Best Answer

The term Washington Consensus was coined in 1989 by the economist John Williamson to describe a set of ten relatively specific economic policy prescriptions that he considered constituted the "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury Department.[1] The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.

Subsequently to Williamson's minting of the phrase, and despite his emphatic opposition, the term Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described, typically pejoratively, as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson himself has argued (below) that his ten original, narrowly-defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of "motherhood and apple pie" (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, "never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else" and can by now reasonably be said to be dead.

Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, in face of the contrast between the broader and narrower definitions outlined above. But there are also substantive differences involved over the merits and consequences of the various policy prescriptions involved. Some of the critics discussed in this article take issue, for example, with the original Consensus's emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators reviewed below, the point at issue is less what is included in the Consensus than what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society. Despite these areas of controversy, a great many writers and development institutions would by now accept the more general proposition that strategies need to be tailored to the specific circumstances of individual countries.

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What is Washington consensus?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Continue Learning about American Government

What is an agreement about basic beliefs?


Were the Fifties really an age of Consensus?


What is the word that means a general agreement among various groups?


Why was George Washington important during the Constitutional Convention?

Robert moris Robert moris-The first order of the convention was to elect a president for the convention. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania nominated George Washington. Washington was elected convention president by a unanimous vote, just as he had been unanimously chosen to lead the Continental Army twelve years before. With George Washington unanimously elected, He accepted the honor reluctantly, protesting his lack of qualification. His opening remarks were addressed to the pride and idealism of the members: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair."

Are courts more likely to block an enlightened consensus with their adherence to outdated principles or to protect the politically weak from oppressive majorities?

Enlightenment does not happen by consensus and principles do not become "outdated" otherwise they would not be principles and a basic principle of the Courts is to protect the politically weak from oppressive majorities. The courts may or may not block a progressive idea that some consensus views as enlightened or they may not. All most all court rulings are based on the very narrow facts of the case. Thus, if a court upholds a progressive idea that some consensus views as enlightened they did so, most likely, because of the facts of the case.