IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

What happened to the Washington Consensus? The evolution of international development policy

Listed author(s):
  • Marangos, John

The term "Washington Consensus", as Williamson the father of the term conceived it, in 1989, was a set of reforms for economic development that he judged "Washington" could agree were required in Latin America. However, the Washington Consensus has been identified as a neoliberal manifesto and calls were made for the implementation of a different set of policies, which took the form of the "Augmented Washington Consensus". Lately, Williamson offered a new set of policies the "After the Washington Consensus". The aim of this paper is to investigate the different interpretations and alternatives of this controversial set of policies, and to reveal the historical evolution of the implemented policies for international development.

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: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5H-4T4J857-5/2/7b7ff2a7d5c49295bba1635d9fbe3efc
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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 Elsevier in its journal Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics).

Volume (Year): 38 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 197-208

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:197-208
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Williamson, John, 2000. "What Should the World Bank Think about the Washington Consensus?," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 15(2), pages 251-264, August.
  2. John Marangos, 2007. "Was Shock Therapy Consistent with the Washington Consensus?," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 49(1), pages 32-58, March.
  3. John Williamson, 2004. "The strange history of the Washington consensus," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 195-206, December.
  4. Dow, Sheila, 2002. "Economic Methodology: An Inquiry," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198776123.
  5. Rod Cross & Douglas Strachan, 2001. "Three Pillars of Conventional Wisdom," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 181-200.
  6. Gore, Charles, 2000. "The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 789-804, May.
  7. John Williamson, 2007. "Shock Therapy and the Washington Consensus: A Comment," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 49(1), pages 59-60, March.
  8. Srinivasan, T N, 2000. "The Washington Consensus a Decade Later: Ideology and the Art and Science of Policy Advice," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 15(2), pages 265-270, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:eee:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:197-208. 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: (Dana Niculescu)

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.