Neither the Washington nor the post-Washington consensus

Abstract

The neo-liberal Washington consensus, in favour of the market and antagonistic to the state, was at its height. However, the institutions were clearly failing to deliver in terms of economic development and stabilisation. Making markets work requires more than just low inflation, it requires sound financial regulation, competition policy, and policies to facilitate the transfer of technology, to name some fundamental issues neglected by the Washington consensus. In the light, Stiglitz's proposal for a post-Washington consensus builds upon, accelerates and leaps ahead of the earlier, painfully slow, intellectual and ideological shifts that could already be detected as present within the World Bank over the last few years. Both analytically and in policy, the post-Washington consensus represents a regression relative to the McNamara era at the World Bank, despite its supposed rigour in specifying market imperfections and its claims to represent and reproduce its traditions.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.