the General Assembly,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 65 (June 1971), 471–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Marcus, Edward and Marcus, Mildred R., Economic Progress and the Developing World (Glennview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman 1971)Google Scholar; Brown, Lester R., World Without Borders (New York: Random House 1972)Google Scholar; Borgstrom, Georg, The Hungry Planet (New York: Macmillan 1972)Google Scholar; Jalee, Pierre, The Third World in World Economy (New York: Monthly Review Press 1969)Google Scholar; Wu, Yuan-li, Raw Material Supply in a Multipolar World (New York: Crane, Russak 1973)Google Scholar; Hayter, Teresa, Aid as Imperialism (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books 1971)Google Scholar; Zhukov, Yuri and others, The Third World: Problems and Prospects (Moscow: Progress Publishers 1970)Google Scholar; Cooper, Robert N., ed., A Reordered World: Emerging International Economic Problems (Washington: Potomac Associates 1973)Google Scholar; Hensman, C. R., Rich Against Poor: The Reality of Aid (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co. 1971)Google Scholar.

3 See Vincent (fn. 1).

4 U.N. Statistical Yearbook, 1973 (New York: United Nations 1974)Google Scholar, indicators compiled from national accounts tables, and from bilateral aid received by country from developed market economies and from nonmarket economies. All figures are for 1970, the most complete listing to date.

5 Prebisch, Raul, Change and Development: Latin America's Great Task. (New York: Praeger 1971)Google Scholar; Furtado, Celso, Obstacles to Latin American Development (New York: Doubleday 1970)Google Scholar.

6 U.S. State Department, Bulletin, Vol. 70 (March 4, 1974), 201–02, 219Google Scholar; Crockcroft, James, Frank, Andre, and Johnson, Dale, Dependence and Underdevelopment (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday 1972), xiixvGoogle Scholar; Horowitz, Irving L., Three Worlds of Development (New York: Oxford 1966)Google Scholar; Maizels, A., Industrial Growth and World Trade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1963)Google Scholar; Prebisch, Raul, Towards a New Trade Policy for Development (New York: United Nations Publications 1964)Google Scholar; Ward, Barbara and others, The Widening Gap (New York: Columbia University Press 1971)Google Scholar.

7 Riggs, Fred W., Administration in Developing Countries (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1964), 117–21Google Scholar; Huntington, Samuel P., “Political Development and Political Decay,” World Politics, XVII (April 1965), 386430CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Gurr, Ted R., Why Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1970)Google Scholar; Davies, James C., “Toward a Theory of Revolution,” American Sociological Review, XXVII (1962), 1518Google Scholar.

9 Nkrumah, Kwame, Consciencism (New York: Monthly Review Press 1970)Google Scholar; Norman, Dorothy, ed., Nehru: The First Sixty Years (New York: John Day 1965)Google Scholar; Legge, John D., Sukarno (New York: Praeger 1972)Google Scholar.

10 Alker and Russett; Russett; Lijphart; Vincent (all fn. 1).

11 Smyth, “A Comparison of the Sixth and Seventh Special Sessions: A Shift Towards the Center,” mimeo (Florida Technological University, June 1976).

12 It ought to be noted that the developed Western states, despite our negative comments about “bloc” behavior, were more unified than the Socialist states on many issues, and were the most unified in the later session.

13 Symbolic positions varied similarly, when size of country (income) was held constant.

14 Ruggie, John and Gusovic, Branislav, “The Seventh Special Session,” International Organization, XXX (Spring 1976)Google Scholar.