Washington Consensus Theory

1068 Words 4 Pages
Since 1989 when the term Washington Consensus first appeared and throughout its short history there have been various interpretations of what it could signify. It has been described as a new form embodying imperialism, as a tool to undermine states, as the introduction of the laissez-faire economy etc. (Williamson, 2004: 6). Some more crucial definitions that Williamson provides in his historical overview are the usage of the term Washington Consensus when referring to the Bretton Woods institutions (World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund) and neoliberalism or market fundamentalism. The former tend to describe the policies of those institutions along those of the US towards client countries. The later does not seem to reflect the original meaning and it only remains for Williamson to add that the term “should surely refer to a set of policies that command or commanded a consensus in some significant part of Washington, either the US government or the IFIs or both, or perhaps both plus some other group.“ (Ibid: 7).

The original list of the Washington Consensus encompasses ten proposed reforms being fiscal discipline, reordering public expenditure barriers, tax
…show more content…
Huntington’s definition of developmental goals does not only include growth, but also socio-economic equality, political stability, political democracy, and national autonomy. A GDP measured growth is increasingly criticized for being inadequate for the measurement of social progress or well being. Additionally it is negatively correlated to most other developmental factors. Stiglitz summarizes the widely assumed correlation between the process development and market growth as following: “There is no theoretical evidence that in early stages markets by themselves will lead to effective

Related Documents