Loading…
Fads and fashion in economic reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion?
During the 1990s, many economists believed that there was a clear & robust consensus about what an underdeveloped country must do to achieve prosperity. This was largely due to the popularity of the "Washington Consensus" -- 10 policy recommendations for economic reform specified by ec...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Third world quarterly 2000-06, Vol.21 (3), p.505-528 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c578t-9c807e6a748f1fd1a09a62a456e537c53564971f8b0b1eea17175d21a8d21443 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c578t-9c807e6a748f1fd1a09a62a456e537c53564971f8b0b1eea17175d21a8d21443 |
| container_end_page | 528 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 505 |
| container_title | Third world quarterly |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Naim, Moises |
| description | During the 1990s, many economists believed that there was a clear & robust consensus about what an underdeveloped country must do to achieve prosperity. This was largely due to the popularity of the "Washington Consensus" -- 10 policy recommendations for economic reform specified by economist John Williamson in 1989. Williamson described what he believed was a consensus shared by political Washington & technocratic Washington, but he could not know that he was creating a catch phrase that would be enthusiastically embraced by economic reformers in many countries. He also did not know that the term would obscure profound disagreements among policy experts or that it would be used as a label for a multitude of very different reforms. As the 1990s progressed, the Washington Consensus experienced major mutations & shrinkage. As economic reforms unfolded, governments were forced to change policy goals that had appeared to be the final objective of reform but proved to be merely preconditions for success. New, more complex goals were constantly added. As the 1990s ended, it was clear that policymakers must reevaluate five general issues: international economic instability, investment, inequality, institutions, & ideology. 2 Tables, 42 References. A. Funderburg |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/01436590050057753 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_219770487</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3993336</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3993336</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c578t-9c807e6a748f1fd1a09a62a456e537c53564971f8b0b1eea17175d21a8d21443</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl9rFTEQxYMoeK39AIIPS4XSl9WZzX8RRC5WhUIfWuhjSHezupe9Sc3s0vbbm-WKDy1thZBAzu8ckplh7A3CewQDHwAFV9ICyLK0lvwZWyFXUDeNwOdsteh1AfRL9opoAwBKGLNiZ8e-o8rHruo9_RpSrIZYhTbFtB3aKoc-5S19rC4WMf6cir5OkUKkmaqU79z3M5WEz6_Zi96PFPb_nnvs_Pjr-fp7fXL67cf6y0ndSm2m2rYGdFBeC9Nj36EH61XjhVRBct1KLpWwGntzCZcYgkeNWnYNelM2IfgeO9zFXuX0ew40ue1AbRhHH0OaySlAboVW_wOCMtg8CUprGkQ0BTx6FEShODQWcXnlwR10k-YcS11cg1ZrEEYX6N1DUPkzGK3QLFG4o9qciEpv3FUetj7fOgS3TIG7NwXF83bn2dCU8j8Dt5ZzvpTm004e4tJpf53y2LnJ344p99nHdiDHH0vXT9rvudx0M_E_fAbP1w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>219770487</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Fads and fashion in economic reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion?</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Business Source Ultimate</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection</source><creator>Naim, Moises</creator><creatorcontrib>Naim, Moises</creatorcontrib><description>During the 1990s, many economists believed that there was a clear & robust consensus about what an underdeveloped country must do to achieve prosperity. This was largely due to the popularity of the "Washington Consensus" -- 10 policy recommendations for economic reform specified by economist John Williamson in 1989. Williamson described what he believed was a consensus shared by political Washington & technocratic Washington, but he could not know that he was creating a catch phrase that would be enthusiastically embraced by economic reformers in many countries. He also did not know that the term would obscure profound disagreements among policy experts or that it would be used as a label for a multitude of very different reforms. As the 1990s progressed, the Washington Consensus experienced major mutations & shrinkage. As economic reforms unfolded, governments were forced to change policy goals that had appeared to be the final objective of reform but proved to be merely preconditions for success. New, more complex goals were constantly added. As the 1990s ended, it was clear that policymakers must reevaluate five general issues: international economic instability, investment, inequality, institutions, & ideology. 2 Tables, 42 References. A. Funderburg</description><identifier>ISSN: 0143-6597</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1360-2241</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/01436590050057753</identifier><identifier>CODEN: TWQUDW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Taylor & Francis Group</publisher><subject>Conceptualization ; Developing Countries ; Economic crises ; Economic Development ; Economic Policy ; Economic reform ; Economic stabilization ; Economics ; Fads ; International economic policy ; International economics ; International financial institutions ; International political economy ; LDCs ; Macroeconomic reform ; Macroeconomics ; Policy analysis ; Policy making ; Political reform ; Public opinion ; Reform ; United States ; United States of America ; World Bank</subject><ispartof>Third world quarterly, 2000-06, Vol.21 (3), p.505-528</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2000</rights><rights>Copyright 2000 Third World Quarterly</rights><rights>Copyright Carfax Publishing Company Jun 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c578t-9c807e6a748f1fd1a09a62a456e537c53564971f8b0b1eea17175d21a8d21443</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c578t-9c807e6a748f1fd1a09a62a456e537c53564971f8b0b1eea17175d21a8d21443</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3993336$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/219770487?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,12832,12834,21374,21381,21382,27331,27852,27911,27912,33210,33211,33598,33599,33761,33762,33972,33973,34517,34518,43720,43935,44102,58225,58458</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Naim, Moises</creatorcontrib><title>Fads and fashion in economic reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion?</title><title>Third world quarterly</title><description>During the 1990s, many economists believed that there was a clear & robust consensus about what an underdeveloped country must do to achieve prosperity. This was largely due to the popularity of the "Washington Consensus" -- 10 policy recommendations for economic reform specified by economist John Williamson in 1989. Williamson described what he believed was a consensus shared by political Washington & technocratic Washington, but he could not know that he was creating a catch phrase that would be enthusiastically embraced by economic reformers in many countries. He also did not know that the term would obscure profound disagreements among policy experts or that it would be used as a label for a multitude of very different reforms. As the 1990s progressed, the Washington Consensus experienced major mutations & shrinkage. As economic reforms unfolded, governments were forced to change policy goals that had appeared to be the final objective of reform but proved to be merely preconditions for success. New, more complex goals were constantly added. As the 1990s ended, it was clear that policymakers must reevaluate five general issues: international economic instability, investment, inequality, institutions, & ideology. 2 Tables, 42 References. A. Funderburg</description><subject>Conceptualization</subject><subject>Developing Countries</subject><subject>Economic crises</subject><subject>Economic Development</subject><subject>Economic Policy</subject><subject>Economic reform</subject><subject>Economic stabilization</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Fads</subject><subject>International economic policy</subject><subject>International economics</subject><subject>International financial institutions</subject><subject>International political economy</subject><subject>LDCs</subject><subject>Macroeconomic reform</subject><subject>Macroeconomics</subject><subject>Policy analysis</subject><subject>Policy making</subject><subject>Political reform</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Reform</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States of America</subject><subject>World Bank</subject><issn>0143-6597</issn><issn>1360-2241</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl9rFTEQxYMoeK39AIIPS4XSl9WZzX8RRC5WhUIfWuhjSHezupe9Sc3s0vbbm-WKDy1thZBAzu8ckplh7A3CewQDHwAFV9ICyLK0lvwZWyFXUDeNwOdsteh1AfRL9opoAwBKGLNiZ8e-o8rHruo9_RpSrIZYhTbFtB3aKoc-5S19rC4WMf6cir5OkUKkmaqU79z3M5WEz6_Zi96PFPb_nnvs_Pjr-fp7fXL67cf6y0ndSm2m2rYGdFBeC9Nj36EH61XjhVRBct1KLpWwGntzCZcYgkeNWnYNelM2IfgeO9zFXuX0ew40ue1AbRhHH0OaySlAboVW_wOCMtg8CUprGkQ0BTx6FEShODQWcXnlwR10k-YcS11cg1ZrEEYX6N1DUPkzGK3QLFG4o9qciEpv3FUetj7fOgS3TIG7NwXF83bn2dCU8j8Dt5ZzvpTm004e4tJpf53y2LnJ344p99nHdiDHH0vXT9rvudx0M_E_fAbP1w</recordid><startdate>20000601</startdate><enddate>20000601</enddate><creator>Naim, Moises</creator><general>Taylor & Francis Group</general><general>Carfax Publishing</general><general>Third World Foundation for Social and Economic Studies</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>GPCCI</scope><scope>IZSXY</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000601</creationdate><title>Fads and fashion in economic reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion?</title><author>Naim, Moises</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c578t-9c807e6a748f1fd1a09a62a456e537c53564971f8b0b1eea17175d21a8d21443</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Conceptualization</topic><topic>Developing Countries</topic><topic>Economic crises</topic><topic>Economic Development</topic><topic>Economic Policy</topic><topic>Economic reform</topic><topic>Economic stabilization</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Fads</topic><topic>International economic policy</topic><topic>International economics</topic><topic>International financial institutions</topic><topic>International political economy</topic><topic>LDCs</topic><topic>Macroeconomic reform</topic><topic>Macroeconomics</topic><topic>Policy analysis</topic><topic>Policy making</topic><topic>Political reform</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Reform</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States of America</topic><topic>World Bank</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Naim, Moises</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 10</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 30</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Third world quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Naim, Moises</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Fads and fashion in economic reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion?</atitle><jtitle>Third world quarterly</jtitle><date>2000-06-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>505</spage><epage>528</epage><pages>505-528</pages><issn>0143-6597</issn><eissn>1360-2241</eissn><coden>TWQUDW</coden><abstract>During the 1990s, many economists believed that there was a clear & robust consensus about what an underdeveloped country must do to achieve prosperity. This was largely due to the popularity of the "Washington Consensus" -- 10 policy recommendations for economic reform specified by economist John Williamson in 1989. Williamson described what he believed was a consensus shared by political Washington & technocratic Washington, but he could not know that he was creating a catch phrase that would be enthusiastically embraced by economic reformers in many countries. He also did not know that the term would obscure profound disagreements among policy experts or that it would be used as a label for a multitude of very different reforms. As the 1990s progressed, the Washington Consensus experienced major mutations & shrinkage. As economic reforms unfolded, governments were forced to change policy goals that had appeared to be the final objective of reform but proved to be merely preconditions for success. New, more complex goals were constantly added. As the 1990s ended, it was clear that policymakers must reevaluate five general issues: international economic instability, investment, inequality, institutions, & ideology. 2 Tables, 42 References. A. Funderburg</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1080/01436590050057753</doi><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0143-6597 |
| ispartof | Third world quarterly, 2000-06, Vol.21 (3), p.505-528 |
| issn | 0143-6597 1360-2241 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_219770487 |
| source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Business Source Ultimate; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Social Science Premium Collection; Politics Collection; Sociology Collection; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection |
| subjects | Conceptualization Developing Countries Economic crises Economic Development Economic Policy Economic reform Economic stabilization Economics Fads International economic policy International economics International financial institutions International political economy LDCs Macroeconomic reform Macroeconomics Policy analysis Policy making Political reform Public opinion Reform United States United States of America World Bank |
| title | Fads and fashion in economic reforms: Washington Consensus or Washington Confusion? |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T04%3A44%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fads%20and%20fashion%20in%20economic%20reforms:%20Washington%20Consensus%20or%20Washington%20Confusion?&rft.jtitle=Third%20world%20quarterly&rft.au=Naim,%20Moises&rft.date=2000-06-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=505&rft.epage=528&rft.pages=505-528&rft.issn=0143-6597&rft.eissn=1360-2241&rft.coden=TWQUDW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/01436590050057753&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3993336%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c578t-9c807e6a748f1fd1a09a62a456e537c53564971f8b0b1eea17175d21a8d21443%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=219770487&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3993336&rfr_iscdi=true |