The post washington consensus development

The send off cap consensus teachingThere energise been several discussions astir(predicate) whether or not the capital of the United States consensus and the post uppercase consensus (alos referred to as the revolutionary consensus) fire to nurture atomic number 18 fundamentally different forward motiones to instruction. The kindness confide and International Monetary fund critics are quick to say some(prenominal)(prenominal) climbes are the same, and that the capital letter consensus was just repackaged and given a naked as a jaybird brand, allude and identity in the Post majuscule consensus knowledge snuggle. Although it is easy to escort how it bunghole be assumed that the on a lower floorlying fundamentals of the upper-case letter consensus and the post upper-case letter consensus are unchanged because the latter still encompasses the principles of the numberer(prenominal) that was in general a focus on commercializeplace straighten out as the approach for growth and reading. However, the detail that the post chapiter consensus builds on foodstuff reform and includes assorted another(prenominal) agents ignored by the chapiter consensus exchangeable institutional reform and good governance which are elements that ex bneediness mart the goals of the rising consensus and alter it to promote sustainable, egalitarian, and elected victimisation (Stiglitz 200117). These additions and extensive goals therefore make both approaches fundamentally different from one another, even though they both exhort market reform (which is where the similarities end). While the capital of the United States consensus focused on the flawlessness of the market the post capital of the United States consensus does the exact opposite, it points out market limitations and shipway of correcting much(prenominal) limitations (Stiglitz 2001). The purpose of this paper is to illustrate just how different both approaches are by looking at t he foundational economic theories they are build on, the components of both approaches and their methodology.The Washington consensus is an approach to development that involves unhomogeneous economic polity prescriptions that are knowing to move an miserliness towards economic growth and development when implemented. They include ten basic polices that create a liberal market and economy. According to Williamson who coined the term and the originator of the list, they include macro instructioneconomic stability (restoring financial discipline by controlling budget deficit)Redirecting expenditure (reduction of presidential term spending) taxation Reform (involved increasing tax and value added tax.)Financial liberalization corporate Exchange rate (to encourage and ease business)Replacement of quantitative trade restrictions by Tariffs (trade liberalization)Abolishment of Barriers to entry of foreign direct investings (Liberalizes FDI)Privatization of order mother enterpr ises (reduce establishment spending)De regularisation (reduce order interference)Legal system should provide hold decorousty rights (Williamson 2005 35-42)The policies downstairs the Washington consensus are designed to liberalize various sectors of an economy. They are also directed towards increasing market efficiency, productivity and growth. not all the policies under the consensus are implemented at the same duration and in most cases, there is a lot of mixing and twin(a) done by the governments implementing these policies with a few policies being to a greater extent popular than others. Williamson (2005 43) notes that (i)n terms of which reform(s) policies were most widely implemented, there have been widespread attempts to slim down fiscal polity, introduce extensive financial and trade liberalization, eliminate restrictions on foreign direct investment, and promote privatization and deregulation. These policies have earned the Washington consensus a bad reputatio n of increasing poverty because adjustment and stabilization policies tend to depress real proceeds, as control over money wages is combined with devaluation (Stewart 19911849), unemployment coupled with other various adverse effects from such policies on the scurvy in a country lead to fond decay. The failures of such policies are evident in various developing countries like Bolivia, Nigeria, and Zambia (discussed in Adefulu, 1991) whose economies after adopting stabilization and adjustment policies experienced stagnant or slow growth. These countries experienced worse situations than they were in before the murder of the morphological adjustment programme under the Washington consensus policies prescribed by the World trust and the International monetary fund in the 1980s. The failure of this approach to development gave rise to domain of a new development approach know as the Post Washington consensus which also included virtually of the policies listed above in relation to its market reform component. However, it focused not just on economic growth through market reforms unless also included elements to enhance accessible growth and welfare and thusly encourages sustainable development. It eased and monitored the effects of the market reform policies on the poor by paying forethought to brotherly issues and advocating the creation of safety nets. This new approach addressed areas that had been ignored by the Washington consensus and as a result of this, it provides a better-rounded approach to development. Unlike the Washington consensusIt aims at modify the real economy as well as inflationIt tries to ameliorate financial sector regulation, rather than assuming that liberalization is the only mettlesome in townIt includes contestation policyIt considers various mechanisms of improving government efficiency, rather than seeking to minimize governments roleIt focuses on improving humankind capital formationIt seeks to outgrowth the trans fer of technology to developing countries.(Williamson, 200545)Including these advantageive elements to the market reform policies was based on the recognition that making markets work requires more than just low inflation it requires sound financial regulation, competition policy, and policies to hasten the transfer of technology and to encourage transparency, to cite some fundamental issues overleap by the Washington consensus (Stiglitz, 200117). The emphasis placed on trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization under the Washington consensus approach often lead policymakers to disregard the importance of various factors like competition, which contribute to the strongness of a market economy and which whitethorn be just as classic as economic victor (Stiglitz, 200120-21).The Washington consensus and Post-Washington consensus not only differ based on their development goals, the economic theories and principles on which they are based upon are from different schoo ls of thought. The former based on the system of logic of Keynesian economics of liberalization and the mantra of lazzie faire dispense withs the market to stabilize itself with little or more preferably no government hinderance. The Washington consensus therefore was founded on the neo-classical economic theory centered on the idea of instrumental rationality ( normality 1995). Instrumental rationality implies that individuals in the market make decision in such a way that creates a perfect market. Their decisions are made based on factors that offer them upper limit utility. Under instrumental rationality it is assumed that set are accredited and given as constant, objective decision of the world as it is can be postulated and.. decision makers computational powers are unlimited (North, 19957) thus when an flaw arises in the market because of this factors, the market leave correct the imperfections itself. Therefore, there is no need for government go acrossling. Under t his approach government, interference is seen to disturb the watercourse of the market and impede its efficiency and growth of the economy.The Post-Washington consensus is however eclectic, drawing from the logic of different economic principles. It draws from both the principles of the new development economics, and the new institutional economics (NIE) which understand and value the role the state plays in the regulation of market functions. New development economics according to Ben Fine (2006) was created to submit the shift towards the post Washington Consensus. It elongates beyond only economic principles and includes other fields of study like sociology and non-economic factors. It also places emphasis on market imperfections and asymmetrical information amongst parties in a market. In this theory in contrast to economic approach, institutions, customs, as well as economic and social structures are taken seriously rather than presumed to be equivalent to as an as if market situation (Fine, 2006 8)NIE advocates the significance of institutions, and their importance in closure the problem of transaction costs that may exists in the market ascribable to asymmetrical information. Institutions are an important aspect because they are the rules of the game of a society, or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction (North, 1995 23). They could be formal in the nose out of laws created to govern and informal based on norms. The post- Washington consensus as a development approach recognises the fact that markets in developing countries often carry a spirited cost of transaction, which deters investment and slows down market productivity. Transaction costs arising from asymmetrical information ordain often lessen confidence in the market and cause insecurity. To remedy the problem institutions are required becauseefficient institutions lessen insecurity and thereby increase readiness to invest(North,1991 in Ger man Fed Ministry, 2004 7). everywhere the long term, dynamic growth processes can only be preserve when institutions exist that encourage the growth of productivity and guarantee a high degree of stability, that is, reduce vulnerability to external shocks. (German Fed Ministry, 2004 7)Another dissimilitude between both development approaches is in relation to their view on state intervention in the market. The Washington consensus approach views government intervention as an interference with market perfection. Under this approach, the market will resolve its problems and set the right price, and government or state intervention disrupts this ability and therefore create imperfections and inefficiency. A good illustration is of African countries like Nigeria and Ghana who after independence interfered with the export markets using explosive charge boards and monosponies (singles buyer where there are many sellers) for their agricultural products (discussed in Bates 1981). The bo ards had an curve on market prices and could afford to be incompetent because the cost of inefficiency could be easily transferred from the states board to the farmers and consumers (Bates 1981). This condescends the Neo-liberal view that when states are involved in markets, macroeconomic rationality if foregone for their preference of macroeconomic policy instruments. The Washington consensus follows the policy of a non-interventionist state or one with minimal role in markets. The post Washington consensus however, draws from the example of the East Asian countries miracle (which attributes most of its success to state intervention in markets) and promotes the importance of government intervention because of imperfections that already exist within the market. It advocates that the state regulate the market through the creation of institutions, legal framework, and property rights. All of which will solve the problems that exist in an imperfect market like inadequate flow of inf ormation and allow proper contracts to be drawn between transacting partners. The government according to the logic of the post Washington consensus should serve as a compliment to markets, set about actions that make markets work better and correcting market failures (Stiglitz, 200141).The Washington consensus approach to development as mentioned previously wanted little or no state intervention and disregarded the role of the state. The post Washington consensus approach however, values state role so much so that the approach includes elements designed to better the governance of a developing state in the form of good governance and democracy. Under this new consensus because the state is seen as an important factor for growth and development, it provides for the reform of the state itself. The post Washington consensus recognises the fact that most developing countries are faced with government inefficiency, corruption and bureaucracy. The approach therefore proposes that states should practice good governance, which entails democracy, transparency, and rule of law to mention a few. The post-Washington consensus approach to development considers the practice of good governance as a pre-requisite for sustainable economic growth and development. Under this approach, states role, efficiency or lack thereof and politics is taken into consideration for development purposes, while the Washington consensus approach lacks this attention to governance issues. The disregard for state issues is due to neo-liberalisms hesitancy of the state and autonomous exaltation of individual and the view that the state necessarily to be extricated from the market economical reforms consequently take priority over governmental reforms and civil liberties (Abrahamsen, 200030) under the Washington consensus.The post Washington consensus approach to development considers factors outside of economics for vitrine education and health apprehension. This is another fundamental diffe rence between it and the Washington consensus. The new consensus values the importance of such elements to the development process irrelevant the Washington consensus that disregards them. Under the new consensus, there is an understanding that development needs to be sustainable and in this regard, it provides for elements that carry it in that direction. Education allows for the development of human capital and the society. If the people are developed, they can move development along by making valuable contributions in the society. According to Stiglitz (200146), promoting human capital isa policy that can help promote economic development, equality, community and democracy. The East Asian countries for instance Japan (Stiglitz, 2001) placed an emphasis on educating its citizens by making basic education compulsory make viable examples of how educating a countrys citizens can contribute to sustainable economic growth and development. mixer aspects like education ignored by the Washington consensus is regarded an important element of the post Washington consensus approach.The post Washington consensus approach to development is created in a way that ensures its effects are long-term on the economy as supposed to the short-term effect of the Washington consensus. It achieves this because of its broader goal and lettering to issues outside the realm of economics and the market. According to Stiglitz (200168) The new development strategy takes as its core objective development, the transformation of society, this fact and its inclusion of social factors as part of the development agenda ensures that it encourages sustainable development and not only the growth of gross domestic product (GDP).Participation and sense of self-will is another aspect in which both approaches to development have fundamental differences. The Washington consensus approach pays little or no attention to fostering the sense of owner ship instead it reduced state self-will through the heavy promotion of instant privatization. The post Washington consensus on the other hand recognizes that fostering a sense of ownership and participation of developing country governments and its people has an effect on how effective the programs being adopted will be. The government has to implement the development programs that have been recommended by international institutions and if the developing country feel like they are in control and have an opinion about the changes going on in their country they might ensure that the programmes are implemented efficaciously and not on a superficial level. Lack of proper implementation on part of developing nations government is one explanation offered by the World marge as a reason for the failure of the structural adjustment programs under the Washington consensus. By including a sense of ownership and encouraging participation, the post Washington agenda ensures that the new approach to development does not face the same problem .The differences between both approaches also extend to how their various components are implemented. For instance, privatization, which is an element of both development strategies as a part of the market reform component of the Washington and Post Washington consensus, has been implemented and understood differently under both approaches. The concept of privatization under the Washington Consensus was to reduce government spending and deficit while removing inefficient state enterprises and creating economic stability. Sale of state owned companies would create tax income and competition between offstage owners would make enterprises more efficient and more productive therefore it had to be immediate. The post Washington consensus however views privatization as something that has to occur gradually, most importantly after the necessary institutions that would enhance competition has been put in place and not before. The premise for this is that just because public enterprises ar e made one-on-one does not guarantee their efficiency because if the proper institutions were not in place to encourage their efficiency they would not be as productive as expected. The post Washington consensus is however not against privatization, as Stiglitz (200138) comments The Washington consensus is right- privatization is important. The government needs to devote its scarce resources to areas where private sector does not and is not likely to enter. The new consensus is in support of privatizing public enterprises that are unnecessary and can be undertaken by the private sector with institutions to aid its efficiency already in place. Nonetheless, the approaches to privatization under both development programs are different.Both approaches though having a common goal, which is to realise about growth and development, go about it in different ship canal and have different fundamentals. The Washington consensus approach to development places emphasis on economic growth throu gh increase in GDP levels and market reform. Its fundamental objective is to make market forces more efficient and increase productivity within the economy. This approach is a strong advocate for policies involving deregulation, privatization and stabilization. The post- Washington consensus approach (devised after failure of the previous consensus) on the other hand focuses on development through societal transformation. This approach goes beyond the market approach of the Washington consensus to include broader goals and social factors like health care and education. The new consensus core objective is a more equal, egalitarian and democratic type of development (Stiglitz, 200117). The broader goals and objectives pursued under the post-Washington consensus makes it fundamentally different from the Washington Consensus approach to development.BibliographyAbrahamsen, Rita (2000). Disciplining democracy development discourse and good governance in Africa. London Zed books. p23-65.Ad efulu, R. A. (1991). African Debt Crisis and the IMF allowance Programmes the Experiences of Ghana, Nigeria and Zambia. In Renee Prendergast and H.W. Singer instruction Perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 37-58). New York Palgrave Macmillan.Ajit Singh. (1998). Competitive Markets and Economic Development A interpretation on World Bank analyses. In Phillip Arestis and Malcom Swayer The Polictical Economy of Economic Policies. London Macmillan Press Ltd.. 60-105.Bates H. Robert. (1981). Polices Towards Cash Crops for Exports. In Barry and Popkin Markets and states in Tropical Africa the political basis of agricultural policies. Berkeley University of California Press. 11-29.Brohman J. (1995). Economism and critical silences in Development Studies A theoretical critique of neo-liberalism. Third World Quarterly. 16 (2), p297-318.Cammack, Paul. (2004). What the World Bank means by Poverty Reduction. New Left Review. 9 (2), 189-104Fine, Ben. (2006). The new development economics. In Ben Fi ne, Jomo K. S. The new development economics after the Washington Consensus. 2nd ed. London Zed Books. p1-20.Fine, Ben. (2001). Neither the Washington nor post Washington consensus introduction. In Ben Fine, Costas Lapavitsas, Jonathan Pincus Development policy in the twenty-first century beyond the post-Washington. New York Routledge. p4-15.German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Post-Washington-Consensus- A Few Thoughts. lendable http//siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEDS05/Resources/PostWashingtonConsensus-englisch-04-2004.pdf. Last accessed 15 January 2010.Gore Charles. (2000). The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries. World Development. 28 (5), p789-804.Lal Deepak. (1995). Misconceptions of. In Corbridge, S Development Studies. New York Arnold. 56-63.Moseley P.. (1991). World Development and International Finanace since 1970. In Moseley P, J Toye, and Harrigan J Aid and power the World Bank and policy -based lending. London Routledge. p3-25.North Douglass. (1995). The new institutional economics and Third World development. In conjuration Harriss, Janet Hunter, Colin M. Lewis The new institutional economics and Third World development. London Routledge. p17-26.Stewart Frances. (1991). The umteen Faces of Adjustment. World Development. 19 (12), p1847-1864.Stiglitz, Joseph. (2001). More Instruments and Broader Goals Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus. In Ha-Joon Chang Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank the rebel within. 1st ed. New York Anthem. p17-56.Stiglitz, Joseph. (2001). Towards a new Paradgim for DevelopmentStrategies, Policies, and processes. In Ha-Joon Chang Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank the rebel within. 2nd ed. New York Anthem. p57-93.Tornquist, O. (2001). The Primacy of Institutions. In Tornquist Olle politics and Development. 2nd ed. London Sage Publications. p86-102.Van Wayenburg Elisa. (2006). From Washington to post washington illusion of developmen t. In Ben Fine, Jomo K. S. The new development economics after the Washington Consensus. 2nd ed. London Zed Books. p21-45.Williamson, John. (2005). The Washington Consensus as Policy ethical drug for Development. In Timothy BESLEY Roberto Zagha Development Challenges in the 1990s. WashingtonDC World Bank Oxford University press. 31-57.Williamson J. (1993). res publica and the Washington Consensus. World Development. 21 (8), p1329-1336.World Bank. (1997). Fostering MarketsLiberalization, Regulation, and Industrial Policy. In World Bank World Development Report the state in a changing world. New York Oxford University Press. p61-75.World Bank. (1994). Moving Towards sound Macro economic policies. In World Bank Adjustment in Africa Reforms, Results, and the pass Ahead. New York Oxford University Press. 43-59World Bank. (1994). Reforming the Public Sector. In World Bank Adjustment in Africa Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York Oxford University Press. 99-125World Bank. (19 94). The Road Ahead for Adjustment. In World Bank Adjustment in Africa Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York Oxford University Press. 181-219.