Journals / Ekonomik Yaklaşım / 2007 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 64

From the Washington Consensus to the Post-Washington Consensus: The Effect of "New Institutional Economics" on Development Agenda

Washington Uzlaşması'ndan Post-Washington Uzlaşması'na: Kalkınma Gündeminin Biçimlenişinde "Yeni Kurumcu İktisat" Etkisi

Pages
23–44
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this respect, the elements of the new development agenda and the theoretical platform providing support for these elements have been mentioned.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This work studies Post-Washington Consensus as an experience of neo­liberal development, its differences from former approach -Washington Consensus which had lost its dominance in the academic literature, with a special emphasis on their socio-institutional qualities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accordingly, this survey does not intend to analyze whether Post-Washington Consensus provides a better alternative to Washington Consensus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this respect, the elements of the new development agenda and the theoretical platform providing support for these elements have been mentioned.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This work studies Post-Washington Consensus as an experience of neo­liberal development, its differences from former approach -Washington Consensus which had lost its dominance in the academic literature, with a special emphasis on their socio-institutional qualities. Accordingly, this survey does not intend to analyze whether Post-Washington Consensus provides a better alternative to Washington Consensus. This survey only mentions the particular points differentiating these two approaches in terms of their qualitative fabric. In this respect, the elements of the new development agenda and the theoretical platform providing support for these elements have been mentioned.

Özet

Bu çalışmada neoliberal bir kalkınma tecrübesi olarak aldığı eleştiriler karşısında gerileyen Washington Uzlaşması 'nın yerine kalkınma literatürüne ağırlığını koyan Post-Washington Uzlaşması'nın bir önceki yaklaşımdan farkları, özellikle sosyo-kurumsal nitelikleri itibariyle ortaya konmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, bu incelemede odak noktası Washington Uzlaşması deneyimini irdelemek ve Post-Washington Uzlaşması 'nın tutarlı bir "alternatif oluşturup oluşturmadığını analiz etmek değil, iki yaklaşım arasındaki nitelik farkına yol açan hususlara değinmektir. Bu bağlamda yeni kalkınma gündeminin bileşenlerine ve bu öğelerin dayanak bulduğu teorik düzleme yer verilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAVUZ, G. (2022). From the Washington Consensus to the Post-Washington Consensus: The Effect of "New Institutional Economics" on Development Agenda. Ekonomik Yaklaşım, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 64, 23–44. https://ajindex.com/articles/499766

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. AKTAN, C. C. ve, T. VURAL (2006), "Yeni Kurumsal İktisada Katkıda Bulunan Başlıca İktisatçılar", Coşkun Can AKTAN (ed.), Kurumsal İktisat-Kurallar, Kurumlar ve Ekonomik Gelişme, içinde, Ankara:
  2. SPK Yayını, No. 194. AYGÜL, C. (1997), "Neo-liberalizmin Başarısızlığı ve Yönetişim", Toplum ve Bilim, 73, Yaz, 231-254.
  3. BARDHAN, P. (1989), "The New Institutional Economics and Development Theory: A Brief Critical Assessment", World Development, Vol.17, No. 9, pp. 1389-1395.
  4. BOWLES, S. ve H. GINTIS (2000), "Social Capital and Community Governance", www.santafe.edu/~bowles/ (28.04.2003)
  5. CAMMACK, P. (2004), "What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction and Why it Matters?", New Political Economy, Vol. 9, No. 2, 189-211.
  6. CARROLL, T. (2005), "Efficiency of What and for Whom? The Theoretical Underpinnings of the Post-Washington Consensus' Socio-Institutional Neoliberalism", Asia Research Center, Working Paper No. 122, http://wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au/wp/wpl22.pdf, (04.05.2006).
  7. CHANG, H. (2001), "Commentary", Ha-Joon CHANG (ed.), The Rebel Within: Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank- Selected Speechs by Joseph Stiglitz, içinde, London: Anthem Press, 1-16.
  8. COASE, R. H. (1937), "The Nature of Firm", http://people.bu.edu/vaguirre/courses/bu332/natureJirm.pdf, (27.04.2003).
  9. ERCAN, F. (2003a), "Neo-liberal Orman Yasalanndan Kapitalizmin Küresel Kurumsallaşma Sürecine Geçiş: Yapısal Reformlar-1", İktisat Dergisi, sayı: 435, sayfa: 3-9. (2003b), "Neo-liberal Orman Yasalarından Kapitalizmin Küresel Kurumsallaşma Sürecine Geçiş: Yapısal Reformlar-2", İktisat Dergisi, sayı: 437, sayfa: 12-31. (2003c), "Türkiye'nin Kalkınma Seçeneklerinin Eleştirisi ve Alternatif Bir Çerçeve", Ekonomik Yaklaşım, Sayı 49, Cilt 14, 263-276.
  10. FINE, B. (1999), "The Developmental State is Dead-Long Live Social Capital?", Development and Change, Vol.30, 1-19. (2001a), "Neither the Washington nor the Post-Washington Consensus", B.FINE (ed.) Development Policy in the 21st Century: Beyond the Post-Washington Consensus, içinde, Florence, KY: Routledge, 1-27. (2001b), Social Capital versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millenium, (Contemporary Political Economy), Florence, KY: Routledge. (2002), "Economics Imperialism and the New Development Economics as Kuhnian Paradigm Shift?", http://www2.soas.ac.uk/economics/econimp /econimpl. html (10.01.2003).
  11. GUALERZI, D. (2005), "Stiglitz on Globalization and Development with an Eye to Keynes", Review of Political Economy, Volume