The "Washington Consensus" 'prescribes' possible policy suggestions on how to get out of economic turmoil. These are reform packages that deal with trade and investment. The "Washington Consensus" is basically a worldly economic advisor.
The expected outcomes would be to help the country from their economic problems. It would therefore reduce the amount of strikes and protests over wage laws there are. Many MENA states are reluctant to implement these strategies because they are still governmental policies. MENA states are not happy with the state of their government so they do not want government help. Obviously with any policy a counterproductive effect could simply be it doesn't work. They could also turn around and backfire and do the opposite of what they were intended to do, creating even more distress.
I think it is interesting that this 'prescription' for how to develop economically is referred to as the "Washington Consensus". This goes along with the idea that America dominates and that Americanization can be substituted for globalization in some settings. Your point about MENA states being reluctant to implement these strategies because they are unhappy with their governments is intriguing as well. I would think it would be the opposite and that if the people were unhappy, they would be more likely to accept change. Their reluctance could very well also be explained by the Americanization concept. So much of the MENA world has been influenced by their culture and religion to not accept Western ideals that maybe this is why they would not want to try to implement the "Washington Consensus" strategies.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the people's negative view is targeted at their own state like you suggest or Western states that are imposing the deal? It would seem to me that the "Washington Consensus" seems to be a power play by Western countries to force developing nations to fit into their cookie cutter definition of "modern." To me, it would make sense that such impositions could lead to resentment toward the Western states causing the issues, such as popular dissent towards the Spanish trash company in Cairo.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to consider how the Washington Consensus is generated; in reality, who are the beneficiaries? Because when the IMF introduced neoliberal policies and privatization to the region in the 80's, it seems as though more harm was done to the general populace than good, Western states benefitted through spreading their idea of "democratization," and authoritarian regimes strengthened their power in the region. Additionally, I wonder whether or not the Washington Consensus was crafted on a state to state basis or rather general economic packages for developing states, because if the latter holds true, many could face serious setbacks due to the implementation of these overgeneralized policies.
ReplyDelete