Editing Washington Consensus (section)

{{Short description|Economic policies for developing nations}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2016}}
{{Neoliberalism sidebar}}
{{Liberalism sidebar}}
The '''Washington Consensus''' is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered in the 1980s and 1990s to constitute the "standard" reform package promoted for [[Economic crisis|crisis-wracked]] [[developing country|developing countries]] by the [[Washington, D.C.]]-based institutions the [[International Monetary Fund]] (IMF), [[World Bank]] and [[United States Department of the Treasury]].<ref name="piie.com">Williamson, John: [https://piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/what-washington-means-policy-reform "What Washington Means by Policy Reform"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171108223139/https://piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/what-washington-means-policy-reform |date=November 8, 2017 }}, in: Williamson, John (ed.): ''Latin American Readjustment: How Much has Happened'', Washington: [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]] 1989.</ref> The term was first used in 1989 by English economist [[John Williamson (economist)|John Williamson]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html|access-date=August 24, 2016 |title=Washington Consensus|date=April 2003|publisher=Center for International Development {{!}} Harvard Kennedy School of Government|url-status=dead|archive-date=2017-07-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170715151421/http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html}}</ref> The prescriptions encompassed [[Free market|free-market]] promoting policies such as trade [[economic liberalization|liberalization]], privatization and finance liberalization.<ref name="auto">{{Cite journal |last1=Babb |first1=Sarah |last2=Kentikelenis |first2=Alexander |date=2021 |title=Markets Everywhere: The Washington Consensus and the Sociology of Global Institutional Change |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-soc-090220-025543 |url-status=live |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=annurev–soc–090220-025543 |doi=10.1146/annurev-soc-090220-025543 |issn=0360-0572 |s2cid=235585418 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211116005835/https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-soc-090220-025543 |archive-date=November 16, 2021 |access-date=June 5, 2022}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Citation |last=Williamson |first=John |title=A Short History of the Washington Consensus |date=2008 |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/34854/chapter/297979785 |work=The Washington Consensus Reconsidered |pages=14–30 |editor-last=Serra |editor-first=Narcís |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170320235726/https://growthlab.cid.harvard.edu/files/growthlab/files/serra8.pdf |edition=1 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |language=en |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199534081.003.0002 |isbn=978-0-19-953408-1 |archive-date=2017-03-20 |editor2-last=Stiglitz |editor2-first=Joseph E.}}</ref> They also entailed fiscal and monetary policies intended to minimize fiscal deficits and minimize inflation.<ref name=":6" />

Subsequent to Williamson's use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as [[market fundamentalism]] or [[neoliberalism]]). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued{{efn|See {{section link||Origins of policy agenda}} and {{section link||Broad sense}} below.}} that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of "motherhood and apple pie" (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of [[neoliberal]] manifesto, "never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else" and can reasonably be said to be dead.

Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus's emphasis on the opening of [[developing countries]] to the [[global marketplace]] and transitioning to an [[emerging market]] in what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of [[domestic market]] forces, arguably at the expense of [[governance]] which will affect key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is ''missing'', including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society through [[equal opportunity]], [[social justice]] and [[poverty reduction]].