Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES

Year 2018, Volume: 10 Issue: 19, 364 - 380, 26.11.2018

Betül Sarı Aksakal

https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397

Abstract

The Washington Consensus implies sets of neoliberal economic policies spreaded frontmost by main Bretton Woods Institutions and especially by the World Bank that entered into the economic policy and development schedules of many developing countries since 1970s. However, towards the end of the 1990s, the Washington Consensus exchanged by a opposite to paradigm called the Post-Washington Consensus (PWC) which underlined the necessity for different institutions in different economies and identified circumstances in which government market interventions can play useful roles. Furthermore, PWC draws attention to issues such as distribution of income, poverty, sustainable growth and delivarence of social services to the poor people; but still under the rules of neoliberalism in order to relegitimize it within reality of its crisis. This article aims to elucidate the neoliberal dimension of PWC’s principles by tracing historical perspective.

Keywords

Neoliberalism Washington Consensus Post-Washington Consensus World Bank Development Policies.

References

  • AMANN, E. and Baer, W. (2002), “Neoliberalism And İts Consequences in Brazil”, Journal of Latin American Studies, 34: 945-959.
  • ARESTIS, P. (2004), “Washington Consensus And Financial Liberalization”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2): 251- 271.
  • ASİAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (2011), Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century, Asian Development Bank Report, Manila, Phillippines.
  • CAMMACK, P. (2004), “What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction?”, New Political Economy, 9(2): 189-211.
  • CAMMACK, P. (2012), “The G20, the Crisis, And the Rise of Global Developmental Liberalism”, Third World Quarterly, 33(1): 1-16.
  • CGD, COMMISION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. (2008), The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development, World Bank, Washington, DC, US.
  • CHANG, H. J. (2002), “Breaking the Mould: an Institutionalist Political Economy Alternative to the Neo-Liberal Theory of the Market and the State”, Cambridge of Journal of Economics, 26: 539-559.
  • CHANG, H-J and Grabel, I. (2004), “Reclaiming Development from the Washington Consensus”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2): 273-291.
  • COASE, R. (1984), “The New Institutional Economics”, Journal of Instiutional and Theoretical Economics, 140: 229-231.
  • CRAIG, D. and Porter, D. (2003), “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: a New Convergence”, World Development, 31(1): 53-69.
  • GILBERT, C. L. and Vines, D. (2006), The World Bank: An Overview of Some Major Issue”, in The World Bank: Structure and Policies, (Eds.), C.L. Gilbert and D. Vines, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • GÜLOĞLU, B. and Altunoğlu, A. E. (2002), “Finansal Serbestleşme Politikaları ve Finansal Krizler: Latin Amerika, Meksika, Asya ve Türkiye Krizleri”, İstanbul University Journal of Political Science, 27: 1-29.
  • HANNA, N. and Agarwala, R. (2000), Toward a Comprehensive Development Strategy, World Bank OED Working Paper, No. 2000/16.
  • HAYAMI, J. (2003), “From the Washington Consensus to The Post-Washington Consensus: Retrospect and Prospect”, Asian Development Review, 20(2): 40-65.
  • KIELY, R. (1998), “Neoliberalism Revised? A Critical Account Of World Bank Conceptions of Good Governance and Market Friendly Intervention”, International Journal of Health Services, 28(4): 683-702.
  • KOLODKO, G. W. (2000), From Shock to Therapy: The Political Economy of Postsocialist Transformation, US: Oxford University Press.
  • KREVER, T. (2011), “The Legal Turn in Late Development Theory: The Rule Of Law and the World Bank’s Development Model”, Harvard International Law Journal, 52(1): 288- 319.
  • LAVIGNE, M. (2000), “Ten Years Of Transition: a Review Article”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 33(4): 475- 515.
  • MENDES-PEREIRA, J. M. (2016), “Recycling And Expansion: an Analysis of the World Bank Agenda (1989-2014)”, Third World Quarterly, 37(5): 818-839.
  • MORENO-BRID, J. C. , Caldentet, E. P. and Napoles, P. R. (2004), “The Washington Consensus: A Latin American Perspective Fifteen Years Later”, Journal of Post Keynessian Economics, 27, 2, 345- 365.
  • NORTH, D.C. (1986), “The New İnstitutional Economics”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142: 230-237.
  • OCAMPO, J. A. (2004), “Beyond The Washington Consensus: What Do We Mean?” , Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2): 293- 314.
  • ÖNİŞ, Ş. and Şenses, F. (2005), “Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus: a Critical Appraisal”, Development and Change, 36, 2, 263-290.
  • PENDER, J. (2001), “From ‘Structural Adjustment to Comprehensive Development Framework: Conditionality Transformed?”, Third World Quarterly, 22(3): 397-411.
  • ROBERTS, A. and Soederberg, S. (2012), “Gender Equality As Smart Economics? A Critique Of The 2012 World Development Report”, Third World Quarterly, 33(5): 949-968.
  • RODRİK, D. (2006), “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review Of The World Bank’s Economic Growth İn The 1990s, Learning From A Decade Of Reform”, Journal of Economic Literature, 44(4): 973- 987.
  • RODRİK, D. (2011), Akıllı Küreselleşme, Translated by Burcu Aksu, Ankara: Efil.
  • SAAD-FILHO, A. (2010), Growth, Poverty and Inequality: From Washington Consensus to Inclusive Growth, Economic and Social Affairs, DESA Working Paper, No. 2010/100.
  • SABOORI, B. and Sulaiman, J. (2013), “Environmental Degradation, Economic Growth and Energy Consumption: Evidence of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Malaysia”, Energy Policy, 60: 892-905.
  • SACHS, J. (1993), Poland’s Jump to the Market Economy, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • SACHS, J. D. and Warner, A. M. (1995), “Economic Reform and Process of Global Integration”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1(1): 1-118.
  • SALOMON, M. (2009), Poverty, Privilege and International Law: The Millennium Development Goals and the Guise of Humanitarianism. German Yearbook of International Law 51, 51 German Yearbook of International Law.
  • STIGLITZ, J.E. (1998), “More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post- Washington Consensus”, The 1998 WIDER Annual Lecture, Finland, Helsinki.
  • TAMAZIAN, A., Chousa, J. P. and Vadlamanati, K. C. (2009), “Does Higher Economic and Financial Development Lead To Environmental Degradation: Evidence From BRIC Countries”, Energy Policy, 37, 1, 246- 253.
  • WADE, R. (1990), Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • WOLFENSOHN, J. D. (1999), “A Proposal For a Comprehensive Development Framework (A Discussion Draft)” Memo to the Board, Management and Staff of the World Bank Group, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2010), “World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1989), “The World Bank annual report 1989”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1992), “World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1993), “World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1994), “The World Bank annual report 1994”: World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1997), “World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2001), “World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2002), “World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2003), “World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World-Transforming Institutions, Growth, and Quality of Life”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2004), “World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People”, New York, US: Oxford University Press.
  • WORLD BANK. (2005), “World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2006), “World Development Report 2006: Development and the Next Generation”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2009), “World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US
  • WORLD BANK. (2011), “World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2012), “World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development”. World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2013), “World Development Report 2013: Jobs”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2014). “World Development Report 2014: Risk and Opportunity, Managing Risk for Development”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2015). “World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2016).“World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.

WASHİNGTON UZLAŞISI’NDAN SONRA NEO-LİBERALİZM: DÜNYA BANKASI'NIN KALKINMA SÖYLEMLERİ BAĞLAMINDA BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Year 2018, Volume: 10 Issue: 19, 364 - 380, 26.11.2018

Betül Sarı Aksakal

https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397

Abstract

Washington Uzlaşısı, Bretton Woods kurumları özellikle de Dünya Bankası tarafından 1970'lerin sonlarından itibaren gelişmekte olan ülkelerin ekonomik ve kalkınma politikaları gündemine konulan ve yaygınlaştırılan neoliberal iktisadi politikalar dizisini ifade etmektedir. Bununla birlikte, 1990'lı yılların sonlarına doğru, Washington Uzlaşısı’nın yerini, farklı ekonomilerdeki farklı kurumların zorunluluğunun altını çizen ve hükümetin pazar müdahalelerinin yararlı roller oynayabileceği koşulları vurgulayan Post Washington Uzlaşısı (PWC) aldı. Ancak PWC, gelir dağılımı, yoksulluk, kendi kendini sürdürecek büyüme ve yoksullara sosyal hizmet sunumu gibi konulara neoliberalizmin temel ilkeleri çerçevesinde dikkat çekmektedir. Bu makale, tarihsel perspektifi izleyerek PWC’nın ilkelerinin neoliberal boyutunu aydınlatmayı amaçlamaktadır. Makalenin sonunda, Dünya Bankası’nın PWC ile kalkınmanın sosyal boyutuyla ilgili söylemlerinin arttığı ve bu bağlamda politikalar uyguladığı gözlense de, tüm bu politikaların esas olarak neoliberal eksende şekillendirildiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Neoliberalism Washington Consensus Post-Washington Consensus World Bank Development Policies.

References

  • AMANN, E. and Baer, W. (2002), “Neoliberalism And İts Consequences in Brazil”, Journal of Latin American Studies, 34: 945-959.
  • ARESTIS, P. (2004), “Washington Consensus And Financial Liberalization”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2): 251- 271.
  • ASİAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (2011), Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century, Asian Development Bank Report, Manila, Phillippines.
  • CAMMACK, P. (2004), “What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction?”, New Political Economy, 9(2): 189-211.
  • CAMMACK, P. (2012), “The G20, the Crisis, And the Rise of Global Developmental Liberalism”, Third World Quarterly, 33(1): 1-16.
  • CGD, COMMISION ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. (2008), The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development, World Bank, Washington, DC, US.
  • CHANG, H. J. (2002), “Breaking the Mould: an Institutionalist Political Economy Alternative to the Neo-Liberal Theory of the Market and the State”, Cambridge of Journal of Economics, 26: 539-559.
  • CHANG, H-J and Grabel, I. (2004), “Reclaiming Development from the Washington Consensus”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2): 273-291.
  • COASE, R. (1984), “The New Institutional Economics”, Journal of Instiutional and Theoretical Economics, 140: 229-231.
  • CRAIG, D. and Porter, D. (2003), “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: a New Convergence”, World Development, 31(1): 53-69.
  • GILBERT, C. L. and Vines, D. (2006), The World Bank: An Overview of Some Major Issue”, in The World Bank: Structure and Policies, (Eds.), C.L. Gilbert and D. Vines, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • GÜLOĞLU, B. and Altunoğlu, A. E. (2002), “Finansal Serbestleşme Politikaları ve Finansal Krizler: Latin Amerika, Meksika, Asya ve Türkiye Krizleri”, İstanbul University Journal of Political Science, 27: 1-29.
  • HANNA, N. and Agarwala, R. (2000), Toward a Comprehensive Development Strategy, World Bank OED Working Paper, No. 2000/16.
  • HAYAMI, J. (2003), “From the Washington Consensus to The Post-Washington Consensus: Retrospect and Prospect”, Asian Development Review, 20(2): 40-65.
  • KIELY, R. (1998), “Neoliberalism Revised? A Critical Account Of World Bank Conceptions of Good Governance and Market Friendly Intervention”, International Journal of Health Services, 28(4): 683-702.
  • KOLODKO, G. W. (2000), From Shock to Therapy: The Political Economy of Postsocialist Transformation, US: Oxford University Press.
  • KREVER, T. (2011), “The Legal Turn in Late Development Theory: The Rule Of Law and the World Bank’s Development Model”, Harvard International Law Journal, 52(1): 288- 319.
  • LAVIGNE, M. (2000), “Ten Years Of Transition: a Review Article”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 33(4): 475- 515.
  • MENDES-PEREIRA, J. M. (2016), “Recycling And Expansion: an Analysis of the World Bank Agenda (1989-2014)”, Third World Quarterly, 37(5): 818-839.
  • MORENO-BRID, J. C. , Caldentet, E. P. and Napoles, P. R. (2004), “The Washington Consensus: A Latin American Perspective Fifteen Years Later”, Journal of Post Keynessian Economics, 27, 2, 345- 365.
  • NORTH, D.C. (1986), “The New İnstitutional Economics”, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142: 230-237.
  • OCAMPO, J. A. (2004), “Beyond The Washington Consensus: What Do We Mean?” , Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2): 293- 314.
  • ÖNİŞ, Ş. and Şenses, F. (2005), “Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus: a Critical Appraisal”, Development and Change, 36, 2, 263-290.
  • PENDER, J. (2001), “From ‘Structural Adjustment to Comprehensive Development Framework: Conditionality Transformed?”, Third World Quarterly, 22(3): 397-411.
  • ROBERTS, A. and Soederberg, S. (2012), “Gender Equality As Smart Economics? A Critique Of The 2012 World Development Report”, Third World Quarterly, 33(5): 949-968.
  • RODRİK, D. (2006), “Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review Of The World Bank’s Economic Growth İn The 1990s, Learning From A Decade Of Reform”, Journal of Economic Literature, 44(4): 973- 987.
  • RODRİK, D. (2011), Akıllı Küreselleşme, Translated by Burcu Aksu, Ankara: Efil.
  • SAAD-FILHO, A. (2010), Growth, Poverty and Inequality: From Washington Consensus to Inclusive Growth, Economic and Social Affairs, DESA Working Paper, No. 2010/100.
  • SABOORI, B. and Sulaiman, J. (2013), “Environmental Degradation, Economic Growth and Energy Consumption: Evidence of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Malaysia”, Energy Policy, 60: 892-905.
  • SACHS, J. (1993), Poland’s Jump to the Market Economy, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • SACHS, J. D. and Warner, A. M. (1995), “Economic Reform and Process of Global Integration”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1(1): 1-118.
  • SALOMON, M. (2009), Poverty, Privilege and International Law: The Millennium Development Goals and the Guise of Humanitarianism. German Yearbook of International Law 51, 51 German Yearbook of International Law.
  • STIGLITZ, J.E. (1998), “More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post- Washington Consensus”, The 1998 WIDER Annual Lecture, Finland, Helsinki.
  • TAMAZIAN, A., Chousa, J. P. and Vadlamanati, K. C. (2009), “Does Higher Economic and Financial Development Lead To Environmental Degradation: Evidence From BRIC Countries”, Energy Policy, 37, 1, 246- 253.
  • WADE, R. (1990), Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • WOLFENSOHN, J. D. (1999), “A Proposal For a Comprehensive Development Framework (A Discussion Draft)” Memo to the Board, Management and Staff of the World Bank Group, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2010), “World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1989), “The World Bank annual report 1989”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1992), “World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1993), “World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1994), “The World Bank annual report 1994”: World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (1997), “World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2001), “World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2002), “World Development Report 2002: Building Institutions for Markets”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2003), “World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World-Transforming Institutions, Growth, and Quality of Life”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2004), “World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People”, New York, US: Oxford University Press.
  • WORLD BANK. (2005), “World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2006), “World Development Report 2006: Development and the Next Generation”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2009), “World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US
  • WORLD BANK. (2011), “World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2012), “World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development”. World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2013), “World Development Report 2013: Jobs”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2014). “World Development Report 2014: Risk and Opportunity, Managing Risk for Development”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2015). “World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
  • WORLD BANK. (2016).“World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends”, World Bank: Washington, DC, US.
There are 55 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section RESEARCH PAPERS
Authors

Betül Sarı Aksakal 0000-0003-2668-364X

Publication Date November 26, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2018 Volume: 10 Issue: 19

Cite

APA Sarı Aksakal, B. (2018). NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES. Akademik Araştırmalar Ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), 10(19), 364-380. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397
AMA Sarı Aksakal B. NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD). November 2018;10(19):364-380. doi:10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397
Chicago Sarı Aksakal, Betül. “NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES”. Akademik Araştırmalar Ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 10, no. 19 (November 2018): 364-80. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397.
EndNote Sarı Aksakal B (November 1, 2018) NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 10 19 364–380.
IEEE B. Sarı Aksakal, “NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES”, Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 364–380, 2018, doi: 10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397.
ISNAD Sarı Aksakal, Betül. “NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES”. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 10/19 (November 2018), 364-380. https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397.
JAMA Sarı Aksakal B. NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD). 2018;10:364–380.
MLA Sarı Aksakal, Betül. “NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES”. Akademik Araştırmalar Ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD), vol. 10, no. 19, 2018, pp. 364-80, doi:10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.402397.
Vancouver Sarı Aksakal B. NEOLIBERALISM AFTER THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: AN EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORLD BANK’S DEVELOPMENT DISCOURSES. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD). 2018;10(19):364-80.
 Download Cover Image

27984
Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.