Editing Washington Consensus (section)

==History==

===Original sense: Williamson's Ten Points===
The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by [[John Williamson (economist)|John Williamson]], an economist from the [[Institute for International Economics]], an international economic [[think tank]] based in Washington, D.C.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iie.com/content/?ID=1#topic3 |title=A Guide To John Williamson's Writing |last1=Williamson |first1=John |website=www.piie.com |publisher=[[Peterson Institute for International Economics]] |access-date=April 24, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150705172400/http://www.iie.com/content/?ID=1#topic3 |archive-date=July 5, 2015 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

The consensus as originally stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:<ref name="piie.com"/><ref name="auto"/>
# [[Fiscal policy]] discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
# Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, [[primary health care]] and infrastructure investment;
# [[Tax reform]], broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
# [[Interest rate]]s that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
# Competitive [[exchange rate]]s;
# [[Trade liberalization]]: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform [[tariff]]s;
# Liberalization of inward [[foreign direct investment]];
# [[Privatization]] of [[State-owned enterprise|state enterprise]]s;
# [[Deregulation]]: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of [[financial institution]]s;
# Legal security for [[property right]]s.

====Origins of policy agenda====
Although Williamson's label of the Washington Consensus draws attention to the role of the Washington-based agencies in promoting the above agenda, a number of authors have stressed that Latin American policy-makers arrived at their own packages of policy reforms primarily based on their own analysis of their countries' situations. Thus, according to [[Joseph Stanislaw]] and [[Daniel Yergin]], authors of ''[[The Commanding Heights]]'', the policy prescriptions described in the Washington Consensus were "developed in Latin America, by Latin Americans, in response to what was happening both within and outside the region."<ref name="Yergin and Stanislaw">{{cite book|last1=Yergin|first1=Daniel|last2=Stanislaw|first2=Joseph|author-link1=Daniel Yergin|author-link2=Joseph Stanislaw|title=The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy|date=2002|publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]]|location=New York City|isbn=9780743229630|page=[https://archive.org/details/commandingheight00yerg_1/page/237 237]|url=https://archive.org/details/commandingheight00yerg_1|url-access=registration|access-date=July 3, 2015}}</ref> [[Joseph Stiglitz]] has written that "the Washington Consensus policies were designed to respond to the very real problems in Latin America and made considerable sense" (though Stiglitz has at times been an outspoken critic of IMF policies as applied to developing nations).<ref>Joseph Stiglitz, ''Globalization and its Discontents'' (2002), p. 53.</ref> In view of the implication conveyed by the term Washington Consensus that the policies were largely external in origin, Stanislaw and Yergin report that the term's creator, John Williamson, has "regretted the term ever since", stating "it is difficult to think of a less diplomatic label."<ref name="Yergin and Stanislaw" />

Williamson regretted the use of "Washington" in the Washington Consensus, as it incorrectly suggested that development policies stemmed from Washington and were externally imposed on others.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Spence|first=Michael|date=2021|title=Some Thoughts on the Washington Consensus and Subsequent Global Development Experience|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|volume=35|issue=3|pages=67–82 |doi=10.1257/jep.35.3.67 |issn=0895-3309|doi-access=free}}</ref> Williamson said in 2002, "The phrase "Washington Consensus" is a damaged brand name... Audiences the world over seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on hapless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth. My own view is of course quite different. The basic ideas that I attempted to summarize in the Washington Consensus have continued to gain wider acceptance over the past decade, to the point where [[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva|Lula]] has had to endorse most of them in order to be electable. For the most part they are motherhood and apple pie, which is why they commanded a consensus."<ref name="Williamson2002" />

According to a 2011 study by [[Nancy Birdsall]], [[Augusto de la Torre]], and [[Felipe Valencia Caicedo]], the policies in the original consensus were largely a creation of Latin American politicians and technocrats, with Williamson's role having been to gather the ten points in one place for the first time, rather than to "create" the package of policies.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last1=Birdsall|first1=Nancy|last2=Torre|first2=Augusto De La|last3=Caicedo|first3=Felipe Valencia|editor1-first=José Antonio|editor1-last=Ocampo|editor2-first=Jaime|editor2-last=Ros|date=2011|title=The Washington Consensus: Assessing A "damaged Brand"|url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571048.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199571048-e-4|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210803185258/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571048.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199571048-e-4|archive-date=August 3, 2021|website=The Oxford Handbook of Latin American Economics|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199571048.001.0001|isbn=978-0-19-957104-8|access-date=June 5, 2022}}</ref> Kate Geohegan of [[Harvard University]]'s [[Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies]] credited Peruvian neoliberal economist [[Hernando de Soto (economist)|Hernando de Soto]] for inspiring the Washington Consensus.<ref name=":14">{{Cite book|last=Pee|first=Robert|title=The Reagan Administration, the Cold War, and the Transition to Democracy Promotion|publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]]|year=2018|isbn=978-3319963815|pages=168–187}}</ref> Williamson partly credited de Soto himself for the prescriptions, saying his work was "the outcome of the worldwide intellectual trends to which Latin America provided" and said that de Soto was directly responsible for the recommendation on legal security for property rights.<ref name=":14" />

===Broad sense===
The Washington Consensus is not interchangeable with the term "neoliberalism."<ref name="auto"/> Williamson recognizes that the term has commonly been used with a different meaning from his original prescription; he opposes the alternative use of the term, which became common after his initial formulation, to cover a broader market fundamentalism or "[[neoliberal]]" agenda.<ref>Moisés Naím, [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/Naim.HTM ''Fads and Fashion in Economic Reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion?''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050730084631/http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/Naim.HTM |date=July 30, 2005 }}. October 26, 1999.</ref>

{{blockquote|I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization (...I quite consciously excluded that), [[monetarism]], [[supply-side economics]], or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas.  If that is how the term is interpreted, then we can all enjoy its wake, although let us at least have the decency to recognize that these ideas have rarely dominated thought in Washington and certainly never commanded a consensus there or anywhere much else...<ref name=Williamson2002/>|title=Did the Washington Consensus Fail?|author=John Williamson}}

More specifically, Williamson argues that the first three of his ten prescriptions are uncontroversial in the economic community, while recognizing that the others have evoked some controversy. He argues that one of the least controversial prescriptions, the redirection of spending to infrastructure, health care, and education, has often been neglected. He also argues that, while the prescriptions were focused on reducing certain functions of government (e.g., as an owner of productive enterprises), they would also strengthen government's ability to undertake other actions such as supporting education and health. Williamson says that he does not endorse market fundamentalism, and believes that the Consensus prescriptions, if implemented correctly, would benefit the poor.<ref name="Williamson2000">Williamson J. (2000). [https://piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/what-should-world-bank-think-about-washington-consensus ''What Should the Bank Think about the Washington Consensus?''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180307082318/https://piie.com/commentary/speeches-papers/what-should-world-bank-think-about-washington-consensus |date=March 7, 2018 }}.</ref> In a book edited with Pedro-Pablo Kuczynski in 2003, Williamson laid out an expanded reform agenda, emphasizing crisis-proofing of economies, "second-generation" reforms, and policies addressing inequality and social issues.{{sfn|Williamson|2003}}

As noted, in spite of Williamson's reservations, the term Washington Consensus has been used more broadly to describe the general shift towards free market policies that followed the [[Post-war displacement of Keynesianism|displacement of Keynesianism]] in the 1970s. In this broad sense the Washington Consensus is sometimes considered to have begun at about 1980.<ref name = "GPE">{{Cite book
  | editor = John Ravenhill
  | author1 = Eric Helleiner
  | author2 = Louis W. Pauly
  | year = 2005
  | title = Global Political Economy
  | location = Oxford
  | publisher = Oxford University Press
  | pages =  193, 328–333
  | isbn = 9780199265848
  | oclc = 238441625}}</ref><ref name = "return">
{{cite book
|author= Robert Skidelsky
|title= Keynes: The Return of the Master
|year= 2009
|pages= [https://archive.org/details/keynesreturnofma0000skid/page/101 101, 102, 116–117]
|isbn= 978-1-84614-258-1
|publisher= Allen Lane
|author-link= Robert Skidelsky
|title-link= Keynes: The Return of the Master
}}</ref> Many commentators see the consensus, especially if interpreted in the broader sense of the term, as having been at its strongest during the 1990s. Some have argued that the consensus in this sense ended at the turn of the century, or at least that it became less influential after about the year 2000.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{cite web
 |url         = http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/80864/20101111/g20-development-poverty-oxfam-impact-of-financial-crisis-oecd-transactions-tax.htm
 |title       = G20 focus on currency row may leave behind development goals, say NGOs
 |publisher   = ibTimes
 |author      = Nagesh Narayana
 |date        = November 11, 2010
 |access-date  = 2010-11-17
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20110713001532/http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/80864/20101111/g20-development-poverty-oxfam-impact-of-financial-crisis-oecd-transactions-tax.htm
 |archive-date = July 13, 2011
 |df          = mdy-all
}}
</ref> More commonly, commentators have suggested that the Consensus in its broader sense survived until the [[2008 financial crisis]].<ref name = "return"/> Following the [[2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence]] undertaken by governments in response to [[market failure]]s, a number of journalists, politicians and senior officials from global institutions such as the World Bank began saying that the Washington Consensus was dead.<ref>{{cite news
 |url             = https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/business/11scene.html
 |title           = A Bit of 'I Told You So' Outside World Bank Talks
 |work            = [[The New York Times]]
 |author1         = Helene Cooper
 |author2         = Charlie Savage
 |name-list-style = amp
 |date            = October 10, 2008
 |access-date     = 2010-11-17
 |archive-date    = January 6, 2018
 |archive-url     = https://web.archive.org/web/20180106013013/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/business/11scene.html
 |url-status      = live
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/09/obama-g20-nato-foreign-policy
|title= The Washington consensus is dead
|work= [[The Guardian]]
|author= Anthony Painter
|date= April 10, 2009
|access-date= 2010-11-17
|archive-date= March 14, 2016
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164627/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/09/obama-g20-nato-foreign-policy
|url-status= live
}}</ref> These included former British Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]], who following the [[2009 G-20 London summit]], declared "the old Washington Consensus is over".<ref>{{cite news| url=http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/15254629| title=''Prime Minister Gordon Brown: G20 Will Pump Trillion Dollars Into World Economy''| date=April 2, 2009| publisher=[[Sky News]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120021912/http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/15254629| archive-date=January 20, 2012}}</ref> Williamson was asked by ''[[The Washington Post]]'' in April 2009 whether he agreed with Gordon Brown that the Washington Consensus was dead.  He responded:

{{Blockquote|It depends on what one means by the Washington Consensus. If one means the ten points that I tried to outline, then clearly it's not right. If one uses the interpretation that a number of people—including Joe Stiglitz, most prominently—have foisted on it, that it is a neoliberal tract, then I think it is right.<ref>{{Cite news |title=A Conversation with John Williamson, Economist |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=April 12, 2009 |access-date=August 5, 2011 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040903241.html |archive-date=November 12, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121112221236/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040903241.html |url-status=live }}</ref>}}

After the [[2010 G-20 Seoul summit]] announced that it had achieved agreement on a [[Seoul Development Consensus]], the ''[[Financial Times]]'' editorialized that "Its pragmatic and pluralistic view of development is appealing enough. But the document will do little more than drive another nail into the coffin of a long-deceased Washington consensus."<ref>{{cite web
|url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f33885e-ee90-11df-9db0-00144feab49a.html#axzz15Y6P7YGO
|title= G20 show how not to run the world
|work= [[Financial Times]]
|date= November 12, 2010
|access-date= 2010-11-12
|archive-date= November 13, 2010
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101113215403/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f33885e-ee90-11df-9db0-00144feab49a.html#axzz15Y6P7YGO
|url-status= live
}}{{registration required}}</ref>