Beyond the Washington Consensus? Asia and Latin America in search of more autonomous development

Abstract

International economic power (the ability to shape rules of global economic conduct) needs to be understood in terms of the interactions between rule‐makers and rule‐takers in the global economy. Attempts to reshape development paradigms through interventions during financial crisis have been highly significant for the domestic political economy of the developing world. In the 1980s and early 1990s, the primary question was how much countries would liberalize in response to financial crisis. Reactions to the crises of the late 1990s in Asia and Latin America were more varied. This article explores domestic political responses to crises in both regions in the 1980s and late 1990s. It argues that countries are finding it increasingly difficult to trump domestic political pressure for change with arguments about technocratic necessity. Popular pressure is pushing governments into new experiments in economic nationalism, not a radical rejection of global economic integration, but a reshaping of relationships in an attempt to secure national interests and, in some cases, to devote more resources to welfare. Experiments to date are modest, but could presage more significant change in the future.

Partnerships for Development: Four Models of Business Involvement

“…Similarly, SE actors have been engaged in trying to pressure national governments to change their policy approaches. The most significant developments in this regard, so far, have come in South America, where almost all of the governments are trying to distance themselves from the Washington Consensus in order to create more policy autonomy to pursue alternative development paradigms (Grugel et al, 2008). Many of these governments, most notably perhaps in Brazil, Venezuela and Bolivia, have undertaken measures that are supportive of the development of the SE (often at the instigation of peasant and other social movements).…”

From Neoliberalism to Neo-developmentalism? The Political Economy of Post-crisis Argentina (2002–2015)

“…Latin American countries, in a general sense, were constrained in decision-making as the international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO were able to enforce the rules of the game (Grugel et al, 2008) although some countries such as Chile and Brazil implemented reforms maintaining some degree of national autonomy (Grugel and Riggirozzi, 2009:7). Owing to its technical expertise, financial resources and ties with the global capital, the IMF exerted great influence over policy making under the debt restructuring.…”

Unasur en el escenario del multilateralismo latinoamericano: Luces y sombras

“…Resaltan su compromiso popular con la democracia y el nacionalismo, con mercados abiertos y políticas macroeconómicas heterodoxas, pero que no rompen con el capitalismo de mercado. Los gobiernos buscan reducir la dependencia del financiamiento externo y realizar una reconceptualización de la cooperación y armado de redes regionales (Grugel, Riggirozzi y Thirkell-White, 2008;Riggirozzi, 2010).…”