Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Washington Consensus
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===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>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)