Ten years ago, John Williamson of the Institute for International Economics summarized a recipe for structural adjustment in Latin America into ten ingredients. According to Williamson the recipe was 'generally applicable' elsewhere, and universally agreed upon in Washington institutions. However, the Washington Consensus is increasingly under attack from different camps. We discuss the Russian crisis in August 1998 as a case history of the breakdown of the Consensus among economists, within and outside the international organizations. While several economists have contributed to the current critical mood, we focus on how Joseph Stiglitz, then chief economist at the World Bank, reacted to the Russian crisis, before his resignation at the end of the same year. We contrast his views with those of other economists at the IMF and other international organizations. Looking at this debate, we suggest that the Russian crisis, following the Asian crisis in the previous year, marked a watershed of intellectual perceptions, gave voice to dissenters, and openly broke the Consensus within international organizations. We also discuss the reasons for and implications of this change in the intellectual climate within the economic profession
Economists, privatization in Russia and the waning of the 'Washington consensus' / M. Florio. - In: REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY. - ISSN 0969-2290. - 9:2(2002), pp. 359-400.
Economists, privatization in Russia and the waning of the 'Washington consensus'
M. FlorioPrimo
2002
Abstract
Ten years ago, John Williamson of the Institute for International Economics summarized a recipe for structural adjustment in Latin America into ten ingredients. According to Williamson the recipe was 'generally applicable' elsewhere, and universally agreed upon in Washington institutions. However, the Washington Consensus is increasingly under attack from different camps. We discuss the Russian crisis in August 1998 as a case history of the breakdown of the Consensus among economists, within and outside the international organizations. While several economists have contributed to the current critical mood, we focus on how Joseph Stiglitz, then chief economist at the World Bank, reacted to the Russian crisis, before his resignation at the end of the same year. We contrast his views with those of other economists at the IMF and other international organizations. Looking at this debate, we suggest that the Russian crisis, following the Asian crisis in the previous year, marked a watershed of intellectual perceptions, gave voice to dissenters, and openly broke the Consensus within international organizations. We also discuss the reasons for and implications of this change in the intellectual climate within the economic professionPubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.