After World War II, a surge of independence swept across Asia, Africa, so Latin America - reshaping world politics fast. Though free from colonial rule, several new nations still leaned heavily on Western economies due to lopsided trade and weak industry. Instead of standing equal, they found themselves stuck in old patterns shaped by money flows beyond their reach. So, guided by the Group of 77, poorer countries pushed hard for change during U.N. talks in the early 1970s. Their answer came in 1974: a bold plan named the New International Economic Order. It called for balanced trading rules, full authority over local minerals plus crops, along with more funds and tools from richer lands. While hopes ran high, real shifts took longer than anyone expected. This work looks into why the New International Economic Order fell short of its bold goals. Rooted in Dependency Theory and world-systems thinking, it suggests deep-rooted imbalances in global trade held the initiative back. On top of that, wealthy Western states pushed against change with consistent opposition. At the same time, splits between poorer nations made unified demands harder to sustain. Then came the 1980s, when free-market ideas gained ground under figures like Reagan and Thatcher - turning attention from sharing wealth to opening markets. The study ends by pointing out how the NIEO fell short, showing what can go wrong when new economic plans bump into old power imbalances across nations; fairness in world growth still slips through the cracks. Though hopes ran high, deep structures tilt the field - progress crawls where history weighs heavy.