Citation Williamson, J. En Kuczynski, P. Lima: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas. Language spa. The Institute for International Economics. Kuczynski, Pedro Pablo y Williamson, John. ISBN Collections Editorial UPC.
The following license files are associated with this item:. I argued that it would be good policy to help the debtor countries overcome their debt burden now that they were making profound changes in economic policy, along the lines advocated by Balassa, Bueno, Kuczynski, and Simonsen I encountered rank disbelief in the Congressmen before whom I was testifying that there were any significant changes in economic policies and attitudes in process in Latin America.
After discussion with Fred Bergsten, the director at the Institute for International Economics, where I was and am professionally located, we decided to convene a conference to test the extent to which I was right and to put the change in policy attitudes on the record in Washington.
A few weeks later I gave a seminar at the Institute for Development Studies in England, where I made much the same argument.
I was challenged by Hans Singer to spell out what I meant when I said that many of the countries were changing their policies for the better.
This emphasized the need to be very explicit about the policy changes that I was thinking of. I decided that conference that we were planning for the autumn, which. That paper was entitled What Washington Means by Policy Reform and was sent to the ten authors who had agreed to write country studies for our conference to try and make sure that they addressed a common set of issues in their papers.
That paper said inter alia on its opening page: Th[is] paper identifies and discusses 10 policy instruments about whose proper deployment Washington can muster a reasonable degree of consensus. The paper is intended to elicit comment on both the extent to which the views identified do indeed command a consensus and on whether they deserve to command it.
It is hoped that the country studies to be guided by this background paper will comment on the extent to which the Washington consensus is shared in the country in question.
The Washington of this paper is both the political Washington of Congress and senior members of the administration and the technocratic Washington of the international financial institutions, the economic agencies of the U. The Institute for International Economics made a contribution to codifying and propagating several aspects of the Washington consensus in its publication Toward Renewed Economic Growth in Latin America Balassa et al.
My opinion at that time was that views had pretty much coalesced on the sort of policies that had long been advocated by the OECD. I specifically did not believe that most of the neoliberal innovations1 of the Reagan administration in the United States or the Thatcher government in Britain had survived the demise of the former Mrs.
Thatchers government was still in its death throes at the time. The exception was privatization, which was Mrs. Thatchers personal gift to the economic policy agenda of the world, and which by had proved its worth. But I thought all the other new ideas with which Reagan and Thatcher had entered office, notably monetarism, supply-side economics, and minimal government, had by then been discarded as impractical or undesirable fads, so no trace of them can be found in what I labeled the Washington Consensus.
Of course, acceptance as relevant to the developing world of ideas that had long been motherhood and apple pie in the developed world was a momentous change. All through the Cold War the world had remained frozen in the s classification of First, Second, and Third Worlds, each of which was assumed to have its own distinct set of economic laws. But the globalization of knowledge never meant general acceptance of neoliberalism by any definition I know of. I use the word neoliberalism in its original sense, to refer to the doctrines espoused by the Mont Pelerin Society.
If there is another definition, I would love to hear what it is so that I can decide whether neoliberalism is more than an intellectual swear word. Content of the Original List The ten reforms that constituted my list were as follows. Fiscal Discipline. This was in the context of a region where almost all countries had run large deficits that led to balance of payments crises and high inflation that hit mainly the poor because the rich could park their money abroad.
Reordering Public Expenditure Priorities. Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas. Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment. The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas. The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
Development of property rights. Criticisms of The Washington Consensus Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. Some strategic and infant industries have to be protected initially to provide long-term growth.
0コメント