Though I am not as familiar with the specifics of Greece's socioeconomic challenges, I am intimately familiar with the broad outline of what happens to a nation that forgets that free enterprise (and low taxes) grows the economic pie, government regulation tempers it, and redistributionist policies from producers to non-producers dampens it, while debt weakens it. There must be a carefully calibrated balance between all of these factors.

Under the current administration in the US we are undergoing the same challenges but at a much, much grander level. Our national debt is now about 28% larger than the size of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), our workforce is about 9 million workers smaller than it was in 2008 (the smallest since the recession of the early 80s in a population that is about 85 million larger), our regulations are strangling incentive to take risks in business, and our manipulation (quantitative easing--buying our own debt) of our unsustainable debt is setting us up for springloaded hyperinflation and tempting our enemies to take advantage of us, and we are fast integrating learned helplessness into a huge and growing population that expects something for no effort on their own (>90% of those who have time to demonstrate, loot, and burn at every opportunity in our exploding ghettos are on the public dole--the other

No. This referndum could not destabilise global economy since it was a local application of the theory of games. In Greece we have already forgotten this referendum. Right after the result of 61,3% NO our government started acting like we voted 80% YES. The problem is that the people suffer during the last five years and politicians play games in the name of the people. Fortunately, these last days under the pressure of Europeans, almost all political parties understand that the old days are over and that they have to sit down and realize the European programs like they are our own. We, the people, believe that this is the only way to put the Greek train of economy again on the rails.

Neo-Liberal economics have failed to build a global market economy as promised, despite the massive build-up and deployment of the WB-IMF-WTO trio. Development of global trade continue to be blocked by the proliferation of regional and bilateral treaties as pointed in the latest UNCTAD report. Capitalist globalization has proved to be a near-impossible proposition, once again.

People of the richest country, USA,  is unhappy with the performance of their state as explained by Chartrand: They seem to be tired of supporting and policing an unsustainable global order, put in place mostly by the OECD countries.

People of Greece feel that as a technologically backward partner in the EU, they are being exploited  by their technologically more advanced partners. This feeling is the product of objective realities and not mere the creation of politicians. as suggested by Costopoulos.

A non-capitalist globalization model, based on peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation as visualized in the UN Charter appears to be desirable: But is it feasible and how do we make it work?     

I think it is a very dangerous way the EU treats the Greek referendum and all EU nations should closely observe how the Greeks are treated and what is going on there, because every other country will be in the same position at some time in the future, one country earlier another later. This treatment has nothing to do with democracy.

Gudrun is correct that the EU operates much like an oligarchy, or rule without representation. At the same time, Greece has done what a lot of countries have done and that is vote in politicians who unnecessarily grow the size of government while simultaneously sapping the entreprenurial engine that supports it. Voting those into power who promise unsustainable pensions also adds to the problem. There must be balance in all of this and limits on how much government (with its attendance taxation and regulation) a society can handle. But closer to the Greek crisis is the lack of representation in the EU structure in rectifying these mistakes, realizing that just about all nations make these mistakes within their political processes.     

Link quoted below lead to an informative article in the leading Indian Newspaper Hindu.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/greece-and-its-eurogeddon/article7414022.ece?utm_source=Vuuklemail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Newsletter

We will know what UNCTAD thinks of the Greek crisis when its year 2015 Trade and Development Report is out in early September.

I am under the impression that Greece will be analysed, although its will not be the central topic. And given the fact that the Report looks at longer-term trends, it is doubtful that the Report would focus on the referendum, which is a specific event in a longer chain of events related to Greece. (I would even be tempted to believe that the new agreement and loan that the country is about to sign with creditors will have a more lasting impact than the referendum.) 

You also seem to indicate the need for (urgent) pre-emptive action by United Nations in the Greek case. I am a bit perplexed by this proposal. Who is supposed to do exactly what? Is it up to the United Nations General Assembly, or the Security Council, or the Economic and Social Council to act? In such a case, who would convene them and under what justification? Does the Greek crisis immediately threaten global stability or the life of people? (I do not believe so, despite the seriousness of the situation.)

Or do you think that a part of the United Nations Secretariat such as UNCTAD should act? Under which of its triple mandate: policy analysis, consensus building or technical assistance? 

And most importantly, who should be the target of urgent action? The Greek Government, or the Greek society, or the private creditors, or the governance institutions of the Eurozone, or the international organizations involved? And what kind of action do you mean? Helping Greece to leave the Eurozone, or to stay in it?

As for your proposal of non-capitalist globalization under the auspices of United Nations, I think that it is not on the agenda of United Nations or UNCTAD discussions (the reform of the global economy is). If you open UNCTAD's latest Trade and Development Report (2014), the words capitalist and capitalism do not even figure in it, nor do the words socialism and socialist (with the exception of "former socialist economies").

@ Kalman Kalotay

My submission of 13th had ended with a hypothesis and question mark, as quoted below: : A non-capitalist globalization model, based on peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation as visualized in the UN Charter appears to be desirable: But is it feasible and how do we make it work? And this was based on my understanding of the UNCTAD 2014 report and, I believe Greece is a part of the big picture and not an isolated incident.

Greek government and Greek people have now politicized the issues, and these have to be now resolved at the political plane.  And, it is for experts like you to help out a political solution.

Nation States were created by mankind mostly as explained in the Marxian classic, "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State", written by Engels and UNO, a product of two global wars, is a new historical experience for mankind. It has grown in several directions during the past seven decades, and has turned out to be an integral part of human development,  despite the resistance put in by the more developed nations and their imperial ambitions. 

Global economic development need global governance supported by global politics, which cannot be supplied by the WB-IMF-WTO combine, outside of the UN framework. I wrote the July 13th note based this logic and, UNCTAD 2014 provided the inspiration. As you rightly pointed out UNCTAD 2015 is only a couple of months away, and the Greek issue may find some temporary settlements in the meanwhile. But that is unlikely to be end of history!

Issues are much larger and as on now the best possible initiative is to activate UNCTAD to study the numerous models and possibilities for restructuring global trade in a rational manner that befits the era of democracy, socialism and digital communications.

Kindly continue to provide your valuable inputs and enrich this debate.

VC   

Much has been written on the problem and very learned answered are on record. However, my humble submission is for three things in this regard.

One, whatever be the stage of economic globalism the 'nation-state' is a reality. So, the national economies must learn the safe limits of sustainability in their economic sectors though I am not supposing curves or controls.

Two, the international and multilateral agencies should stop working for particular 'isms' and interests. They should also learn to honour the sovereignty and people's voice at national levels.

Three, the international finance mechanism and players of financial poaching must be pointed out to beware of them. It is the 'usury' and exploitation like financial-preying and gaming of the few which is not much in the interest of the nations on the other side of the table.

Thanks.

Mohammed makes some valid points. It is wise for nations to retain autonomy when entering into financial and economic arrangements. The danger is becoming subject to the interests of a larger entity. Likewise, any nation with history as a tutorial will learn that limited government, free enterprise, and a healthy dose of individual responsibility with strong families as the basic unit of society will not vote themselves into such debt or entitlements. To be a welfare state with a shrinking economy is to leverage freedom into subserviance to a debtor(s). There is much to be said about the association of freedom and economic alliances that come with high risk. 

It is much more than financial game or Shylockian trends:  Ownership of technology is used for extracting surplus value not only from individual workers but also their collectives and entire nationalities. The present arrangements are hurting human progress: UNCTAD and the UN are fora that could be used to think and act together.  See the link for my article.

http://www.frontline.in/world-affairs/new-relevance-of-the-world-body/article5338837.ece

Dear Mr Vijayachandran,

Thank you very much for sharing with us your views on a non-capitalist globalization model, based on peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation as visualized by the UN Charter. Let me explain to you why we seem to differ in our views.

I asked myself why peaceful co-existence and mutual cooperation should necessarily exist outside the capitalist model, and exactly what it would mean. My "why" is prompted by the observation that capitalism/market-based economy is one of the four coordination mechanisms of human beings (about the three others a bit later). Capitalists do not always compete between themselves but follow a vast array a cooperation to maintain the market system. No wonder that United Nations initiatives such as the Global Compact or the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as advocated by the UN Special Representative on business & human rights find a good echo in the business community. Then why to change to another system, which may be better or worse, but in any case, unknown? What is fundamentally wrong with the proposition that people need jobs and they can be created only by entrepreneurship?

As for the four coordination mechanisms I alluded to, my remarks are based on Janos Kornai's “Bureaucratic and Market Coordination” (Osteuropa Wirtschaft, 1984, 29/4: 316-319), which is then inspired by Karl Polanyi's work. Kornai observes that all human societies use some combination of four basic coordination mechanism: "ethical" (Polanyi calls it reciprocity), "bureacucratic" (Polanyi calls it redistribution), "market" (Polanyi calls it exchange) and "aggressive" (this one does not figure at Polanyi, it covers such aspects as criminality, corruption, terrorism, war). Each of them has advantages and shortcomings. For example, ethical coordination works very well in small groups (family, friends) but in itself and alone fails to organize societies at large or international cooperation; it needs to be complemented by other mechanism (think of the failure of the League of Nations in disarmament). Bureaucratic coordination is good at organizing activities on a large scale that require equality such as compulsory primary education but stifles innovation and economic progress, and tend to be accompanied by high levels of corruption (one of the forms of aggressive cooperation). Market coordination is in turn very effective in stimulating innovation and economic progress but is mostly blind to social inequality and negative externalities such as environmental degradation. Aggressive coordination makes some people quick rich but at the expense of the suffering of the majority; for that matter it is the coordination mechanism that has to be avoided.

If this taxonomy is right, it is also justified to ask if in the future no-capitalist model ethical coordination will be accompanied by bureaucratic or aggressive coordination (as in itself is not capable to organize the whole world) and even more importantly, to what degree it will be different from, and better than the Soviet experience, which indeed followed this combination of mechanisms, at the expense of major human suffering. Bolsheviks came to power with an agenda of ethical coordination (the Decrees on Peace, Land and Workers' Rights) but had to accompany it immediately by bureaucratic and aggressive coordination (war economy), then to limited temporary opening to markets (New Economic Policy), then again a combination of bureaucratic and aggressive coordination (Five-Year Plans and Gulags). I think that nobody wants to repeat that brave new world; it is safer to stay in the existing one, however imperfect it is. Reform it if necessary.

United Nations stands for ethical and against aggressive coordination. It has no a priori opinion on the dilemma of bureaucratic versus market coordination. It depends how well they are used, and if they are put in the right context or not. It takes note of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which tilted the balance in favour of markets. However it never embraced the neoliberal stance of markets only. And to be fair with our colleagues at the World Bank and the IMF (which are specialized United Nations agencies and hence part of the UN family), they had a bit more sophisticated view even at the height of neoliberalism; at least they admitted the need for State intervention in the regulation of natural monopolies and competition. Now with the Great Recession, the pendulum is swinging back towards more prudential regulation, especially in global finance, although I doubt we would go back to the policy stance of the 1970s or 1980s.

As for global governance, there is indeed a need to strengthen it but face two opposite demands. On the one hand, there is a call for more international control of risky or undesirable activities, on the other hand there is call for more policy space for individual Governments. This creates a tricky dilemma: international cooperation works only if participants accept the mutually agreed constraints without reserve but that consent limits their national policy space. How do we maintain the balance between the two?

Now some post-scriptum on Greece: When we look at that sad situation, we tend to forget that most if it was made by the Greeks themselves. Naturally international lenders share part of the responsibility for giving money to a country without looking at what was happening there and hence have to share the costs of adjustment. To use the model of four coordination mechanisms, the country used to have practically no ethical coordination (at least not at the high political level), perverted bureaucratic coordination (it was the country in which Alberto Alesina has found (see his 2006 Myrdal Lecture on "Welfare policies in the UNECE regions: Why so different?) that the redistribution of goods increased social inequality), weak market coordination (innovation and production were not advancing) and bloated aggressive coordination (via widespread corruption and tax evasion). Because of this situation, Greece's problem is not of its international debt itself but the vicious circle that led to its accumulation and the challenge of breaking that cycle. I am very worried by the fact that reforms still are imposed from the outside and at a high social cost. However part of the high social cost is due to the Greek society's apparent choice of staying within the Eurozone, which means applying the grouping's rules of the game.

Dear Mr Kalotay:

We are extremely lucky to have somebody like you with the UNCTAD background to discuss the various aspects of the question.

In the meanwhile there is a pause in Greece and The Guardian has exploded the Paul Mason's theory on end of capitalism which reminds me of the end of history theory of Fukuyama during the heydays of Perestroika. Possibly, Galbraith was quite rational with his famous theory of convergence which was rejected both sides of the ideological divide.

Past two or three centuries were playground of S&T and distinctly different from the earlier ones. It is wrong to write off the experience of non-capitalist cooperation among and by  the nations and nationalities of USSR, CMEA, China etc as failures.

I am of the view that management of socialist enterprises, socialist economies, socialist societies and socialist governance were not studied with any seriousness by the management experts of the OECD countries. There is an ideological division even at the UN level: UN has to be liberated from imperial stranglehold and there is plenty of scope for the revival of a NAM movement within it.

These are my preliminary responses to your scholarly presentation: Perhaps we may revisit your formulations for a more serious discussion on specific issues of disagreements.

VC   

The answer to your question also depend on what you mean by 'evaluate'  - UNCTAD may have an interest in the dynamics that are at play but is not the appropriate organ to adjudicate in any way.