Free Essay On Economic Development And The

Post-Washington Consensus

Post-Washington Consensus

Introduction

Examining K.S. Jomo and Ben Fine’s Development Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Beyond the post-Washington Consensus and the book Poverty and Development by Tim Allen and Alan Thomas provide the framework of this academic investigation, review, assessment, and critical thought on the current economic development policy of the United States. As importantly, this academic exercise looks at the Washington Consensus policies with the U.S. influencing international financial institutions and policy reforms intended for global nations adopting for increased economic development and growth as explained by the World Health Organization (WHO) (2015).

Ben Fine

Jomo and Fine considers it a valuable as a reference for better understanding of the dynamics of economic both the theory and policy of economic development. However it does so by providing information of what is the underpinning of theory and policy for economic development directly related to the authors’ criticizing radical political economic practices. The book refers to the economic development in third world nations connected to the Post Washington Consensus and references how this differs little from the pre-Washington Consensus practices of the 1980s and 90s (2006).
Review of the authors’ contributions in the Fine editing shows the basic argument holding how the lack of a wider political economic approach the newer post consensus remains unlikely providing a pragmatic framework toward developing successful economic policies. Consideration of this probability, therefore, looks at the same outcomes as history now shows in global economies of emerging nations participating in the world market (Jomo and Fine, 2006).
Relevant ideas about economic development derived from the Fine offering therefore considers how the Washington Consensus intended in the 1980s and 1990s creating a foundation for economic development in the world’s less developed nations toward growth and prosperity with proposed measures similar to neo-liberal ideology were similar to those of the neo-liberal policy framework framing the influence on the economic policy directed and developing countries within the same timeframe per the work of Jomo and Fine (2006)
Fine gathered authors who explain how the global dominance of economic development according to the Washington Consensus remained enabled by the comparative disappointment directed at existing import substitution policies that generally extended to government interventions prevailing in those global nations in general, with the government intervention

Proving dominant during the 1950s and 1960s with emerging world nations aligned to third world countries (Jomo and Fine, 2006)

Allen and Thomas.
While Jomo and Fine creates a basis for understanding debatable ideas about the Washington Consensus and economic guidelines for developing a prosperous economy in emerging nations into the 21st century an entirely different approach comes from the Allen and Thomas (2000, p. 3) explanation of the relationship of poverty and development. “Poverty is an age-old concern, but ‘development’ has only become an important concept in the last 200 years, and especially in the 50 years or so since the end of the Second World War.” Similar to the views of the authors in the Fine collection, Allen and Thomas personal view and those of the authors they include in their textbook type of publication see the issue of development a widely debated and contested term philosophically among social, economic, and political scientist experts.
In fact, the basis of the Allen and Thomas (2000, p. 4) point of view links to this relationship of poverty and economic development as the most practical means for understanding the processes going on globally among struggling nations seeking a means for economic stability. The approach taken in their publication considers the widening gap between the affluent Western nations and the abject poverty in so much of the world. They view the process of solutions to poverty as a proactive measure that requires, “ rather than pursue the impossible aim of giving ‘solutions’ to development ‘problems’, ” they see educating on the subject as a method requiring analyzing and assessing the right questions around the correct form of development needed in reducing poverty as the correct answers.
This type of development goes back to the inauguration of U.S. President Harry S. Truman who challenged on January 30, 1942:
“We must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of under-developed areas. The old imperialism – exploitation for foreign profit – has no place in our plans. What we envisage is a program of development based on the concepts of democratic fair dealing”. (Allen and Thomas, 2000, p. 5)
The framework of the Allen and Thomas text looks to the source of who is in charge of economic development processes as a means for understanding relationship of poverty to economic development. They remain critical of vested interests with personal agendas they point out plague development nations globally attempting reaching an international foothold in the marketing now uniting the global community in trade (2001).

Theory and Development Economics

The New Development Economics: After the Washington Consensus by Jomo and Fine (2006, p. xxi) remains as already mentioned above a more neo-liberal based group of authors looking at the economics by authors providing “a selective engagement across the battleground of development economics” as indicated by timely information on continuing focus of the value of human capital in establishing new economic bases in not only business organizations but national development toward factors lending to sustainability in this century of technology as a shift of mainstream economics centered on a free-market capitalist based reality to one of information and theoretic frameworks align to the Washington Consensus focusing on measures correcting imperfections in the world market versus influencing processes and outcomes of economic development (Jomo and Fine, 2006).
In view of a the New Growth Theory: More Problems than Solution, shows Jomo and Fine providing how economic development relies on allowing mainstream economics extending into non-traditional fields based on economic theoretical ideas that define the process of how one economic regression works for everyone such as the GDP as well as forming capital contrasted to less tradition fluctuations as already mentioned like human capital and in addition social capital. Such an approach emerges with the implication of limited understanding of the complex nature of economic development as a process as it draws out ideas of the neoclassical tenet linked with social engineering/perfect economics. (2006).
Principle to the Fine argument is how policy making at the world banking level continues functioning on old growth theories linked with outdated and therefore unrealistic macroeconomic models for influencing economic growth in global nations needing the guidance for any redeeming outcomes of investments. This is connected to how the World Bank continues seeking enlarging its ideological theoretical view through the rise of PricewaterhouseCooopers (PWC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as attested by Jomo and Fine shows a continued refusal over the past 50 years considering any other form.
Considering the value of government having a central position in economic development versus the World Bank and the IMP processes, the idea that free trade provides the answer for economic development across emerging nations globally proves either on not correct or wrong.
What emerges from the Jomo and Fine contribution on the subject argues how free trade argues how the Washington Consensus and the PWC continue using a virtual model lacking in reality without any measurable empirical support anyone can see. Conclusion on this issue provided by the Washington Consensus and the PWC emerges as conclusion how when they avow as any global nation finishes a successful industrialization process directly links to government enforced trade protection at some level (2006)
Further to similar sentiments as those supporting how technology policies and selective protection promote technological development in developing nations, the Jomo and Fine position challenges understanding the role of government in economic development means carefully and systematically analyzing the position taken according to class, gender, and race. This continues as an approach not ever and currently used by the Washington Consensus or the PWC and therefore, shows these two powerful influences have no understanding of the true role of government in economic development (2006). This is along the same idea proposed by Allen and Thomas (2000) considering the nature of who decides what measures and why economic development occurs. This forms the idea of self-interest, corruption, individual and group agendas at the marginalization of others in society reaping the benefits of economic development.
Liberalization and good governance in connection with viable economic development therefore looks at fighting corruption as an ineffective blanket solution as it typically ignores the complex nature of the origin and perpetuation of corruption. Further to this looks at the Washington Consensus and PWC practice of incorporating privatization in economic development plans only to result in failed outcomes. Capital private investments in emerging nations continues as a practice globally supported by the Washington Consensus and PWC to a certain degree where national politics creates a safe environment for outside capital investments in economic development projects. There exist arguments that such practices provide important reform options as long as selectivity of policy makers looks at such practices on a case by case basis (Jomo and Fine, 2006).

Education

As mentioned above the new focus on human capital by both the Washington Consensus and the PWC economic development projects globally aligned to education opportunities remains fraught with problems when used as a factor for economic development. The idea of education as capital investments in emerging nations by the Washing Consensus and the PWC without the means for assuring no marginalization according to gender preferences in these global nations greatly diminishes the effect economically. This arises from how this practice totally ignores the sociocultural aspects of the potential of economic growth failing. Further to the argument is the failure of neo-liberal ideas about economic development of human capital through education failing in distinguishing between the quality of the education females receive in comparison to their male counterparts in these target nations for capital investment in education (Jomo and Fine, 2006; Allen and Thomas, 2000).
The assumption by both the Washington Consensus and the PWC engaging in such ludicrous economic development practices logically perpetuates the continued subordinate positon of women in these societies. Consequently, as an economic development tool, capital investments in education in emerging nations globally needs recognition of the historical and socio-cultural exclusion of females as equals in these countries. Typical to the capital investment practices desiring eliminating the state position in such issues proves as Jomo and Fine (2006), p. 189) point out how the World Bank and the PWC because “it fits so well with the neoliberal agenda of sidelining the role of the state.” Therefore, the advances aimed at economic development using social capital must frame around analysis of both power and politics ensuring proper attention to exclusion, inclusion, and concepts of connections.

Conclusion

In the introduction, the focus of this scholastic exercise explained how the Jomo and Fine and the Allen and Thomas publications intended providing the framework of this academic investigation, review, assessment, and critical thought on the current economic development policy of the United States through the Washington Consensus influencing programs for economic development among the emerging nations globally. This previous discourse provided different insights to better understanding the failures that continue today in this complicated process and new ways to investigate the issue by asking who, how, and why prods economic development investments in these nations wanting to reach a minimum national economic parity with the more advanced industrial nations of the world. As the global community continues shrinking and the debate based ideology of theoretical and pragmatic methods for economic development programs continue there is no one solution that clearly emerges from this investigation, analysis, and critical thought of the literature used in preparing this document.

Reference

Allen, T., and A. Thomas. 2000. Poverty and Development Oxford University Press Inc. New York
Jomo, K.L, and B. Fine. 2006. Development Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Beyond the post-Washington Consensus. Routledge, New York.
World Health Organization. 2015. Washington Consensus. [On line] Available: <http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story094/en/ > [Accessed 3 March 2015]