Brunner considered the NIEO to be an example of the misguided proposals that result when policymakers fail to recognize the importance of designing institutions that encourage the accommodation of individual self-interest with societal good. … Brunner refuted the claim that foreign aid to the Third World could be viewed as a form of restitution for the West's historical sins, since colonization had brought significant material progress to the Third World: "Justification of the NIEO in terms of an established 'right' based on 'past exploitation' should eventually be recognized as a theme without support in reality. It remains, however, a powerful ideological weapon to lure the support of a gullible western intelligentsia for the persistent raids on the wealth of western nations" (Brunner 1996a, 152). Despite all the NIEO's rhetorical emphasis on the right of developing countries to economic sovereignty and self-determination, the leaders of the G-77 were primarily intent on securing their own wealth and privilege. While the ruling oligarchs of the developing world advocate "the establishment of a socialist economy with eroded property rights and a political-administrative machinery replacing markets over a wide range of activities," the policies they endorse would actually worsen instead of improve life for the masses (Brunner 1996b, 183).

Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, loc. 1765