The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries

By C. Gore. 2000

676 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Development, Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a7d591af55aa58fd1607cbfa6c66fdcbb2f2702

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Development

1. Gary Gereffi
2. Ziya Öniş
3. G. Garrett
4. G. Wood
5. I. Gough
6. Beth A. Simmons
7. Mark Purcell
8. Susanne Lütz

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Gary Gereffi
2. Ziya Öniş
3. G. Garrett
4. G. Wood
5. I. Gough
6. Beth A. Simmons
7. Mark Purcell
8. F. Dobbin

In Political Science and International Relations

1. G. Wood
2. Ziya Öniş
3. G. Garrett
4. I. Gough
5. Beth A. Simmons
6. Mark Purcell
7. F. Dobbin
8. Susanne Lütz

Citations in the corpus

• A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: misleading analyses and failed policies (2008, background): “…from them, and many mainstream economists have vocally rejected them, searching for a new ‘post–Washington Consensus’ set of development policies (Gore 2000; Korzeniewicz and Smith, 2000; Stiglitz 2003, 2006; Stiglitz and Charlton 2006; also see Broad and Cavanagh 2008).1 This article focuses…”
• Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world (2014, background): “severely weakened (Gore, 2000) and no alternative development strategy has taken its place.”
• Development Models and Industrial Upgrading in China and Mexico (2008, background): “In the 1980s, a series of economic issues—low growth, widening economic inequality, government balanceof-payments crises, and periodic hyperinflation—led to a more market-oriented approach, dubbed in the United States as the ‘Washington Consensus’ (Gore, 2000).”
• Development critiques in the 1990s: culs de sacand promising paths (2001, methodology): “Geographer Charles Gore (2000) perceptively maintains that the propagation of the Washington Consensus (hereafter WC) in the 1980s represented a Kuhnian paradigm shift in spatial and temporal frames of reference.”
• The History and Problems in the Making of Education Policy at the World Bank, 1960–2000 (2003, neutral): “Among the most signifi cant: (International Financial Institution Advisory Commission, 2000; Cavanagh et al., 1994; Danaher, 1994; Williams and Young, 1994; French, 1994; Gilbert and Vines, 2000; Bergesen and Lande, 1999; Gibbon, 1993; Gore, 2000; Collier, 2000; Woods, 2000a,b; Sanford, 1996).”
• Catch-up strategies and the latecomer effect in industrial development (2006, neutral): “As opposed to the canons of the ‘Washington Consensus’ against which such a strategy is formulated, the aim of the process from the perspective of the capture of latecomer advantage is one of ‘growth with late industrialisation’, or some such formulation.(32) Some strategies may be expected to work ”
• Rethinking the Emerging Post‐Washington Consensus (2005, background): “The Washington Consensus itself may have been moulded by these institutions with a close eye on US interests (see, for example, Gore, 2000: 790).”
• The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition or Learning? (2007, background): “As its proponents hoped and its critics decried, the policy package exported from powerful institutions centered in Washington, DC, represented “a shift in the ways in which development policies were framed and in the types of explanation through which policies were justified” (Gore 2000, p. 789).”
• The Political Economy of Corporate Governance Change in Bulgaria: Washington Consensus, Primitive Accumulation of Capital, and Catching-Up in the 1990 (2002, neutral): “The specific policy prescriptions are presented below (see for a detailed analysis Gore, 1996; Taylor, 1992).”