This come's from Nick Shaxson's blog - and is important, so I reproduce it here:
"I have been sent a remarkable letter published yesterday by senior former staff members of UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, including some very big names in economics, such as Dani Rodrik, professor of International Political Economy at Harvard, and Robens Ricuperio, Brazil's former Minister of Finance. Essentially, the letter is arguing that developed countries are trying to silence UNCTAD because its analysis of global financial and economic issues has stood out too far against the prevailing orthodoxies. The letter begins:
Silencing the message or the messenger …. or both?
Statement by former staff members of UNCTAD Geneva, 11 April 2012
“Since its establishment almost 50 years ago at the instigation of developing countries UNCTAD has always been a thorn in the flesh of economic orthodoxy. Its analyses of global macro-economic issues from a development perspective have regularly provided an alternative view to that offered by the World Bank and the IMF controlled by the west.
Now efforts are afoot to silence that voice.”
John Burley, who worked for UNCTAD for many years in senior positions, and who coordinated the letter, gave a presentation in Geneva in which he provided some background information:
“The next conference, UNCTAD's next conference, is going to be held end of next week in Doha, Qatar. An attempt is going to be made there, on the basis of what we hear … at the moment, to change UNCTAD's mandate by denying the organisation the right to continue — and I emphasise: to continue — to analyse and report on global macroeconomic issues, including the role of global finance in development.
UNCTAD has always looked at these issues in the context of interdependence . . . meaning the realtionship among the various flows of trade and finance and technology, and how that interrelationship affects development. This aspect of UNCTAD's work has never been popular with the developed countries.
. . .
But in the end, all counties have accepted that a full understanding of the development process requires inclusion of this aspect of macroeconomic analysis. What is now at stake is a continuation of that acceptance. In other words, in plain English, part of UNCTAD is to stop what it has been doing.”
The letter continues:
Why is the UNCTAD message so unwelcome? The fact that UNCTAD has no formal responsibility for the global management of the international economy and none of its own funds to dispense means that its analysis is free of vested interests. No organisation correctly foresaw the current crisis, and no organisation has a magic wand to deal with present difficulties. But it is unquestionable that the crisis originated in and is widespread among the countries that now wish to stifle debate about global economic policies, despite their own manifest failings in this area.
Because of the crisis, we do now have a better explanation of the inter-relationships between the real economy and the world of finance. Those explanations are now a good deal closer to what UNCTAD has been saying for nigh on three decades about the dangers of finance-driven globalization.
And it is precisely in its analysis of interdependence that UNCTAD brings added value to an understanding of how the functioning of the global economy impacts on the majority of the world's population who live in developing countries. Given the current pressure on the organisation and its secretariat, that contribution could now be gone for good (our emphasis).
. .
The developed countries in Geneva have seized the occasion to stifle UNCTAD's capacity to think outside the box. This is neither a cost-saving measure nor an attempt to “eliminate duplication” as some would claim.”
The full letter is here."
Nothing surprises me about this.
But the world should be outraged that an economic system that supposedly espouses competition will tolerate no alternative thinking.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This is very troubling news indeed, Richard, but as you say, really it’s not a surprise. Far from the events of 2008 – and subsequent years – signalling the death of neo-liberalism what we are seeing instead is increased efforts by those of that ilk to control the economic and social policy agenda both globally and nationally. This is simply one example, but there are examples I come across on an almost daily basis. By so doing they are able to – and have been very effective at – manipulating the message. That is, directing attention away from the real causes of inequality and exploitation. Of course, occasionally something unexpected happens – like the UK UnCut movement – but as we now know, as fast as that movement developed so representatives of the ‘right’ kind of big business were being incorporated into government policy making circles in ever greater numbers. Indeed by my estimation policy making in the UK is now influenced by commercial interests more than at any time since the 1900s. Hegemony. Or as Jeffrey Sachs put it: ‘Its been an amazing ride for the rich.’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/video/2012/apr/12/jeffrey-sachs-us-economy-video
We shouldn’t be surprised. We all know history is written by the victors but we like to think we’re the victors. We aren’t. We’ve grown up in a world where economic reality has been written out of not just the history books buty, as becomes evident witnessing the recent exchange between Steve Keen and Paul Krugman, the economics books too. This is just more history being rewritten, this time before our very eyes.
This is extremely bad news for diversity of economic thinking. We do seem powerless to change the course of events. We have a Coalition seemingly controlled by politicians with little if any experience of the world outside the Westminster bubble , so it is obvious that policy is being driven by corporate and banking interests. What will it take to make ordinary people realise exactly what is going on? I fear that the outcome is likely to be unpleasant now we have the surveillance society.
Perhaps there is something positive to be read from these events in that the international bankers and those who try to control our understanding of economics are obviously becoming concerned that their theories are being challenged. For those who have not noticed, look who owns The Economist.
Going back to the casino analogy, the owners are always happy to take the punters’ money but if one sees how the roulette wheel is controlled and develops a winning streak against the odds, how quickly is he removed and banned!
This is encouraging in a way as the bankers/elites obviously know how vulnerable they are. They’re taking steps to silence these people. Anyone who cannot welcome debate has something to hide and the bankers have rather a lot. Education’s the key. On the one hand it gets darker, but on the other it gets lighter, and I refer you again to the Keen/Krugman debate where full in the public eye the kind of economic knowledge the bankers are so keen to keep under wraps was aired in front of a huge international audience. We need more of the same.
Yes Bill, education plays a key role. Positive Money have highlighted the Keen/Krugman debate as well in a format that most people can easily follow.
While Krugman got a Nobel Prize, perhaps it was awarded in the same context as the Peace Prize awarded to President Obama!
Have you got the link to that?
So good that this is being unveiled. It has become so much part of the collective psyche not to question the status quo, that we are not even aware of the blindness. It is vital that the connections between these institutions, their thinking and policy-making is questioned, since the implications work at every level of our society – including educational.
How dare they challenge the economic orthodoxy as it has stood for 30 plus years? Free markets and competition lifts people out of poverty, except it doesn’t! Free market ideology in places like Africa and South America made matters worse, not better!
Countries heavily in debt that opened up their markets generally had most of their national assets bought up by privateer foreign firms, the poifits said firms made repatrated to the countries of origin and any profit left over having to be absorbed by the developing country’s debt. Any benefit to countries that open themselves up to deregulation in this way find that the supposed benefits are largely illusory! How can countries that leave themselves open to such ranpant deregulation of their markets possibly benefit?
Ireland learned a tragic lesson as to what happens when you turn yourself into a virtual tax haven, open yourself up to massive foreign investment and allow the banks to run ranpant! They have suffered a massive fall as a consequence of opening themselves up to foreign banks!
Fixed exchange rates, capital controls and heavy investment in manufacturing and our own economy served us very well for 40 years. Ranpant deregulation has only served to expose us to more frequent economic distortions and shocks. It has allowed banks, industry and corporations to become exceedingly rich at the expense of the rest of us. It is they who benefit from the orthodoxy of so called free markets and that is why they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any deviation from those ideals!
[…] referred on Friday to a TJN blog on  a dramatic statement by senior and highly respected former staff members of the UN […]
Richard – there are various links included here which can be accessed through this report
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/2012/04/mainstream-economist-discovers-that-banks-create-money-krugman-vs-keen-continued/