The paper "Has the Beijing Consensus Replaced the Washington Consensus" is a perfect example of a macro and microeconomic case study. Washington consensus was introduced in the early 1990s as a means in which developing countries would attain successful economic development. Washington consensus model advocated for orthodox market liberalisation means and democratic governments as a way of attaining economic development. Beijing consensus was named by American economist Joshua Ramo Cooper. It was a development model that was adopted by China to attain successful development. The model adopted selected market economy principals while at the same time disregarding human rights and democracy.
The Washington consensus was laid out as a program with fiscal discipline, competitive foreign exchange rates, deregulation and advocated openness to foreign direct investment. The Beijing consensus has been adopted by several countries as their development model. Through Beijing consensus, it has become possible for the developing countries to form alliances such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC). Some of the countries that have followed Washington consensus have found themselves in crisis. Washington consensus has been blamed for the economic crisis in several countries.
This is due to the fact that it failed in a suitability test in most countries. As a result, the Beijing consensus has been adopted by most developing countries making it seem to replace the Washington consensus. This paper will analyse how the Beijing consensus has replaced the Washington consensus. Definition and key characteristics of Washington Consensus Washington consensus is a liberal economic package. The consensus is made up of free trade, stable currency and Gladstonian finance. Washington consensus also requires a government that has the capability to ensure natural liberty.
This is through ensuring there are laws supporting justice which enables peaceful competition and exchange that is free. Washington consensus rejects egalitarianism as a means of delivering required principles of public policy. Washington consensus contained ten broad recommendations by Williamson. These recommendations were; discipline in fiscal policy, reducing public spending on subsidies to pro-growth and pro-poor services such as education and tax reforms.
Beeson, Mark, and Iyanatul Islam. "Neo-liberalism and East Asia: resisting the Washington consensus." The Journal of Development Studies 41, no. 2 (2005): 197-219.
Dirlik, Arif. "Beijing Consensus: Beijing ‘Gongshi.’Who Recognizes Whom and to What End?." Position Paper, Globalization and Autonomy Online Compendium (http://www. globalautonomy. ca), January 17 (2006).
Fine, Ben. "Neither the Washington nor the post-Washington Consensus." Fine, B., Lapavitsas, C. & J. Pincus (eds.), Development Policy in the Twenty-First Century. Beyond the Post- Washington Consensus, London and New York: Routledge (2003): 1-27.
Gore, Charles. "The rise and fall of the Washington Consensus as a paradigm for developing countries." World development 28, no. 5 (2000): 789-804.
Huang, Yasheng. "Debating China's economic growth: The Beijing consensus or the Washington consensus." The Academy of Management Perspectives 24, no. 2 (2010): 31-47.
Kennedy, Scott. "The myth of the Beijing consensus." Journal of Contemporary China 19, no. 65 (2010): 461-477.
Lee, Keun, Mansoo Jee, and Jong-Hak Eun. "Assessing China's economic catch-up at the firm level and beyond: Washington Consensus, East Asian Consensus and the Beijing Model." Industry and Innovation 18, no. 5 (2011): 487-507.
Li, Xin, Kjeld Erik Brødsgaard, and Michael Jacobsen. "Redefining Beijing Consensus: ten economic principles." China Economic Journal 2, no. 3 (2010): 297-311.
Maxwell, Simon. The Washington Consensus is dead! Long live the meta-narrative. London: Overseas Development Institute, 2005.
McKinnon, Ronald I. "China in Africa: the Washington consensus versus the Beijing consensus." International Finance 13, no. 3 (2010): 495-506.
Naim, Moises. "Washington consensus or Washington confusion?." Foreign policy (2000): 87- 103.
Öniş, Ziya, and Fikret Şenses. "Rethinking the Emerging Post‐Washington Consensus." Development and Change 36, no. 2 (2005): 263-290.
Rachman, Gideon. "The hard evidence that China’s soft power policy is working." Financial Times 20 (2007).
Ramo, Joshua Cooper. The Beijing Consensus. London: Foreign Policy Centre, 2004.
Rebol, Max. "Why the Beijing Consensus is a non-consensus: Implications for contemporary China-Africa relations." Culture Mandala: The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies 9, no. 1 (2010): 2.
Turin, Dustin R. "China and the beijing consensus: an alternative model for development." Student Pulse Academic Journal 2, no. 1 (2010): 13.
Williamson, John. "Is the" Beijing Consensus" Now Dominant?." Asia Policy 13, no. 1 (2012): 1-16.
Williamson, John. "Speeches, Testimony, Papers Did the Washington Consensus Fail?." Institute for International Economics (2002).
Williamson, John. "The Washington consensus and beyond." Economic and Political Weekly (2003): 1475-1481.
Williamson, John. "What should the World Bank think about the Washington Consensus?." The World Bank Research Observer 15, no. 2 (2000): 251-264.
Zhao, Suisheng. "The China Model: can it replace the Western model of modernization?." Journal of contemporary China 19, no. 65 (2010): 419-436.