Out of the ashes of World War II emerged dozens of non-governmental organizations, aka NGOs, committed to improving the lives of the world's most vulnerable people. Some of these NGOs were dedicated to protecting human rights; some were dedicated to development, that is, initiatives aimed at satisfying basic economic needs. These two approaches progressed on separate tracks and reflected different methods, cultures, and objectives. This distinction was best symbolized by two vastly different logos: Amnesty International's barbed wire and candle v. the CARE package. While AI sought to train investigators and activists to pressure governments to free victims of human rights abuses, CARE solicited financial support for community development projects and emergency relief. Two worlds; two ways of saving the world. That all began to change in the 1980s and 90s, leading to what Nelson and Dorsey call "new rights advocacy." Human rights NGOs began to appreciate the need to accommodate economic and social and cultural rights; development NGOs, meanwhile, began to realize that human rights concerns were integral to economic development projects. In short, these historically separate tracks began to drift toward, and learn from, one another. For instance, Oxfam International, long known for its development and emergency work, has now adopted a rights-based approach; Human Rights Watch has begun to focus on discrimination in economic and social policies; and several newer NGOs, such as EarthRights International, are hybrid organizations integrating both human rights and development concerns. Nelson and Dorsey trace the history and implications of this convergence, though they conclude that it is still too early to judge the long-term effectiveness of the new rights advocacy.