代写 TAG标签
网站地图
返回首页

留学作业代写|我们如何才能更好地理解华盛顿共识的意识形态?

时间:2016-09-12 09:49来源:www.ukassignment.org 作者:cinq 点击:
留学作业代写|我们如何才能更好地理解华盛顿共识的意识形态?
HOW CAN WE BETTER UNDERSTAND THE IDEOLOGY OF WASHINGTON CONSENSUS?
 
可以说,1989年是世界历史上伟大的一年。柏林墙的倒塌标志着东欧集团的结束。这引起了法兰西斯·福山争论历史的“终结”。资本主义的明显的胜利导致了经济政策的变化,此后,涉及世界上所有国家。
新的经济政策,被称为«华盛顿共识»,包括一套10结构的变化以实现全球市场全面放开任何法规存在直到那时,接受这一框架的国际组织,由世界各国政府,几乎是一致的。经济政策是名副其实的国际组织的指导方针,实现所谓的“华盛顿共识制定的目标。”这项研究的目的是更好地理解“华盛顿共识”的思想,通过分析其思想理论的背景下,如何构成和功能。并通过分析各种学校的批评意见,并通过各种实例对其进行实证分析。
 
It can be argued that 1989 was a great year for world history. The fall of the Berlin Wall marked the beginning of the end of the Eastern bloc.This gave rise to Francis Fukuyama to argue about the "end of history."The apparent triumph of capitalism has led to changes in the economic policy followed since then, involving all the countries of the world.
 
The new economic policy, known as «Washington Consensus», consisted of a package of 10 structural change aiming to achieve full liberalization of global markets from any regulations which existed until then.The acceptance of this framework by international organizations and by the governments of the world, were nearly unanimous. The economic policy followed literally the guidelines of the international organizations to achieve the objectives laid down by the so-called "Washington Consensus." This study aims to better understand the ideology of "Washington Consensus", by analyzing its ideological theoretical background, how it is structured and functioned. Also by analyzing the criticism received from various schools and eventually its empirical practice through various examples.
 
Ideological structure and function of "Washington Consensus"
 
The debate around the term "Washington Consensus" was created in 1989 by John Williamson (Williamson (2004b)).The term was introduced at a time when the sovereignty of Keynesian economic theory had collapsed - after the crisis of the mid '70s and the apparent inability of Keynesianism to face it, neoliberalism (promoted by the Reagan and Thatcher governments in the U.S.and Britain, respectively) have become the new orthodoxy.
 
The purpose of Williamson was to codify that part of the neo-liberal analysis and policy proposals have become commonly accepted in the theory of development and especially in the circles of major development institutions (primarily the IMF and World Bank) based in Washington.Consequently, the term "Washington" refers to influential circles and institutions based in Washington.And the term "consensus" refers to that part of the neo-liberal prescriptions have become widely accepted.
 
There is another dimension to the geographical term "Washington Consensus".Such policy prescriptions were created primarily to the economies of Latin America in the 90s, but then spread elsewhere in the developing and least developing world.Again according to Williamson (2000, s.251), the term refers to "the lowest common denominator of policy advice addressed by the Washington-based institutions in Latin America since 1989.Williamson (1990, 2000, s.252-3) summarizes these policy prescriptions in ten suggestions:
 
1) Enforce Fiscal Discipline
2) Redirection of public spending priorities to other areas.
3) introduction of tax reforms that would reduce the percentage tax burden and broaden the tax base.
4) Release rates
5) Competitive Exchange Rate
6) Trade Liberalization
7) liberalization of FDI inflows
8) Privatization of state-owned enterprises
9) deregulation of economic activities
10) Create a safe environment in terms of property rights
 
The theoretical foundations of these proposals can be discovered easily.It is usual analysis promoted by the neo-liberal economic theory.Economies in crisis due to the existence of barriers to the free play of market forces.The obstacles come from the bloated Keynesian interventionist state and its expansionist and redistributive policies that distort the information and market signals.The solution, according to neo-liberal order, would be the withdrawal of state from the economy and restoring the unimpeded functioning of the market.We must therefore impose fiscal discipline on the activities of government and a return to balanced budgets (as opposed to the Keynesian deficits and expansionary budget).Limited public spending now should be directed towards areas that would cover the costs (perhaps through the imposition of compensatory payments) and to support entrepreneurship in the private sector rather than being used to pay for public works and redistributive policies.Then, the tax system should be reformed so as not to hit hard corporate profits and incomes of the upper layers, which are considered to be the engine of the economy.Finally, the limited public expenditure could be met with fewer taxes.Moreover, the functioning of the financial system must be freed from the shackles of government and rights and allowed the free play of market forces.Consequently, the rate should be determined more or less competitive.The withdrawal of the state of the economy also requires the privatization of all activities and businesses were run and owned by the state, reduce to a minimum all state regulations and provide adequate assurance that there will be no violations of any rights property (as had happened previously with the nationalizations, etc).With the advent of second generation of neoliberal theories, which stressed the openness of economies, the previous set of policy proposals, supplemented by three others that were aimed at liberalizing international trade, capital movements and financial activities.Consequently, protective measures should be removed and establish free trade.I also had to ensure the free movement of international capital investment.And last in the series but not in importance is that international economic transactions and, primarily, the rate of the currency should be determined according to market rules rather than state policies.
 
All these ideas were already well established as orthodoxy in developed countries in the 80s.The Washington Consensus aimed at introducing these ideas in developing and least developed countries.According to Williamson, it seems that there was some kind of global apartheid, under which developing countries came from a different world that allowed them to benefit from (a) inflation (so they can collect taxes and increase investment) (b) the main role of the state at the beginning of industrialization and (c) the substitution of imports.The Washington Consensus aimed to break this differentiation.
 
However, there is a strong criticism against the policies of Washington Consensus. These criticisms come from the orthodox economics (Atkinson ,1999), Rodrik ( 2003) and especially from a stream associated with the work of J. Stiglitz (1998) as well as Marxist political economy (Fine (2001) and Shaikh (2003)). An important point in this controversy was the very definition of the term "Washington Consensus". For almost all critics of the term was synonymous with liberalism and a blind market fundamentalism. Williamson (2000) made a feeble attempt to defend his term that it was not his intention to define the word so close to neoliberalism. He claimed that he simply codified the term "consensus" within the major institutions in Washington and that it was a technocratic version, free of ideological and political motives. He also claimed that the "Washington Consensus" was not even a policy prescription, but simply a list of policies Reform, which supports the previous view and agrees that during the introduction of the term these two coincided (Williamson (2000).
 
Despite his arguments he cannot contest that the "Washington Consensus" has a specific ideological and political background: that of neo-conservative policies of the last quarter of the 20th century.In addition, the Washington Consensus may not represent a simple set of policy proposals.It is clearly a backbone on which a building is built.This is accepted even by Williamson when he argues that there are three big ideas behind the Washington Consensus: macroeconomic discipline, market economy and the opening of economy (at least on trade and foreign direct investment ).The macroeconomic discipline of "Washington Consensus" is a particular type and has specific priorities that distinguish it from other types of macroeconomic policies. It certainly has nothing to do with either Keynesian macroeconomic policies, macroeconomic policies or other more radical directions.In almost all cases led to implemented strict austerity budgets and policies that favored the richest and worsened the position of the lower social strata.The same thing applies in relation to the pressure on both the adoption of the concept of market economy and the idea of opening up the economy.The first comes from the neoconservative capture of the economy of the role of the state and the alleged inability to properly manage the economy. The second has the same origin as the first and complemented by the belief that it will lead to increased competition and thus will ultimately benefit consumers.The "Washington Consensus" is a direction dictating a policy prescription and indeed, numerous reform programs imposed - willingly or unwillingly - in the less developed or developing countries.


推荐内容
  • 英国作业
  • 美国作业
  • 加拿大作业
  • 英国essay
  • 澳洲essay
  • 美国essay
  • 加拿大essay
  • MBA Essay
  • Essay格式范文
  • 澳洲代写assignment
  • 代写英国assignment
  • Assignment格式
  • 如何写assignment
  • case study
  • literature review
  • Research Proposal
  • Summary范文
  • Reference格式
  • presentation
  • report格式
  • PEST分析法
  • Admission Essay
  • Personal Statement
  • Motivation Letter
  • Application Letter
  • recommendation letter