The China's unique model of economic development and its success story provide valuable lessons for other countries that trying to follow its model .

The key points of its model are the adjustment of local initiatives and interregional competition, integration with the rest of world, adaptation of new technologies, investment in human capital and etc...

Hi Mehmed,

the Washington Consensus is, as is well known, a very controversial subject.

Perhaps it would not be useless to analyze what Williamson actually said in the original formulation (IIE, 1989) and also on regard of the Beijing Consensus (Asia Policy, 2012), although, according to what Sabine Franklin suggests, it is now commonly accepted another approach, based on customized solutions for the situation of individual countries. One important issues between the two model regard the geo-politics implications, so is not very simple to give an answer about the long term consequences related to the models, in order to legitimate a choice respect to another.

Best regards,

Marco Rao

Thanks Marco....

But, a noteworthy worry of Stieglitz is that globalization has been sold by worldwide monetary organizations in relationship with "Washington Consensus" arrangement. Most countries which followed the fundamentalist approaches of the Washington Consensus have endured rising destitution, larger amounts of shakiness and instability, debasement of the earth and the disintegration of indigenous society. Also, even more in some countries nations which developed rapidly, a great part of the advantages went to the wealthiest individuals from society.

Interesting question

Hi Mehmed,

you' re welcome. What you say is true. In fact, maybe the point is not so much to propose models, but to evaluate how good there may be in the existing ones, with the certainty that they can not be applied indiscriminately to each country. Best regards,

Marco

This comparisons tend to be too simplistic and therefore of very little use for practical purposes, besides risking to turn into an easy prey of ideological disputes.

When referring to the "Beijing Consensus", it is not possible to disregard the underlying political model, as well as the cultural and historical background behind it. On the other hand, when recommending such a model to one country, one should also wonder if such country is willing, or able, to produce saving rates of 42% (Chinese average between 1980-2016, against 27.5% World average; FMI).

The challenges of development are usually very complex to be addressed by simple models. And have to attend to cultural and institutional environments, may be more than (or before than) traditional economic analysis.

To apprehend such complexities and to benefit from the lessons of many failed experiences put in practice with the best intentions, I recommend "The Elusive Quest for Growth, by William Easterly, MIT, 2001. It is not recent material, but still remains very illuminating.

Dear Mr Bento,

Thank you for your contribution. But the intention is not whether any country needs to follow the

Beijing Consensus or Washington consensus . We are discussing is it feasible for any country to follow its own approach for economic development. For example, my country was destroyed during the war in Bosnia and it was imposed to follow the Washington consensus.

Of course it is ridiculous that a model of economic development is the same for Bosnia and other countries .... In anyway t hank you.....

Sorry, Mr. Mehemed, as I only got the question and was not aware of the context. Just followed on the string of the displayed dialogue.

As regarding the issue, as you now explain, my understanding of the concern behind the "imposition" of the consensus is to guarantee that any pursued strategy will not jeopardise the fundamental macroeconomic equilibria - namely to preserve price and financial stability - so that it will not create problems in the future; and eventually to keep aligned with the basic social values of the institutions supporting the strategy. I believe that apart from that there will be enough room for choice. But I'm just talking in abstract - as I don't know the real problem and its context - and therefore I'm risking being to off the mark.

If Washington Consensus means export orientation by using comparative advantage in the international division of labor, then yes. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what China is doing today, no matter what is the type of its political regime. The news is that a country can today adjust to globalisation without democracy, without adopting liberal values and rights.

I think that it should be better specified what is meant when we say "model". If we think for a model as something broad and general as framework it is one thing. It is very different if we think for a model as a detailed development program.

The Washington Consensus has been critisized a lot (for example by J. Stiglitz) for its uniform approach. But it could could serve as a good model if we take it as a broad framework and if properly adapted to the local conditions and circumsta Otherwise it can't be a good model.

Just as the Chinese model is unlikely to be applicable in other countries.

The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. It had principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations which should be established by countries with financial problems to pay foreign debt.