IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01668357.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Limitations of Conditionality: Comparing The ‘Washington Consensus’ and ‘Governance’ Reforms

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Nicole Sindzingre

    (EconomiX - EconomiX - UPN - Université Paris Nanterre - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In the early 1980s, a great number of developing countries were facing severe balance of payments difficulties, and called upon the international financial institutions (IFIs) (the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) for financial relief. In exchange for this relief, the IFIs devised a set of economic reforms, typically targeting fiscal, financial and monetary issues. This set of reforms, which were the conditions for IFI lending (‘conditionalities'), was later summarised as the ‘Washington Consensus'. These reform programmes during the 1980s and 1990s were, however, not associated with better economic performance. This mixed success led the IFIs to devise in the 1990s a different set of reforms, which this time targeted the functioning of the government and its ‘governance'. Several studies had insisted that the genuine problems of developing countries stemmed from the characteristics of governments described as, e.g., rent-seekers, plagued by corruption and whose policies only expressed the interests of particular groups. The paper analyses and compares these two sets of conditionalities, that of the ‘Washington Consensus' and that of ‘good governance' conditionalities, demonstrating their respective limitations. These limitations stem from: i) the concept of conditionality, the mechanism of exchanging finance for reform, per se; ii) the contents of the reforms summarised as the ‘Washington Consensus' given the economic context of the countries under programme (typically an export structure based on primary commodities) and the weakness of the concept of ‘governance' in view of these countries' political economies; and iii) the intrinsic linkages between economic and political conditionalities, whose limitations thus retroact on each other, in particular regarding effectiveness and credibility. These limitations are examined in the light of the current theoretical debates on aid ineffectiveness and on the political economy of developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Nicole Sindzingre, 2014. "The Limitations of Conditionality: Comparing The ‘Washington Consensus’ and ‘Governance’ Reforms," Post-Print hal-01668357, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01668357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01668357. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.