Introduction: Crisis? What crisis? For whom? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Locating the Developmental State and Industrial and Social Policy after the Crisis
2011
The breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, the last occasion on which global financial turbulence approached that currently being experienced, witnessed the rise of the postures of neo-liberalism to an extreme and unprecedented extent, and in equally extreme and unprecedented forms, across each of scholarship, policy and ideology. Today, that bubble has burst together with the financial and economic system to which it has given rise. It is a time for bold and innovative thinking. Yet, even before recent events had exposed the fragility of the neo-liberal era, and sent finance galloping to the state in a desperate attempt to save itself from itself, neoliberal hegemony had already been brought into question, not least in the wake of what has been the most limited progress in development and poverty alleviation under or though its auspices.
1 Three Models of Contemporary Capitalism Mitchell A. Orenstein From 1980 to 2006, dozens of countries followed the lead of the United States and Great Britain in implementing free market economic policy ideas. Governments did so largely in the hope that this would lead to sustained high levels of economic growth. The financial shock of 2008-9 imperiled this trend. Emulation of the United States, a driving force of economic policy in both developed and developing countries in the recent past, seems unlikely to be so in the future. The days when economic policymakers worldwide eagerly sought advice from Washington and lionized the likes of Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan are gone, possibly for good. The question is what comes next. Where will countries turn now for new ideas about development and models for economic policy? In his book The End of History and the Last Man, Frank Fukuyama argued that capitalism and liberal democracy were the only viable systemic choices after the collapse of communism (Fukuyama 1992). Today, alternative models of capitalism are growing in importance. As the influence of free market ideas wanes, countries worldwide will explore other models of capitalist development that promise high growth without periodic collapse or implosion, an unfortunate hallmark of the free market model.
Editorial: Where Did All the Flowers Go?: Contradictions in world economies
Development, 2010
A year on from the Development issue volume 52 no 3 on 'Beyond Economics' did we manage, as the journal stated, to 'bring in ordinary peoples' needs rather than market needs as central to economics'? The short answer is, unsurprisingly, we did not, but the long-term answer is that perhaps we can. What is different from a year ago is that in almost all arenas, there is far more openness to the idea that economics needs to take a different pathway. More or less on mainstream economic agendas are issues of equity, gender, environment, fairness, governance and institution building. The ideology of the infallibility of the market has been shaken, even if the search for what set of beliefs and practices to put in its place continues. Around the world we are seeing troubled politicians calling on think tanks of quite different hues from those of the Chicago school. Politics and economics are being contested together as the volatility of financial institutions and fallibility of governments are now so evident. The focus on this issue of Development volume 53 no 3 on 'Sustaining Local Economies' then is twofold: one to continue the debate on beyond economics bringing in new voices and building on the dynamic discussions of the earlier journal and in various meetings and on-line debates. The second is to document some of the alternatives found in the local economies, which are functioning on the margins of neo-liberal global capitalism. The journal aims to set out how to understand possible alternatives to global capitalist economies as part of the search for sustainable futures. The articles look at local markets, solidarity economies and care networks as ways to empower people and encourage greater civic agency. From both a rights perspective and critical development perspective, the journal looks at what is happening on the ground and proposes how to develop different modes of production in different parts of the world. The articles and photo essays from
INTL 532 Political Economy of Globalization and Development-Spring 2014 Syllabus
The course aims to provide an in-depth coverage of the political economy of globalization and development with a particular focus on emerging powers and their changing role in the global political economy. The first part of the part of the course will cover broader debates on Northern varieties of capitalism, states and markets in development, democracy and development, democratic transitions in the "south" and the persistence of authoritarian and hybrid regimes.
POLITICAL ECONOMY OF GLOBALIZATION
''The Old Washington Consensus is over. Today we have reached a new consensus that we take global acon to deal with the problem we face, that we will do what is necessary to restore growth and jobs, that we will take essenal acon to rebuild confidence and trust in our financial system and to prevent a crisis such as this ever happening again'' (Gordon Brown in his closing speech at the London G20 Summit in April 2009). Using a variety of reports that have been wrien by the major global instuons, your own report will assess the lessons that appear to have been learnt from the crique of the Washington Consensus and crically evaluate the main tasks at both the naonal and Internaonal level that need to be undertaken if globalizaon is to work in such a way as to build ''an inclusive world economy.'' ABSTRACT. The Washington Consensus has formed a large part of global economic discourse aer the 2007/2008 global financial crisis. The Consensus is a set of economic ideas coined by John Williamson and supported by the IMF, World Bank, EU and the US (Williamson). The Washington Consensus was born as a child of necessity to tackle the economic crisis ravaging the sub-Saharan Africa and the Lan America; more so as a way of curtailing the rise of the structural thinking and the dependency arguments of scholars like Samir Amin who hold that the under-development is these areas is orchestrated by the acvies of the West.The ideas of the Consensus were propagated through the implementaon of structural adjustment programs in developing countries orchestrated by the Internaonal Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank(Sam). The inability of the consensus to prevent the Asian financial crisis in 1997, and the springing up of the Beijing Consensus, is some of the reasons adduced to be behind the failure of the Washington Consensus (Olson, 2014). Neoliberalist scholars like John Williamson believes that the ideas behind the reforms are the recipe for economic development, especially for the developing naons, while the Marxist/dependency thinkers like Paul Baran and Gunder Frank see the reforms as an instrument of underdevelopment and exploitaon; on the other hand, structuralist scholars like Rodrik believes that the absence of instuonal and structural framework in developing naons makes the reforms unrealisc. The major aims of this report is to explore the theorecal perspecve of the Neoliberalist, Marxist/dependency theorist, and the structuralist respecvely in explaining the cricisms, reasons behind the failure of the consensus, and what needs to be done at the naonal and global levels in building an inclusive world economy.
Rethinking development economics
Choice Reviews Online
Twelve years ago, when I was chief economist of the World Bank, I suggested that the major challenge to development economics was learning the lessons of the previous several decades: a small group of countries, mostly in Asia, but a few in other regions, had had phenomenal success, beyond anything that had been anticipated by economists; while many other countries had experienced slow growth, or even worse, stagnation and decline-inconsistent with the standard models in economics which predicted convergence. The successful countries had followed policies that were markedly different from those of the Washington Consensus, though they shared some elements in common; those policies had not brought high growth, stability, or poverty reduction. Shortly after I left the World Bank, the crisis in Argentina-which had been held up as the poster child of the country that had followed Washington Consensus policies-reinforced the doubts about that strategy. The global financial crisis, too, has cast doubt over the neoclassical paradigm in advanced industrial countries, and rightly so. Much of development economics had been viewed as asking how developing countries could successfully transition toward the kinds of market-oriented policy frameworks that came to be called "American style capitalism." The debate was not about the goal, but the path to that goal, with some advocating "shock therapy," while others focused on pacing and sequencing-a more gradualist tack. The global financial crisis has now raised questions about that model even for developed countries. In this short essay, I want to argue that the long-term experiences in growth and stability of both developed and less developed countries, as well as the deeper theoretical understanding of the strengths and limitations of market economies, provide support for a "new structural" approach to development-an approach
INTL 532 Political Economy of Globalization and Development Syllabus Spring 2018.pdf.pdf
COURSE DESCRIPTION: The course aims to provide an in-depth coverage of the political economy of globalization and development with a particular focus on emerging powers and their changing role in the global political economy. The first part of the part of the course will cover broader debates on Northern and Southern varieties of capitalism, states and markets in development, the relationship between democracy and development. The second part of the course will focus explicitly on individual BRICS and near BRICS. Particular attention will be paid to the respective developmental strategies as well as similarities and contrasts in the regional and global roles of China, India, Brazil and Russia. Finally, the course will consider the role of emerging powers in the context of global governance. The role of emerging powers is investigated in the context of the global economic crisis and their influence on the future course of development in the " global South " .