Hostile to the idea of integrating all multilateral bodies under the
authority of the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions were resolved
to maintain a separation between economic and social issues on the
global agenda.
The UN ascribed much more weight to the systemic constraints on
development, and pushed for governance reforms much more ambi-
tious than those considered by the WTO or the IMF. Although the
Monterrey agreement, for example, was welcomed as progress, it did
not meet the UN’s expectations. UNCTAD, in particular, strongly
criticized the Monterrey accord for leaving economic development
to “market forces.”^103 The UN continued to call for a radical over-
haul of multilateral trade rules, in order to provide “a level playing
field” for all countries.^104 In addition to their emphasis on the need
to democratize major economic forums and put the UN at the core of
global governance, UN agencies proposed institutional innovations
that included the launching of a Marshall Plan for the Third World,
the introduction of global taxes, the creation of an Economic Security
Council, the establishment of a bankruptcy court, and the creation of
an international development fund.^105 These ideas were received
guardedly at best by the Bretton Woods institutions.
Finally, the two sides maintained their own way of understanding
the North–South division, each camp finding its inspiration in intel-
lectual traditions associated with either the right or the left. The Bretton
Woods institutions remained more comfortable with a framework
categorizing countries as industrial, emerging, or low-income.^106 This
(^103) UNCTAD,Trade and Development Report 2006: Global Partnership and
National Policies for Development, New York and Geneva, United Nations,
104 2006, p. 57 (www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdr2006_en.pdf).
105 Annan,In Larger Freedom, p. 22.
United Nations,Financing for Development: A Critical Global Collaboration,
Technical Note No. 4, New York, United Nations, 2002; UNRISD,Visible
Hands: Taking Responsibility for Social Development, Geneva, UNRISD,
2000, pp. 25–32; UNCTAD,Trade and Development Report, 2002:
Developing Countries in World Trade, Geneva, United Nations, 2002, p. i
(www.unctad.org/en/docs/tdr2002_en.pdf); Juan Somavia, “Statement by
Director-General of the ILO to the Sixty-fourth Meeting of the Development
Committee,” Ottawa, November 18, 2001 (www.ilo.org/public/english/
bureau/dgo/speeches/somavia/2001/ottawa.htm).
(^106) Anne O. Krueger, “From Despair to Hope: The Challenge of Promoting
Poverty Reduction,” lecture by the IMF First Deputy Managing Director at the
194 Left and Right in Global Politics