IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

From Washington Consensus to BeST Consensus for world development

Listed author(s):
  • Keun Lee
  • John A. Mathews
Registered author(s):

While the set of liberalising and fiscally conservative development precepts dubbed the 'Washington Consensus' are now discredited as a tool for development, there is as yet no widely adopted or accepted alternative other than references to the 'East Asian model'. In this paper, we distil the essence of the experience of East Asia-of Japan initially, then of Korea and Taiwan, and now of China-in a set of flexible precepts that we suggest underpin the policies and strategies pursued with success by these East Asian economies. In the spirit of proposing an alternative to the Washington Consensus, we suggest that these precepts-pragmatic and known to work-be dubbed the Beijing-Seoul-Tokyo Consensus (or BeST Consensus for development). The essence of this consensus is its focus on capability building, on dynamic transitions from one stage to the next, and on building an institutional platform to capture latecomer effects. We outline what this BeST Consensus might be and discuss why it is that its elements appear to work so well; and whether they can still be applied in the world of 21st-century conditions. Copyright © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Crawford School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University and Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd..

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: link to full text
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government, The Australian National University in its journal Asian-Pacific Economic Literature.

Volume (Year): 24 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (May)
Pages: 86-103

in new window

Handle: RePEc:bla:apacel:v:24:y:2010:i:1:p:86-103
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:apacel:v:24:y:2010:i:1:p:86-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.