Washington Consensus Pros And Cons

The colonies faced insurmountable odds when the American Revolution began, but were able to successfully overcome the most powerful army and navy in the world through contributions such as George Washington’s extraordinary qualities, having knowledge of the lay of the land, gaining foreign assistance, and having the colonist support the cause.

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” (Kennedy 1). In the words of Kennedy, as Americans we will do anything to ensure our liberty. This brings up a good question to how America was really founded. There are a lot of people and events that went into the foundation of America, but two of the most important are George Washington and the Constitution. Both worked hand in hand in order to give us the America we know and love today.

The argument can be made that economic freedom is a necessary precondition to political freedom, yet the unilateral focus of these reforms begs the question whether during the writing of the Washington Consensus, economic liberalization was solely a means to international development, or an end in itself. The historical support is for the latter, as John Williamson later reflects that there was, “a widespread attempt to tighten fiscal policy, extensive financial and trade liberalization, virtually universal elimination of restrictions on inward foreign direct investment, a lot of privatization, and quite a bit of deregulation. [But] the things that got most widely neglected were reforming public expenditure priorities, maintaining a competitive exchange rate, and extending property rights to the informal sector”

In the beginning of Washington’s farewell letter, he warns his fellow friends and country about danger coming ahead.

9. Review Klein, Chapters 2 and 3. She explains the influence of US economists, especially Milton Friedman, in designing development strategies, and of the US in installing or supporting governments that would carry them out in several countries that had been pursuing a ‘middle’ development path of ‘regulated’ capitalism in which the state played a large role in supporting social welfare and the development of local businesses. You can expect test questions on this material, including the role of the US in ‘regime change’ in these countries, the role of US-trained economists afterward, and the path that these countries were supposed to pursue.

We need to share ideas and theories to try to solve the world crises. Washington didn't like parties, I think it was because he wanted to be in charge and didn’t want to be told how to run the place. I think he wanted to do what he thought was right and you had no say in it. That’s why I think he was against parties because you could sorta tell him what to do and he didn’t like

eventually became one of the foundations of U.S. policy in Latin America. At first, Monroe’s

After some healthy discussion, we always could reach consensus. While I had my doubts initially about our group, we must have been doing something right, for “to use consensus effectively, the group must have a trusting, cooperative, atmosphere” (Zastrow, 2015, p. 218).

Where separate nations, people groups, and political systems exist, many differing economic policies and ideas exist as well. All of the world economic ideologies consist of different focuses, morals, and processes of creating the ideal economic system. Each ideology uses different methods and ideas that conflict with the others, but these ideas can also overlap and be consistent in many areas. Four major economic ideologies are neoliberalism, Evangelical internationalism, and Alternative globalization. Each of these ideologies has many differences and contradictions with one another, and yet according to critics on both sides, they each have their flaws as well. Whereas the idea of neoliberalism is based on privatization, free market,

On the other hand the best theory for a society success and growth is consensus perspectives. The best workplace practice of consensus perspectives is here in United States. United States is a diverse culture, with individuals having different goals, socials needs, religion, and qualities that help the United States grow. Through many individuals feel consensus theory does not truly work, because we all do not have the same race, gender, religion, sex, national origin, or other characteristics, but we all share the same norms, values and beliefs of the society, and want to achieve the “American Dream”

Globalization and Its Discontents is an incredibly easy read that provides remarkable insight to some of the world largest public institutions. Joseph E. Stiglitz takes the reader on a journey into this world via his own personal experiences as the chief economist at the World Bank in the 1990s. He draws on examples from the East Asia crisis, the transition from command to market economy in Russia, as well as Latin America to support his argument for change in global public institutions. At first glance, it would be expected that the piece would focus entirely on globalization and the potential problems that are experienced from

The factors that contributed to economic change were extremely intertwined with the Washington Consensus and globalization. The end of the Cold War contributed to the multipolarity of how the states now interact. By opening up free markets, states were then able to shift they economies and become more global where as before they were limited to communism and capitalism. The neoliberal ideological shift from created the multipolarity of the world today by the creation free markets. The Washington Consensus was a policy implemented which contributed to market fundamentalism as we know it today. The

The rise of globalization following WWII generated three important factors that define today’s world. McNeill and McNeill agree with Pollard, Rosenberg, and Tignor that multiple economic changes, such as the creation of financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) contributed to the globalization of the world economy. Carter and Warren further this argument by claiming that globalization has caused shifts in the modern economy, namely the rise of Asian economic powers. However, all three historians agree that the rise of globalization goes hand in hand with the rise of inequality in today’s world. Gaps in power, wealth, and access to information have only widened due to the trend of globalization. The final key factor defining our world today are the ongoing processes affecting development countries. McNeill and McNeill argue similarly to Carter and Warren that the end of imperialism generated new nations who quickly realized the free market was a pathway to stability. However, Pollard et al. and McNeill and McNeill place importance on financial institutions like the IMF forcing developing nations to reform their economies to be subservient to the world’s economy. Together, these historians argue that the trend of globalization following WWII caused factors like the modern global economy, the rise in inequality, and the development of new, decolonized nations to be key determiners in the world today.

Globalization greatly expands in 1990s when it is the period of business establishments nationwide (Naime, 2009). This phenomenon allows economic and politics of one country penetrate others (Mittelman, 1997). In addition, the factors of globalization includes the spatial reorganization of production, the industrialization across borders, the expansion of financial markets, the diffusion of identical consumer goods to distant countries, massive transfers of population and emerging worldwide preference for democracy (Mittelman, 1997). It can be seen that democratizing countries have gained ability in economic improvement in the era of globalization. In fact, democratization emphasizes broad and inclusive citizenship where all citizens have equal rights in political system (Linz and Stepan, 1996). As a consequence, democratization enhances people to participate and attend to choose political leaders to develop their countries. According to Rudra’s research (2005), the significance of globalization is bringing about changes in politics and public policy in democratizing countries. In recent era, globalization creates new wave of political economy in transforming modernity and international markets. At this point, developed and developing countries has emerged together due to trade openness. Southeast Asian countries decided to be an integral part of the global economy (Lechner and Boil, 2003). Asian democratizing countries seem to be under pressure to adapt with the new wave

Although it is right that globalization promotes free trade among the states and unites them, but there are also negative outcomes, which states whether rich or poor try to protect their own interests? These negative outcomes of globalization have made the dependency theory significant in describing the state of affairs in the present world. Poor countries attempt to protect their national markets and become self-reliant (Hewison, 1999). Self-reliance can be seen as supporting a strategy of controlled relations with the world economy. Poor nations should only approve relations on the condition that the relations will enhance the societal and financial well being of the larger population. However, endeavour by the peripheral states to oppose the impact of dependency can result in results in financial sanctions and/or military attack (Sen, 2010). One example of such resentment against globalization is “localism“that surfaced during the financial crisis in Thailand (Hewison, 1999). Localism is an illustration of populist response to the changes and disparities created by globalization. Localism gained substantial energy from the Thai King’s speech in 1997, where he recommended a self-contained economy to counter the negative effects