In Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations recognized in 1948 the basic human right to “security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond ... control.” This paper examines how economic insecurity is related to, yet different from, poverty and inequality, why it matters for human well-being and how it has been changing in different countries around the world in recent years. The paper concludes with discussion of how economic insecurity has been and will be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic/recession. JEL Classification: D6, D63, H55, I1, I30, I31 and I38, O10, P16
{"title":"Economic Insecurity and Well-being","authors":"L. Osberg","doi":"10.18356/25206656-173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/25206656-173","url":null,"abstract":"In Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations recognized in 1948 the basic human right to “security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond ... control.” This paper examines how economic insecurity is related to, yet different from, poverty and inequality, why it matters for human well-being and how it has been changing in different countries around the world in recent years. The paper concludes with discussion of how economic insecurity has been and will be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic/recession. JEL Classification: D6, D63, H55, I1, I30, I31 and I38, O10, P16","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128227616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How has the focus of the UN General Assembly changed over time and how well is the global agenda expressed in these documents? This paper presents a proof-of-concept classifier to examine the evolution of the global agenda expressed and observed in words of the UN General Assembly resolutions. Using natural language processing to identify four categories of resolutions — Sustainable Development, Justice and Law, Human Rights, and Peace and Security — the analysis of 3,765 UN GA resolutions from 2007 to 2019 reveals the changing areas of focus of the Member States and, as a result, of the UN Secretariat. Sustainable Development is slowly gaining importance in the language in UN resolutions.
{"title":"What Does the United Nations “say” About Global Agenda? An Exploration of Trends Using Natural Language Processing for Machine Learning","authors":"Namsuk Kim, Marcelo T. Lafleur","doi":"10.18356/25206656-171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/25206656-171","url":null,"abstract":"How has the focus of the UN General Assembly changed over time and how well is the global agenda expressed in these documents? This paper presents a proof-of-concept classifier to examine the evolution of the global agenda expressed and observed in words of the UN General Assembly resolutions. Using natural language processing to identify four categories of resolutions — Sustainable Development, Justice and Law, Human Rights, and Peace and Security — the analysis of 3,765 UN GA resolutions from 2007 to 2019 reveals the changing areas of focus of the Member States and, as a result, of the UN Secretariat. Sustainable Development is slowly gaining importance in the language in UN resolutions.","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123870069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Namsuk Kim, E. Harris, R. Mollerus, Matthias Bruckner, Mereseini Bower, Marcia Tavares, Daniel Gay, Eun Hee Lee
The COVID-19 pandemic is entailing huge costs worldwide. To help developing countries formulate policy responses to minimize negative impacts of the COVID-19, possible size and duration of the shocks on most vulnerable countries, i.e., least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and their resilience to overcome the shocks need to be assessed. This paper quantitatively examines possible paths of LDCs and SIDS recovering from the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis, using an autoregressive model of income growth and a panel regression model of external demand for LDCs and SIDS. Evidence from the experience of the 2007-08 global financial crisis suggests that the income growth of LDCs and SIDS had not recovered to the level of pre-crisis rates even 5 years after the crisis. This suggests a slower recovery for many LDCs and SIDS, while developed economies were able to achieve a quick recovery. The magnitude of current COVID-19 crisis relative to previous shocks is unknown, and so the regression analysis suggested that, if income in advanced economies fell by 6 per cent in 2020 and bounced back in 2021, growth of per capita income in LDCs and SIDS may need about 4 to 5 years to be able to return to the projected path under the baseline scenario without the COVID-19 crisis. The actual speed and duration of recovery in LDCs and SIDS are likely to be slower and longer, considering other factors, such as additional impacts from shocks related to commodity prices and climate change. JEL Classification: E17; F47; O10; O47; O57
{"title":"How Long Will it Take for LDCs and SIDS to Recover From the Impacts of COVID-19?","authors":"Namsuk Kim, E. Harris, R. Mollerus, Matthias Bruckner, Mereseini Bower, Marcia Tavares, Daniel Gay, Eun Hee Lee","doi":"10.18356/25206656-170","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/25206656-170","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic is entailing huge costs worldwide. To help developing countries formulate policy responses to minimize negative impacts of the COVID-19, possible size and duration of the shocks on most vulnerable countries, i.e., least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and their resilience to overcome the shocks need to be assessed. This paper quantitatively examines possible paths of LDCs and SIDS recovering from the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis, using an autoregressive model of income growth and a panel regression model of external demand for LDCs and SIDS. Evidence from the experience of the 2007-08 global financial crisis suggests that the income growth of LDCs and SIDS had not recovered to the level of pre-crisis rates even 5 years after the crisis. This suggests a slower recovery for many LDCs and SIDS, while developed economies were able to achieve a quick recovery. The magnitude of current COVID-19 crisis relative to previous shocks is unknown, and so the regression analysis suggested that, if income in advanced economies fell by 6 per cent in 2020 and bounced back in 2021, growth of per capita income in LDCs and SIDS may need about 4 to 5 years to be able to return to the projected path under the baseline scenario without the COVID-19 crisis. The actual speed and duration of recovery in LDCs and SIDS are likely to be slower and longer, considering other factors, such as additional impacts from shocks related to commodity prices and climate change. JEL Classification: E17; F47; O10; O47; O57","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115533650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the most universal health and socio-economic crisis in recent history. However, the magnitude of the economic damage has differed widely; some countries were hit particularly hard, while others have managed to weather the storm much better. In this paper, we employ a cross-country analysis to identify factors that help explain the differences in the growth impact of the COVID-19 shock. Our findings underscore the critical role of balancing health and economic concerns in managing the pandemic as both a country’s exposure to the coronavirus and the stringency of containment measures are strongly correlated with its growth performance. In addition, our results shed light on several aspects of economic resilience. Good governance, provision of fiscal support and strong macroeconomic fundamentals all helped cushion the economic impact. By contrast, a lack of economic diversification – reflected in overreliance on the tourism sector or oil production – has significantly amplified the shock.
{"title":"The COVID-19 Crisis: What Explains Cross-country Differences in the Pandemic’s Short-term Economic Impact?","authors":"Lennart Niermann, Ingo A. Pitterle","doi":"10.18356/25206656-174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/25206656-174","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has caused the most universal health and socio-economic crisis in recent history. However, the magnitude of the economic damage has differed widely; some countries were hit particularly hard, while others have managed to weather the storm much better. In this paper, we employ a cross-country analysis to identify factors that help explain the differences in the growth impact of the COVID-19 shock. Our findings underscore the critical role of balancing health and economic concerns in managing the pandemic as both a country’s exposure to the coronavirus and the stringency of containment measures are strongly correlated with its growth performance. In addition, our results shed light on several aspects of economic resilience. Good governance, provision of fiscal support and strong macroeconomic fundamentals all helped cushion the economic impact. By contrast, a lack of economic diversification – reflected in overreliance on the tourism sector or oil production – has significantly amplified the shock.","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114435383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development enters its fifth year of implementation, it is opportune to ask how governance is understood and implemented around the world. In fact, one can go further to probe the extent to which governments are cognizant of the principles undergirding effective governance. This paper examines the ways in which governance has been operationalized by countries, major groups and other stakeholders since the first round of Voluntary National Reviews at the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) of 2016. It does this based on the qualitative overview of the Synthesis reports of Voluntary National Reviews (2016–2029), and the quantitative analysis of three SDG databases: Voluntary National Reviews, SDG Good Practices and the SDG Acceleration Actions. It starts with a literature review of the multidimensional concept of governance. The three databases are then scoped through a series of keywords associated with the SDG16 governance targets. It finds that although SDG 16 is catalytic to progress on all other SDGs, its governance dimension does not receive due focus. The article concludes with several action areas to mainstream the governance dimension of SDG16 in sustainable development.
{"title":"A Post-SDG Summit Governance Primer: Interlinking the Institutional, Peace and Justice Dimensions of SDG16 (2016–2019)","authors":"P. K. Blind","doi":"10.18356/ac569614-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/ac569614-en","url":null,"abstract":"As the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development enters its fifth year of implementation, it is opportune to ask how governance is understood and implemented around the world. In fact, one can go further to probe the extent to which governments are cognizant of the principles undergirding effective governance. This paper examines the ways in which governance has been operationalized by countries, major groups and other stakeholders since the first round of Voluntary National Reviews at the High-level Political Forum (HLPF) of 2016. It does this based on the qualitative overview of the Synthesis reports of Voluntary National Reviews (2016–2029), and the quantitative analysis of three SDG databases: Voluntary National Reviews, SDG Good Practices and the SDG Acceleration Actions. It starts with a literature review of the multidimensional concept of governance. The three databases are then scoped through a series of keywords associated with the SDG16 governance targets. It finds that although SDG 16 is catalytic to progress on all other SDGs, its governance dimension does not receive due focus. The article concludes with several action areas to mainstream the governance dimension of SDG16 in sustainable development.","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117024404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper investigates the role of trade costs for exporter dynamics in Africa. In comparison to exporters from other regions, African exporting firms are fewer, smaller, and relatively less diversified in terms of products and destinations. African countries also display the highest rates of entry, exit, and turnover of exporting firms, exporting products, and export destinations. This suggests that Africa’s exporting activity is volatile and subject to much experimentation, with exporters facing difficulties maintaining trade relationships. The analysis also confirms that trade costs are a crucial factor in explaining exporter performance in Africa vis-à-vis other regions, but also among African countries. Trade costs play a disproportionate role in affecting the size of new exporters and the survival of exporters in Africa. Also, trade cost differences across African countries are a relevant factor in explaining the lower market diversification of exporters from landlocked countries. A key implication is that the African Continental Free Trade Area can bring many benefits in terms of export flows and destination markets. Yet, without strengthening productive capacities, the diversification of export products will likely remain limited.
{"title":"Exporters in Africa: What Role for Trade Costs?","authors":"H. Afonso, Sebastián Vergara","doi":"10.18356/b73d0b27-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/b73d0b27-en","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the role of trade costs for exporter dynamics in Africa. In comparison to exporters from other regions, African exporting firms are fewer, smaller, and relatively less diversified in terms of products and destinations. African countries also display the highest rates of entry, exit, and turnover of exporting firms, exporting products, and export destinations. This suggests that Africa’s exporting activity is volatile and subject to much experimentation, with exporters facing difficulties maintaining trade relationships. The analysis also confirms that trade costs are a crucial factor in explaining exporter performance in Africa vis-à-vis other regions, but also among African countries. Trade costs play a disproportionate role in affecting the size of new exporters and the survival of exporters in Africa. Also, trade cost differences across African countries are a relevant factor in explaining the lower market diversification of exporters from landlocked countries. A key implication is that the African Continental Free Trade Area can bring many benefits in terms of export flows and destination markets. Yet, without strengthening productive capacities, the diversification of export products will likely remain limited.","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130943498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Humanitarian SDGs","authors":"","doi":"10.18356/a2d75e71-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/a2d75e71-en","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130970984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper conceptualizes recently negotiated international agreements, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as a collective roadmap to overcome challenges associated with globalization. By analyzing the effects and implications of globalization on societies and economies, the paper highlights concrete aspects of the international commitments that address globalization challenges in the three dimensions of sustainable development. Particular focus is placed on global production patterns, labor markets, poverty and inequality, global imbalances, migration and climate change. The paper concludes that, in the context of a changing political economy of globalization and multilateralism, concrete steps to be taken should include efforts to forge a new social contract, tackle inequalities within and between countries, address adverse effects of globalization on domestic economies, promote decent work, strengthen global institutions and tackle environmental challenges.
{"title":"The 2030 Agenda","authors":"Filipa Correia, P. Erfurth, Julie Bryhn","doi":"10.18356/E0EC0230-EN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/E0EC0230-EN","url":null,"abstract":"This paper conceptualizes recently negotiated international agreements, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as a collective roadmap to overcome challenges associated with globalization. By analyzing the effects and implications of globalization on societies and economies, the paper highlights concrete aspects of the international commitments that address globalization challenges in the three dimensions of sustainable development. Particular focus is placed on global production patterns, labor markets, poverty and inequality, global imbalances, migration and climate change. The paper concludes that, in the context of a changing political economy of globalization and multilateralism, concrete steps to be taken should include efforts to forge a new social contract, tackle inequalities within and between countries, address adverse effects of globalization on domestic economies, promote decent work, strengthen global institutions and tackle environmental challenges.","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127141826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Productive and technological capabilities matter. Several strains of the literature have emphasized them as major engines of export, growth and development. But how they matter is less clear. In fact, many open questions remain on how capabilities influence export dynamics at microeconomic level. This paper empirically investigates their role on export dynamics in 40 developing countries between 2002 and 2012. In doing so, the paper exploits a country-sector-year database containing exporter-level statistical information. The empirical analysis shows that, within sectors, there is a larger number of exporters in countries with more productive capacities, and the exporters are larger and have higher prices for their products, even after controlling for level of development, size of the economy, commodity-dependency and other variables. Also, the results confirm a positive relationship between technological capabilities and diversification: within sectors, exporters in countries with more capabilities tend to export a higher number of products and to more destination markets. Furthermore, capabilities in high-technology exporters seem to play a crucial role regarding market diversification. Thus, the paper shows that, even just comparing exporters' behaviour among the developing countries, stronger productive and technological capabilities are significantly related to the "extensive" and "intensive" margin of exports, the diversification across products and destinations, and the product quality, all relevant aspects of developing countries' insertion in global trade markets. Overall, the paper underscores the role of capabilities not only on developing countries' macroeconomic resilience to trade shocks, but also on their medium-term development prospects.
{"title":"The Role of Productive and Technological Capabilities on Export Dynamics in Developing Countries","authors":"Sebastián Vergara","doi":"10.18356/a7172cae-en","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/a7172cae-en","url":null,"abstract":"Productive and technological capabilities matter. Several strains of the literature have emphasized them as major engines of export, growth and development. But how they matter is less clear. In fact, many open questions remain on how capabilities influence export dynamics at microeconomic level. This paper empirically investigates their role on export dynamics in 40 developing countries between 2002 and 2012. In doing so, the paper exploits a country-sector-year database containing exporter-level statistical information. The empirical analysis shows that, within sectors, there is a larger number of exporters in countries with more productive capacities, and the exporters are larger and have higher prices for their products, even after controlling for level of development, size of the economy, commodity-dependency and other variables. Also, the results confirm a positive relationship between technological capabilities and diversification: within sectors, exporters in countries with more capabilities tend to export a higher number of products and to more destination markets. Furthermore, capabilities in high-technology exporters seem to play a crucial role regarding market diversification. Thus, the paper shows that, even just comparing exporters' behaviour among the developing countries, stronger productive and technological capabilities are significantly related to the \"extensive\" and \"intensive\" margin of exports, the diversification across products and destinations, and the product quality, all relevant aspects of developing countries' insertion in global trade markets. Overall, the paper underscores the role of capabilities not only on developing countries' macroeconomic resilience to trade shocks, but also on their medium-term development prospects.","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"81 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131720979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the involvement of supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in auditing the preparedness of governments for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) since 2015. These audits have covered institutional arrangements put in place to implement the SDGs, the mobilization of resources, and monitoring and evaluation frameworks. SDG preparedness audits have produced valuable information that is not necessarily available from other national processes linked with SDG follow-up and review. As such, audit recommendations can be a powerful tool to help governments improve SDG implementation. The paper reflects on the impact that SDG audits have made, and on the challenges and opportunities for SAIs that have engaged in this exercise. While many of these challenges are generic to the work of SAIs, SDG audits also present specific political, institutional and technical problems. Finally, the paper explores questions that this new area of engagement poses for SAIs, including the long-term prospects for institutionalization of SDG audits and the relationship with other accountability mechanisms for the SDGs at the national level.
{"title":"The Role of External Audits in Enhancing Transparency and Accountability for the Sustainable Development Goals","authors":"Aránzazu Guilán Montero, D. Blanc","doi":"10.18356/3FE94447-EN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18356/3FE94447-EN","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the involvement of supreme audit institutions (SAIs) in auditing the preparedness of governments for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) since 2015. These audits have covered institutional arrangements put in place to implement the SDGs, the mobilization of resources, and monitoring and evaluation frameworks. SDG preparedness audits have produced valuable information that is not necessarily available from other national processes linked with SDG follow-up and review. As such, audit recommendations can be a powerful tool to help governments improve SDG implementation. The paper reflects on the impact that SDG audits have made, and on the challenges and opportunities for SAIs that have engaged in this exercise. While many of these challenges are generic to the work of SAIs, SDG audits also present specific political, institutional and technical problems. Finally, the paper explores questions that this new area of engagement poses for SAIs, including the long-term prospects for institutionalization of SDG audits and the relationship with other accountability mechanisms for the SDGs at the national level.","PeriodicalId":308623,"journal":{"name":"UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125714507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：