GOODBYE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS, HELLO WASHINGTON CONFUSION?

By Dani Rodrik. 2006

222 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/75d94415b152ff28d66b93e05bd029953b7a4ea5

How researchers see this paper

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

1. S. Babb
2. Mauro F. Guillén
3. Laurence Capron
4. Matt Andrews
5. Nitsan Chorev
6. F. Tarp
7. Cornel Ban
8. Mike W. Peng

Citations in the corpus

• Brazil's liberal neo-developmentalism: New paradigm or edited orthodoxy? (2013, background): “This is important given that financial deregulation was an important pillar in the Washington Consensus (Soederberg, 2001; Arestis, 2004), ranking fifth on Rodrik’s reading of the list (Rodrik, 2008).”
• Aid and Development (2006, background): “Yet it does seem to me that while there is little in this that identifies aid as a highly potent driver of growth and development across the board (aid cannot buy growth and development), there is even less in Table 4 to suggest that aid has done harm from an overall point of view.31 30 See Clemens,”
• The future of economic convergence (2011, background): ““Meant Well, Tried Little, Failed Much” was the title of a speech that Anne Krueger gave in March 2004, on the reforms in emerging market economies (Krueger 2004, Rodrik 2006).”
• The Good Governance Agenda: Beyond Indicators without Theory (2008, background): “(Rodrik, 2006, p. 13).”
• State Capacity, Minority Shareholder Protections, and Stock Market Development (2016, background): “, the belief that countries can prosper if they make reforms that enable the free unfolding of market forces supported by strong institutions to protect property rights and keep corruption in check (Rodrik, 2006).”
• The crisis of neoliberalism and the future of international institutions: A comparison of the IMF and the WTO (2009, background): “Meanwhile, prominent economists in the United States and elsewhere pointed out that after decades of reform, market-liberalizing policies had not produced the promised benefits for either economic growth or social welfare (Stiglitz 2002, 2006; Rodrik 2006).”