A World To Make: Development in Perspective.

America and the Making of Modern Turkey: Science, Culture and Political Alliances

People, institutions, and technology: A personal view of the role of foundations in international agricultural research and development 1960–2010

Background American Foundations right from the historical to the present times are far from being philanthropic entity. These foundations since their inception have been closely tied to the American Influence and compliment both its military and technological power. Since the early years of their inception, major American Foundations like Rockefeller and Ford have been very influential in global development of public health, not only through their grant making but also by participating in shaping concepts and policies. There has always been an overt focus on technological solutions to social issues. Rockefeller Foundation was the first major American foundation to engage in public health issues in both China and India followed by Ford foundation in the early 50 s (India) and late 70 s (China) and finally the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation following its predecessors set its foot in Public health in the 21st century. Methods This study looks at the differences in the scope, nature and depth of engagement of Rockefeller, Ford and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with focused health institutions and programmes in China and India from the early 20th century to the present. This study plans to trace the Historical development of these three big American Philanthropic Foundations in depth, the world of Philanthropic giving, its impact on knowledge construction, social policies and the agenda that it sets to fulfill. This study plans to adopt a qualitative method in which Archival study and indepth interviews of key informants will be the main source of data collection. Discussion With its sheer size and increasing number, American Philanthropic Organizations have become an influential actor in international policy debates especially in the field of global health. At a time when governments are unable to solve pressing public health challenges, Foundations with its strategic business methods is positioning itself as an alternative and operating model. These aid over the decade have infact created sustainable elite networks that, on the whole, supported American policies ranging from liberalism in the 1950s (Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie) to neo-liberalism in the 21st century (MacArthur, Clinton, Gates, Johnson). Rockefeller, Ford and Gates Foundation are the global major players. What Rockefeller started, followed by Ford in the 20th century public health has been taken over by Gates Foundation into a whole new level in terms of both funding and influence. All three foundations have been active players in governing public health discourses in both China and India.

The textbook meets the requirements of the state educational standard for the discipline "World economy". In the process of studying the course, the student must acquire certain knowledge, skills, abilities within the framework of General cultural and professional competencies. Submission of material in the textbook is based on the knowledge gained by students in the study of disciplines "History of the world economy" "Economic theory", "Higher mathematics", "Statistics", "Introduction to the world economy". The author summarizes many years of experience in teaching courses "World economy and international economic relations", "international economic integration", "Globalization of the world economy" to students, as well as students of the Interdisciplinary Institute of advanced training of Dagestan state University. In the work on the textbook, the author sought to combine the necessary scientific level and logical, rational and simple presentation of the topic. Specific practical and statistical material is accompanied by theoretical analysis, conclusions, generalizations, as well as control questions for self-testing. The textbook can be organically used in combination with modern audiovisual and other tools used in the educational process. Particular attention is paid to the use of a variety of Russian and foreign sources, statements and concepts of authoritative analysts and economists; statistical data, mainly international organizations and institutions such as the UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO, WTO, IMF, world Bank, IBRD, Eurostat, national statistical reports and annual compilations and periodic literature. At the same time, observing the educational standards established by the Ministry, the author of the textbook considers it useful to apply a variety of techniques to consolidate educational material (questions, control tasks, etc.). The publication can be used by students enrolled in bachelor of Economics programs, students of faculties of advanced training, employees of the economic sphere. as well as all those interested in the theory and practice of the world economy and international economic relations. The textbook quite convincingly reveals the basic theoretical and methodological foundations and General trends in the development of the modern world economy.

Journal Article Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power Get access Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power. By Inderjeet Parmar. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. xii, 356 pp. $35.00.) Nils Gilman Nils Gilman San Francisco, California nils_gilman@yahoo.com Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of American History, Volume 99, Issue 4, March 2013, Pages 1282–1283, https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jas560 Published: 01 March 2013

International grant making by U.S. foundations.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgments I would like to thank Paul Cammack, Adam David Morton, Stuart Shields and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. Notes 1. James D. Wolfensohn & François Bourguignon, Development and Poverty Reduction: Looking Back, Looking Ahead (World Bank, 2004), p. 32. 2. Paul Cammack, ‘Neoliberalism, the World Bank, and the New Politics of Development’, in Uma Kothari & Martin Minogue (eds), Development Theory and Practice: Critical Perspectives (Palgrave, 2002), pp. 157–78; Paul Cammack, ‘The Mother of all Governments: The World Bank's Matrix for Global Governance’, in Rorden Wilkinson & Steve Hughes (eds), Global Governance: Critical Perspectives (Routledge, 2002), pp. 36–53; Paul Cammack, ‘The Governance of Global Capitalism’, Historical Materialism, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2003), pp. 37–59; and Paul Cammack, ‘What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction and Why it Matters’, New Political Economy, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2004), pp. 189–211. 3. Cammack, ‘Neoliberalism’, p. 178. 4. Cammack, ‘The Mother of all Governments’, p. 50. 5. Cammack, ‘What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction’, p. 197. Despite Stiglitz's somewhat acrimonious departure in January 2000, his legacy endures insofar as the logic of competition remains at the heart of World Bank political economy. The 2005 World Development Report, for example, states that that ‘a good investment climate encourages firms to invest by removing unjustified costs, risks, and barriers to competition’. What is required, therefore, is ‘an environment that fosters the competitive processes that Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction” – an environment in which firms have opportunities and incentives to test their ideas, strive for success, and prosper or fail’. World Bank, World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone (World Bank & Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 2. 6. Though the frame of reference for the central argument of this article is Cammack's scholarship on the governance of global capitalism, the utility of the analysis being presented certainly extends to fall within a variety of contemporary historical materialist scholarship. For example, the article could easily complement recent work on the ‘transnationalisation’ of the state. See William I. Robinson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World (The John Hopkins University Press, 2004); and, for an application of the theory, William I. Robinson, Transnational Conflicts: Central America, Social Change, and Globalization (Verso, 2003). It could also serve as useful postscript to the analysis of the transnationalisation of the Mexican state by Adam David Morton, ‘Structural Change and Neoliberalism in Mexico: “Passive Revolution” in the Global Political Economy’, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4 (2003), pp. 631–53. However, I should stress that my research seeks to develop an approach that places investigatory primacy upon the study of ‘social form’ in capitalism and, as such, advances a different kind of dialectical analysis to that operationalised by Robinson, Morton and other contemporary theorists of ‘global economy’. By approaching the question of national reforms from a different methodological standpoint, the wider research of which this article is constitutive has arrived at qualitatively different conclusions to those of Robinson and others. For further clarification of this methodological distinction and why it is important, see the exchange between Andreas Bieler & Adam David Morton, ‘Globalisation, the State and Class Struggle: A “Critical Economy” Engagement with Open Marxism’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 5, No. 4 (2003), pp. 467–99; and Werner Bonefeld, ‘Critical Economy and Social Constitution: A Reply to Bieler and Morton’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2004), pp. 231–37. 7. Mark E. Williams, Market Reforms in Mexico: Coalitions, Institutions, and the Politics of Policy Change (Rowman and Littlefield, 2001), p. 3. 8. See Nora Lustig, Mexico: The Remaking of an Economy (Brookings Institution, 1995); Gerardo Otero (ed.), Neoliberalism Revisited: Economic Restructuring and Mexico's Political Future (Westview Press, 1996); and Susanne Soederberg, ‘State, Crisis, and Capital Accumulation in Mexico’, Historical Materialism, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2001), pp. 61–84. 9. Here, I am paraphrasing Wolfensohn & Bourguignon, Development and Poverty Reduction, p. 2. 10. Joseph Stiglitz, ‘More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus’, The WIDER Annual Lecture, Helsinki, Finland, 7 January 1998; and Joseph Stiglitz, ‘Towards a New Paradigm for Development Strategies, Policies and Processes’, Prebisch Lecture, UNCTAD, Geneva, 19 October 1998. 11. Joseph Stiglitz, ‘Distribution, Efficiency, and Voice: Designing the Second Generation of Reforms’, speech delivered during conference sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Land Reform and the World Bank, Asset Distribution, Poverty and Economic Growth, Brasilia, 14 July 1998. 12. Principal authors of the Viewpoints reports have included Shahid Javed Burki, a former finance minister for Pakistan, former World Bank vice president for the Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) region, and most recently the chief executive officer of Washington DC-based EMP Financial Advisors; Sebastian Edwards, a Chicago-trained economist, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, consultant to numerous international organisations and multinational firms, former World Bank Chief Economist for the LAC, and currently Henry Ford II Professor of International Business Economics at the Anderson School of Management, California; Guillermo E. Perry, former Colombian minister of finance and public credit, former Colombian senator and constitutional assemblyman, and director of LAC policy research at the Bank since 1996; and David de Ferranti, chair of the Rockefeller Foundation's finance committee, former director at the Rand policy research institute, and current Bank vice president for LAC. 13. This ‘unfinished’/‘second generation’/‘incomplete’ discourse is not confined to the Viewpoints series. See, for example, José Luis Guasch, Labor Market Reform and Job Creation: The Unfinished Agenda in Latin American and Caribbean Countries (World Bank, 1999); and Indermit S. Gill, Claudio E. Montenegro & Dörte Dömeland (eds), Crafting Labor Policy: Techniques and Lessons from Latin America (World Bank & Oxford University Press, 2002). Nor is it confined to World Bank reports for the LAC region – see, for example, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Productive Development in Open Economies (ECLAC, 2004). 14. Shahid Javed Burki & Sebastian Edwards, Latin America after Mexico: Quickening the Pace, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 1996), p. 11. 15. Shahid Javed Burki & Sebastian Edwards, Dismantling the Populist State: The Unfinished Revolution in Latin America and the Caribbean, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 1996), p. 25. 16. The most explicit and, at the same time, accessible exposition of this ‘deep interventionist’ competition logic can be found in World Bank, Transition – The First Ten Years: Analysis and Lessons for Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union (World Bank, 2002). 17. Burki & Edwards, Dismantling the Populist State, p. 27. 18. See, for example, Juan Luis Londoño, Poverty, Inequality, and Human Capital Development in Latin America, 1950–2025, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 1996). 19. Shahid Javed Burki & Guillermo E. Perry, The Long March: A Reform Agenda for Latin America and the Caribbean in the Next Decade, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 1997). 20. Ibid., p. 57. 21. Shahid Javed Burki & Guillermo E. Perry, Beyond the Washington Consensus: Institutions Matter, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 1998). 22. Ibid., p. 25. 23. Ibid., pp. 34–6. 24. Shahid Javed Burki, Guillermo E. Perry & William Dillinger, Beyond the Center: Decentralizing the State, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 1999), pp. 1–7. 25. David de Ferranti, Guillermo E. Perry, Indermit S. Gill & Luis Servén, with Francisco H. G. Ferreira, Nadeem Ilah, William F. Maloney & Martin Rama, Securing our Future in a Global Economy, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 2000), pp. 1–12. 26. Ibid., p. 123. 27. Ibid., p. 125. 28. David de Ferranti, Guillermo E. Perry, Daniel Lederman & William F. Maloney, From Natural Resources to the Knowledge Economy: Trade and Job Quality (World Bank, 2002). 29. Ibid., p. 2. 30. David de Ferranti, Guillermo E. Perry, Indermit Gill, J. Luis Guasch, William F. Maloney, Carolina Sánchez-Páramo & Norbert Schady, Closing the Gap in Education and Technology, Latin American and Caribbean Studies (World Bank, 2003). 31. Ibid., p. 10. 32. David de Ferranti, Guillermo E. Perry, Francisco H. G. Ferreira & Michael Walton, Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean: Breaking with History?, Latin American and Caribbean Studies Viewpoints (World Bank, 2004). 33. Nikki Craske, ‘Another Mexican Earthquake? An Assessment of the 2 July 2000 Elections’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2001), pp. 40–1. 34. Vicente Fox Quesada, A Los Pinos: Recuento autobiográfico y politico (Editorial Oceano de México, 1999), pp. 112–3. 35. Ramón Muñoz Gutiérrez, Pasión por un Buen Gobierno: Administración por Calidad en el gobierno de Vicente Fox, en Guanajuato (Editorial Grijalbo, 2003), pp. 9–35, 57–62, and 23. Further evidence of Fox's politics can be found in his involvement with prominent Latin American ‘third way’ political forums, such as the Grupo Mangabeira and the Grupo San Angel. Fox's first foreign minister discusses this involvement, and the content of the resulting ‘Buenos Aires consensus’, in Jorge G. Castañeda, ‘Mexico: Permuting Power’, New Left Review, No. 7 (2001), pp. 17–32. Such forums have been criticised for espousing ‘the ultimate goal of a market society of possessive individuals’: see John Gledhill, ‘Some Conceptual and Substantive Limitations of Contemporary Western (Global) Discourses of Rights and Social Justice’, in Christopher Abel & Colin M. Lewis (eds), Exclusion & Engagement: Social Policy in Latin America (Institute of Latin American Studies, 2002), pp. 131–47. 36. The Mexican Employers' Confederation (COPARMEX) had been formed in 1929 by conservative, and predominantly Catholic, Monterrey-based industrialists united in their opposition to the social reformism of the Mexican government at this time and, in particular, to the newly adopted Federal Labour Law. COPARMEX went on to cultivate a number of voluntary organisations that would later provide support for the National Action Party (PAN) and form the neopanista wing of the party, to which Fox is most closely aligned. 37. Roderic Ai Camp, Mexico's Mandarins: Crafting a Power Elite for the Twenty-First Century (University of California Press, 2002), p. 269. 38. Ibid., p. 270. 39. Roderic Ai Camp, Politics in Mexico: The Democratic Transformation (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 183. 40. Poder Ejecutivo Federal, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo, 2001–2006 (Poder Ejecutivo Federal, 2001). 41. Ibid., pp. 21–2, my translation. 42. Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, Programa Nacional de Política Laboral, 2001–6 (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, 2001). 43. Ibid., p. 112, my translation. 44. The discursive correspondence between the Fox government's policy documents and World Bank, World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone, is striking: ‘An investment climate that encourages growth creates sustainable jobs and opportunities for microentrepreneurs – the key pathways out of poverty for poor people, pathways that will become more crowded with coming demographic changes (p. 19). … It also encourages people to invest more in their own education and skills to take advantage of better jobs in the future. There is thus a two-way link between skills and jobs, with an improved investment climate complementing efforts to improve human development (p. 33). … There are, however, short-term costs due to changes in job characteristics and greater labour mobility in a modern, productive economy. This reinforces the importance of looking at labour market policies in the context of broader strategies, including efforts to foster a more skilled and adaptable workforce and to help workers cope with change’ (p. 142). 45. Gustavo Castro Soto, ‘The World Bank in Mexico’, Chiapas al Día, No. 236, 22 March 2001, http://www.ciepac.org/bulletins/ingles/ing236.htm, accessed on 31 January 2005. 46. ‘Directivos del Banco Mundial se reúnen con presidente de México y reafirman confianza en la economía del país’, World Bank press release, 20 January 2003. 47. See Dan Morrow (Lead Researcher), ‘Mexico: Country Assistance Evaluation’, Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank, 28 June 2001; and the author's interview with a Senior Operations Officer, Colombia and Mexico Country Management Unit, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank Group), Mexico City, 1 December 2003. 48. Other Mexican officials present at the meetings included: Carlos Gadsen (Director General of the National Institute for Federalism and Municipal Development); Angel Gurría (Minister of Finance and Public Credit); Rodrigo Morales (Director of the Centre for Economic Investigation); Ricardo Ochoa (a Director General in the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit); Moises Pineda (now an executive at the World Bank); Cecilia Ramos (former Minister for Economic Affairs in the Mexican Embassy to the UK, and now a representative of Mexico at the World Bank); and Eduardo Sojo (the Presidential Coordinator of Public Policy). 49. Marcel M. Giugale, Olivier Lafourcade & Vinh H. Nguyen (eds), Mexico: A Comprehensive Development Agenda for the New Era (World Bank, 2001). 50. World Bank Comprehensive Development Secretariat, ‘Comprehensive Development Framework: Implementation Experience in Low- and Middle-Income Countries – Progress Report’, 26 April 2002, p. 59. 51. See Marcel M. Giugale, ‘A Comprehensive Development Agenda for the New Era: Synthesis’, in Giugale et al., Mexico: A Comprehensive Development Agenda, p. 3. 52. Ibid., pp. 15–16; also William F. Maloney, with Gladys Lopez-Acevedo & Ana Revenga, ‘Labor Markets’, in Giugale et al., Mexico: A Comprehensive Development Agenda, pp. 511–36. 53. World Bank, ‘Memorandum of the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Finance Corporation to the Executive Directors on a Country Assistance Strategy of the World Bank Group for the United Mexican States’, Report No. 23849-ME, Colombia–Mexico–Venezuela Country Management Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, 23 April 2002; Ulrich Lächler (Lead Researcher), ‘Mexico: Enhancing Factor Productivity Growth’, Country Economic Memorandum, Report No. 17392-ME, Mexico Department, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, World Bank, 31 August 1998; and World Bank, ‘Memorandum of the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation to the Executive Directors on a Country Assistance Strategy Progress Report of the World Bank Group for the United Mexican States’, Report No. 22147-ME, Colombia–Mexico–Venezuela Country Management Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, 21 May 2001. 54. Morrow, ‘Mexico: Country Assistance Evaluation’. 55. Ibid., p. iii. 56. ‘Memorandum to the Executive Directors and the President’, 28 June 2001, in Morrow, ‘Mexico: Country Assistance Evaluation’. 57. World Bank, ‘Memorandum of the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Finance Corporation to the Executive Directors on a Country Assistance Strategy of the World Bank Group for the United Mexican States’, p. 1, emphasis added. 58. Ibid., pp. 43–50. 59. Ibid., p. 22, emphasis added. 60. Official Diary, Poder Ejecutivo Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, 6 December 2001. 61. Gillette Hall (Lead Researcher), Estrategia Desarrollo de los Estados del Sur de México, Vols. I and II (World Bank, 2003). 62. ‘México necesita combatir la pobreza en el sur para consolidar su prosperidad económica’, World Bank press release, No. 2004/012/MEX, 25 September 2003. 63. Olivier Lafourcade cited in ‘World Bank Team Offers Policy Menu’, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/MEXICOEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20018971∼menuPK:338416∼pagePK:141137∼piPK:141127∼theSitePK:338397,00.html (accessed on 31 January 2005). 64. The term ‘official’ here refers to those unions that were given privileged political access to state resources under the PRI and, as a result, were able to broaden membership and defeat their adversaries within the labour movement. The dominant position of these ‘state-corporatist’ unions remained unchallenged until the 1980s and the onset of neoliberal restructuring. 65. Lächler, ‘Mexico: Enhancing Factor Productivity Growth’, pp. 91–2; Graciela Bensusán, ‘A New Scenario for Mexican Trade Unions: Changes in the Structure of Political and Economic Opportunities’, in Kevin J. Middlebrook (ed.), Dilemmas of Political Change in Mexico (Institute of Latin American Studies and Center for US–Mexican Studies, 2004), pp. 261–5; see also James G. Samstad, ‘Corporatism and Democratic Transition: State and Labor During the Salinas and Zedillo Administrations’, Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 44, No. 4 (2002), pp. 1–28. 66. Giugale, ‘A Comprehensive Development Agenda for the New Era’, p. 15. 67. Maloney, with Lopez-Acevedo & Revenga, ‘Labor Markets’, p. 513, emphasis added. 68. This follows the typology of Mexican labour unions in Bensusán, ‘A New Scenario’, pp. 237–85. Bensusán's third type is ‘movement unionism’, which refers to those unions that are insistent about their opposition to neoliberalism and openly seek to challenge the state. 69. Abascal was quoted as follows in La Jornada, 26 May 2001: ‘In effect, there is a shared vision about the necessity to modernize labor legislation. We are in agreement with the modernization of this legislation, but we are in agreement with everyone: national and international investors, the World Bank, and workers. Everyone is in agreement because it is necessary to do it’ (my translation). 70. Kevin J. Middlebrook, ‘Mexico's Democratic Transitions: Dynamics and Prospects’, in Kevin J. Middlebrook (ed), Dilemmas of Political Change in Mexico (Institute of Latin American Studies and Center for US–Mexican Studies, 2004), p. 36. The UNT stress in their counter-proposal for labour reform that ‘the choice is not flexibility versus justice’, and neither is it between ‘productivity and the profit of the firm versus the rights of workers’ – see Unión Nacional de Trabajadores, ‘Por un Nueva Ley Federal del Trabajo para la reestructuración productiva y la transición democrática’, Trabajadores, No. 30 (2002), my translation. The compulsion to make this clear testifies to the extent of the UNT's suspicion as regards the Fox government's for labour The the state to to workers is that which from being market not that which from or Mexico Labor and a of the Mexico Labor the United and the Center of the See ‘Por un Nueva Ley Federal del Trabajo para la reestructuración productiva y la transición Secretaría de y Programa Nacional de del Desarrollo, (Secretaría de y 2002). World Bank, Country Economic and for Report Mexico and Country Management Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, 30 July 2002, p. 16. See Ramos de and in Policy The First of Vicente Center for International Development at University No. 2001). Fox his efforts at public support a and the on on two in See Ramos de pp. the for reform was the of in the form of a ‘The New Public Jornada, 28 March 2001). For a of see Secretaría de y First of and of the Financial Reforms’, 7 May 2001. See ‘The Political of in Mexico’, in and S. (eds), and in Latin America University Press, pp. The term was by Guillermo with reference to the of in and Carlos in A key of these was the in which ‘the the of a the of the & Latin America 2003), p. the between Fox and do not here for et al., out that their as for their own to the of the of and to policy in a by market (p. have Fox with to his own the has an of in the see Camp, Politics in p. ‘a study of the that the on a of the time with for Fox has had an with prominent and and de de had a with Carlos which Fox had to a that the of Guanajuato in Fox's to for president his de as to the and his of his with the See Mexico: as It Vol. No. (2002), pp. For Fox had to at the that the reforms would further of a to the during meetings a See La Jornada, 14 December 2000 and 21 December La Jornada, 6 April 2001. La Jornada, April 2001. During 2002, a reform to the development the Federal of and to Public a reform to the of the and the of the See Secretaría de y ‘The Executive to the Economic for had been a of the Grupo San Angel with Fox and had public of support for the government July 2003). and Mexico & Report, January ‘The of Vicente Fox is ‘the president will to in Los but be changes from his like other but be a political in July 2003). The a Years: The and Fox as a somewhat of an 2003). See Nacional a la y de los de la Nacional de México, 2004). as to the number of to the Ministry for the there were 28 2003), there were Labor & 2003). Mexico Labor & December and La Jornada, December 2003. in December 2003. quoted in March For a further of the of reform under Fox, see ‘The of The Political Economy of Reform in Mexico’, Capital & Class, No. pp. La Jornada, December See, for example, World Bank, ‘Memorandum of the President of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Finance Corporation to the Executive Directors on a Country Assistance Strategy of the World Bank Group in with the United Mexican States’, Report Colombia and Mexico Country Management Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region, April and M. at an Vol. No. 1 (2004), pp. but other example, the on the Strategy key for growth within the the of barriers to the climate for and labour See the The for growth and Report from the Group by for Official of the 2004).

Global health governance and the World Bank

This article aims to present a history of International Relations (IR) that looks at the role of three big American foundations (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rockefeller, and Ford foundations) in the development of IR as an academic field in continental Europe. Its framework goes beyond the usual disciplinary history narratives that focus on IR’s US or UK trajectories, pointing instead to American foundations’ interwar and early post–World War II influence on French and German IR. The cases emphasize US foundations’ interactions with European scholars and international scholarly organizations as major factors shaping IR’s developmental pathways. This study offers a way to consider foundations’ role in IR’s gradual academic institutionalization by connecting disciplinary historical approaches to disciplinary sociology. Its sociologically conscious position underlines the significance of American philanthropies in a historical narrative and recognizes the relevance of transnational dynamics by going beyond usual emphases on ideas and national contexts.

GyanPrakashEmergency Chronicles: Indira Gandhi and India's Turning PointPrinceton: Princeton University Press, 2019. 439 pp. Index.

The three hallmarks of universities encompass: teaching; research; and public engagement. While the first two receive considerable attention, university global or international relations – via university social and public engagement – are also espoused by various university executives and senior faculty. Universities allocate considerable credence in faculty evaluations to obtaining prestigious research fellowships and grants such as Fulbright Fellowships, the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, Research Council of Great Britain, and those of philanthropic bodies like Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Via such awards, academicians interact in domestic and international or global arenas in research projects in social sciences and STEM. In order to explore how research, especially in Science/STEM fields – indispensable features of society that provide the bedrock physical and social infrastructures – are linked, our chapter focuses on nexuses among university social and public engagement via Science and STEM research in international venues. Hence our presentation: (1) explicates conceptual and policy frameworks of university engagement in relation to diplomacy and/or international relations; (2) explores aspects of science and diplomacy referencing some historical endeavors; (3) portrays salient illustrations of universities’ and individuals’ interactive endeavors based upon national grants and prestigious fellowship (for example, the field work of our current NSF grant and Fulbright Fellowship) as part of university research and public engagement that Ministries of Foreign Affairs and government officials view as forms of diplomacy; and (4) synthesizing findings and positing policies for enhancing mutual science diplomacy and research as features of university social and public engagement in domestic and global venues.

The article describes the main trends in world politics in nuclear missile weapons in the field of international and national security, assesses the importance of nuclear missile programs in modern international political security relations. The article uses various methods of political science research, which made it possible to formulate reliable results of the analysis. In particular, the methodology of comparative analysis is one of the main directions in modern world political science and has been used to compare various scientific approaches to assessing the specifics of world policy in relation to nuclear missile weapons. A wide range of attraction of scientific and methodological tools, first of all, is due to the fact that in domestic political science, such concepts as the method of comparative analysis, comparative political science, and comparative comparison are practically not developed. At the same time, in Western political science, this area of science has been studied quite thoroughly, which made it possible to apply the methods of Western research. The scientific and theoretical comparison used in the article acts as a special method, and as an experimental methodological strategy, covering the political aspects of nuclear missile programs, their initial conceptual structure, formulated research hypotheses, the measurement tools under study, as well as the analysis of empirical material, the scientific result. It has been proved that the states that implement nuclear missile programs pursue this policy in two directions: preparation and implementation of nuclear missile programs in order to establish political control and prevent violation of the nuclear missile balance in the world and development of nuclear missile programs in order to implement the function ensuring national security and obtaining political autonomy in international relations. It is shown that political institutions to curb the proliferation of nuclear missiles in modern international relations are designed to ensure the continuity of the arms reduction process in the context of the obvious change in the paradigm of international relations and the prospects for political polarization of the world order.

The development of the world economy in modern conditions is being transformed under the influence of a number of factors that are not only man-made but also due to the imperfection of the system of economic relations that have developed as a result of the absolutized denial of state regulation and attempts to replace it with supranational rules. The basic determinants were the recommendations of the Washington Consensus (1992), which were aimed at an attempt to ensure an accelerated transition to the market rails of the states of the transformational economy after the collapse of the USSR, and they extended to all developing economies. This led to the formation of the world capitalist economic system in the form of a pyramid. The economic globalization of the world economy is based on the internationalization of reproduction value chains. The main drivers of world globalization have become TNCs or MNEs, which have launched active activities in developing countries, de facto ignoring national legal norms, and pursuing solely the goal of making a profit. As a result, the world economy has received by now the highest degree of disproportionality in the incomes of the population in both developed and developing countries; population aging in developed economies, deindustrialization of developed economies, lack of social mobility for young people, climate change in African countries and the weakening of internal incentives for the development of national economies, as well as local wars, have led to an influx of nonregulated migration from Africa, which, for the most part, does not want to accept the rules of public life in the developed countries. The pandemic that disrupted the GVC contributed in no small part to the factor contributing to the transformation of the global economy, and the introduction of unilateral and large-scale sanctions, including secondary ones—to an acceleration of the transition to polycentrism. Polycentrism is based on ensuring the full-fledged sovereignty of the state, the fulfillment of its international obligations, noninterference in the internal affairs of foreign states, and the formation of more equal conditions for international cooperation. The marginal prices for Russian oil or natural gas trade was an indicator of an attempt to introduce a command-administrative model into world trade under capitalism, thereby undermining its basic foundation—competition. Capitalism in the twenty-first century should also be based on private property and the inviolability of its legal basis, the inviolability of private property, the development of fair competition, including at the interstate level, on the basis of reaching a consensus of interests, on the need to promote the alignment of development levels in the world community, stimulating and supporting entrepreneurship in developing countries, including helping to implement the principles of responsible business conduct, but not imposing their social-mental or spiritual values on them as the basis of the socioeconomic formation of social development. It is polycentrism in international relations that makes it possible, while preserving the foundations of the capitalist economic model, to ensure the progressive development of national economies that use their competitive advantages on a global scale.

Preface to the Paperback EditionAcknowledgments1. The Significance of Foundations in U.S. Foreign Policy2. American Foundation Leaders3. Laying the Foundations of Globalism, 1930-19454. Promoting Americanism, Combating Anti-Americanism, and Developing a Cold War American Studies Network5. The Ford Foundation in Indonesia and the Asian Studies Network6. Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie in Nigeria and the African Studies Network7. The Major Foundations, Latin American Studies, and Chile in the Cold War8. American Power and the Major Foundations in the Post-Cold War Era9. ConclusionNotesIndex

Large-scale philanthropic foundations based in the United States and elsewhere in the developed world have long had an interest in the area of health. This interest has extended to the institutional arrangements established to deliver essential medicines and also to promote sexual and reproductive health as a means to curb population growth and reduce infant mortality rates. However in recent years we have seen a significant scaling-up of foundation funding for seemingly intractable transnational health problems, notably in the area of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, which disproportionately affect communities in low and lower-middle income countries (LMICs). While this can largely be attributed to the emergence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Renz and Atienza, 2006), it is also broadly indicative of trends toward greater private sector intervention in global health policy, and, by implication, governance of global health (Bull and McNeill, 2007). This can be seen as a continuation of earlier programmatic work of private foundations, notably the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, who pioneered research and development (R&D) and established policy networks in health, paving the way for the present wave of philanthropists from Clinton through to Soros.