« The principles of the `Post Washington Consensus` and its limitations. . Is the Washington consensus dead ? To what extent is the Washington Consensus dead? ...» Document abstract
$9.95
10 word format
Language : english
economics
presentation
date published
29/08/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 7 times
Summary“The Washington Consensus has been dead for years,” said the World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn at the opening of a conference on ‘Scaling up Poverty Reduction’ in Shanghai on 25 May, 2004. “It’s been replaced by all sorts of other consensuses. But today we’re approaching our discussions with no consensuses,” he added. More surprising than the content of the message is the messenger. Indeed the Washington Consensus has been the core of many debates and a controversial subject for a few years. So the fact that, once again, it can be condemned is not that surprising. Yet the fact that the President of the World Bank himself declares the death of the Washington Consensus is much more remarkable. In fact, this is what gives value to this declaration. The implications are twofold: first, it means that he acknowledges that the Washington Consensus did exist, and more, that it is no longer significant. However it seems that the current situation is less obvious than James Wolfensohn presumes. Obviously this particular way of thinking about the development has been more and more criticized over the past few years. Its failures have been more and more apparent. Its functioning has been denounced in reference to its lack of transparency, but also its lack of legitimacy. Its whole philosophy has been less and less accepted by a range of actors as broad as NGO’s, citizens’ movements in the developing world and even some people in developed countries. Yet, at the same time, the Washington Consensus has not fully disappeared and its death cannot be completely proclaimed. Indeed, some evidence shows that its end is relative since some of its policies are still inspired by the recommendations of the IMF and the World Bank and that these representative institutions are still strong and dominant.
What is the situation now? Are we facing a post Washington Consensus area? Or are we still under the neo-liberal domination? What evidence could make us understand the current state of the development policies? To what extent is the Washington Consensus dead?
In order to better understand this controversy, I will first describe the origins and the principles of the Washington Consensus. Next, I will present the evidence that demonstrates the disbanding of this way of thinking and what could possibly be the new paradigm in terms of development policies. I will finally present some limitations that illustrate the continued existence of the Washington Consensus.
What is the situation now? Are we facing a post Washington Consensus area? Or are we still under the neo-liberal domination? What evidence could make us understand the current state of the development policies? To what extent is the Washington Consensus dead?
In order to better understand this controversy, I will first describe the origins and the principles of the Washington Consensus. Next, I will present the evidence that demonstrates the disbanding of this way of thinking and what could possibly be the new paradigm in terms of development policies. I will finally present some limitations that illustrate the continued existence of the Washington Consensus.
Table of Contents- The reign of the Washington Consensus.
- The manifestations of the post neo-liberal era.
- The principles of the `Post Washington Consensus` and its limitations.
« markets through the influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) acting under the Washington Consensus. References Anonymous, "The nation-state is dead. ...» Document abstract
$9.95
11 word format
Language : english
political science
presentation
date published
20/02/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : Expert
requested 32 times
SummaryThis essay deals with one of the most controversial questions in today’s social science debates: the relationship between the nation-state and globalisation. Globalisation, understood quite loosely here as a series of contemporary and unprecedented developments in the economic, social and cultural integration of world market and societies – in other words, a general sense of the shortening of distance between here and there, us and the Other – implies a new definition of the field of social relationships, a definition that is much less centred on the national level and takes more account of the global.
In these conditions, the end of the nation-state may be at hand. According to this view, the nation-state, which has been the only entity of international importance since the Westphalia treaties of 1648, is now the subject of increasing strains. It is doomed to lose more and more of its power in the twenty-first century. In the realm of worldwide action and global participation, how can the territorially limited and ideologically outdated nation-state survive ?
One should always be cautious about seemingly-obvious statements, especially on issues of national reach. Lessons from the past show us that the nation-state has flourished from very sturdy roots, roots that have many times proven stronger than the winds of change. Still, some signs, such as the appearance of many new institutions of global governance, cannot be ignored: what scope remains for the state in the new distribution of power brought about by globalisation ?
I will attempt here to show that the most challenging aspect of globalisation for the nation-state is not economic revolution, contrary to common belief. Indeed integration of world markets adds as many opportunities for states as it does bounds to their sovereignty. Globalisation also means new forms of contacts and exchanges between cultures, making people ever more aware of global issues that concern all of humanity. I will argue that it is in this new “global consciousness” that the greatest threats for the sovereignty and legitimacy of nation-states lie, with one crucial question lying in waiting: will future globalisation be up to the challenge of democracy and accountability?
This essay will be structured around two parts. In the first one, I will tackle the still burning debate of economic globalisation and the fate of the nation-states, taking sides with those who do not want to proclaim the end of the nation-state too soon. In the second part, I will concentrate on more political and social issues, attempting in a few words to show that globalisation requires new forms of democracy that may prove a big challenge to contemporary political organisations.
In these conditions, the end of the nation-state may be at hand. According to this view, the nation-state, which has been the only entity of international importance since the Westphalia treaties of 1648, is now the subject of increasing strains. It is doomed to lose more and more of its power in the twenty-first century. In the realm of worldwide action and global participation, how can the territorially limited and ideologically outdated nation-state survive ?
One should always be cautious about seemingly-obvious statements, especially on issues of national reach. Lessons from the past show us that the nation-state has flourished from very sturdy roots, roots that have many times proven stronger than the winds of change. Still, some signs, such as the appearance of many new institutions of global governance, cannot be ignored: what scope remains for the state in the new distribution of power brought about by globalisation ?
I will attempt here to show that the most challenging aspect of globalisation for the nation-state is not economic revolution, contrary to common belief. Indeed integration of world markets adds as many opportunities for states as it does bounds to their sovereignty. Globalisation also means new forms of contacts and exchanges between cultures, making people ever more aware of global issues that concern all of humanity. I will argue that it is in this new “global consciousness” that the greatest threats for the sovereignty and legitimacy of nation-states lie, with one crucial question lying in waiting: will future globalisation be up to the challenge of democracy and accountability?
This essay will be structured around two parts. In the first one, I will tackle the still burning debate of economic globalisation and the fate of the nation-states, taking sides with those who do not want to proclaim the end of the nation-state too soon. In the second part, I will concentrate on more political and social issues, attempting in a few words to show that globalisation requires new forms of democracy that may prove a big challenge to contemporary political organisations.
Table of Contents- Economic Globalisation and the Role of the State
- Social globalisation and new forms of democracy
1
knowledge network
Sort by
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :