The Washington Consensus package is often conflated with neoliberalism by outsiders
Evidence
John Williamson did not overlook the MPS. He has recently written some articles in which he acknowledges the role of the MPS in creating neoliberalism, but alas, not without adding tremendously to the existing confusion. Williamson (2003, 2004) has attempted to defend the Washington Consensus (WC) against popular and even professional vilification (Rodrik 1996; Stiglitz 1999). The WC combined a set of macroeconomic policies intended to restore economic stability and a set of liberalization policies aimed at structural reform. The WC’s rallying cries were “structural adjustment” and “getting the prices right.” Williamson’s ten policy instruments included reduction of federal deficits, privatization of state-run enterprises, deregulation of key industries, and trade and financial sector liberalization. Critics outside of the economics profession had taken to equating Williamson’s list with a roster of policies characteristic of neoliberalism. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 90
Categorization
- DEFINE: Defines the Washington Consensus as a ten-instrument package combining macroeconomic stabilization with liberalization policies.
- QUESTION: Worth chasing: how cleanly do the WC instruments actually map onto Mont Pèlerin doctrines, beyond the three Williamson names?
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 90
- XREF: connects to: The Washington Consensus codified a ten-policy neoliberal agenda in 1989. — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 433; The Washington Consensus caricatures neoliberalism as a fixed policy recipe — Dieter Plehwe, Quinn Slobodian & Philip Mirowski (eds.), Nine Lives of Neoliberalism, 160; Williamson reframed the Washington Consensus as core economic science rather than OECD practice