Washington consensus to Washington confusion?

This page in:

We would hope not. Dani Rodrik asks what might replace what was the ‘Washington consensus’ after reading the World Bank's 'Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform.' He refers to the publication as both a mea culpa and a way forward from the Bank:

It pushes us to think harder and deeper about the economics of reform than anything else out there. It warns us to be skeptical of top-down, comprehensive, universal solutions—no matter how well-intentioned they may be. And it reminds us that the requisite economic analysis—hard as it is, in the absence of specific blueprints—has to be done case by case.

Rodrik's paper is also a background reading for our current online discussion on how to manage investment climate reforms.

Join the Conversation

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly
Remaining characters: 1000