The Washington Consensus and Shock Therapy Process of Transition

Author(s):  
John Marangos
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Collier

This introductory chapter provides a background of neoliberalism. During the 1990s, the Russian case and the battles over “transition,” the Washington Consensus, shock therapy, and structural adjustment, stood as emblems of the neoliberal project's grandiose transformative ambition—and catastrophic failure. However, the dynamics of this period proved to be both contingent and temporally circumscribed, bracketed roughly by Soviet breakup in 1991 and the devaluation of 1998. Ten years beyond the collapse of the Washington Consensus—and with the luxury of a broadened and perhaps historically deepened perspective—the Russian case provides a good site for revisiting the legacy of an important and distinctive form of social government, and for asking how neoliberal reforms propose to reshape it.


1999 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grzegorz W. Kolodko

Transition to a market economy is a lengthy process comprised of various spheres of economic activities. The belief that a market economy can be introduced by “shock therapy” is wrong, and in several cases has caused more problems than it has solved. Since a market economy requires adequate institutional structures, transition can be executed only in a gradual manner. Despite the fact that so-called Washington consensus, i.e. a set of policies aiming to shift from stabilization to growth, was developed without concern for post-socialist transformation, these ideas have significantly influenced the path of thought and action in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. After a decade of transition and lasting depression, a new, post-Washington consensus is developing. Major policy conclusions suggest that the core of emerging consensus, also based on the lessons from transitions, is institutional building. Only with strong institutions can liberalization and privatization put emerging post-socialist markets on the path of sustainable growth. Yet, to accomplish such a task the policy reforms must also take into consideration the need for equitable growth and the new role of the state. The latter must not retire from economic activities, but ought to change its role to support the reforms and integration of the post-socialist countries into the world economy in the era of globalization, of which the post-communist transition is an important part.


2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Steven Fish ◽  
Omar Choudhry

How does economic liberalization affect political regime? Economic liberalization is widely regarded as inimical to democratization. The “Washington Consensus,” which generally endorses “shock therapy” and envisions a basic compatibility between economic liberalization and democratization, is widely disdained in social science. Many scholars hold that neoliberal economics depresses popular living standards and exacerbates socioeconomic inequalities, thereby compromising democratization. Focusing on the postcommunist region, this article tests this hypothesis. It examines the data that have been used to assess the relationship between economic liberalization and political democratization and presents analyses using more appropriate and differentiated techniques. The authors find that economic liberalization advances rather than undermines democratization. Using Engle-Granger analysis, they find that although economic liberalization has no discernible impact on democratization in the short term, democratization adjusts in the direction of a long-term equilibrium to which economic liberalization contributes substantially.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document