text: peoples. The pre-war experience had made it clear that even the largest and most powerful countries were vulnerable to discriminatory restrictions in the field of trade and payments and that there were no victors in international economic warfare but only losers. 34. There was also a growing sense that the more developed members of the international community had a profound interest in helping to raise the standards of living in the low income countries. The significance of altruistic motives in the growth of aid programmes should not be underestimated. But it was also apparent that poor countries make poor markets and that resources devoted to the development process would yield concrete economic benefits to those providing aid as well as to those receiving it. 35. The context in which international economic institution-building took place after the Second World War was quite exceptional. Private international capital movements had been disrupted by the depression and largely halted by the war. Most of the countries in what would come to be known as the third world had yet to attain independence. The United States, by far the predominant economic power at the time, was frequently both willing and able to consider its gains from economic arrangements in the light of broader economic and political implications for the viability of the entire international system. While substantial differences in policy preferences continued to exist among the industrialized countries, there prevailed an international consensus on macro-economic policy along more or less Keynesian lines. 36. Since then the world has changed in many fundamental ways. For one thing, the international community is now far more pluralistic than it was 40 years ago. More than 100 new sovereign States have emerged. Europe, Japan and the newly industrializing countries account for a much larger share of world economic 
analysis: The text discusses the context and motivations behind the creation of international economic institutions after World War II, highlighting the need for cooperation and the recognition of the economic benefits of development. It touches on the role of the United States as a dominant economic power and the emergence of new independent states. The text does not specifically mention natural resources, environment, agriculture, forestry, fishing, health, education, employment, or humanitarian aid and relief. It does not seem to be focused on culture, science, or technology either.