Wither the ‘Washington Consensus’, the ‘Developmental State’ and the ‘Seattle Protests’: Can ‘Managed Free Trade and Investment’ become an alternative development model?

Wither the ‘Washington Consensus’, the ‘Developmental State’ and the ‘Seattle Protests’: Can ‘Managed Free Trade and Investment’ become an alternative development model?;
Wither the ´Washington consensus´, the ´Gevelopmental State´ and the ´Seattle Protests´: Can ´Managed Free Trade and Investment´ become an alternative development model?;
Wither the ‘Washington Consensus’, the ‘Developmental State’ and the ‘Seattle Protests’: Can ‘Managed Free Trade and Investment’ become an alternative development model?

dc.contributorfr-CA
dc.contributorpt-BR
dc.contributoren-US
dc.contributores-ES
dc.creatorTHOMPSON, GRAHAME
dc.date2009-10-05
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-16T14:43:25Z
dc.date.available2018-03-16T14:43:25Z
dc.identifierhttp://ojs.unam.mx/index.php/pde/article/view/7450
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1193515
dc.descriptionSeulement en Anglais.fr-CA
dc.descriptionSomente em l´espanhol.pt-BR
dc.descriptionEste artículo explora la posibilidad de un modelo de desarrollo distinto a los que ha tipificado el debate sobre el desarrollo económico en los últimos treinta o cuarenta años. Lo que se conoce como el ‘Consenso de Washington’, que involucra la desregulación neoliberal, la privatización y la liberalización. Igualmente, la alternativa más importante para este programa político, denominado enfoque del ‘Estado de Desarrollo’, también ha tenido sus éxitos claros. Adicionalmente, siempre ha habido una alternativa radical para ambas vías que ha provocado una gama de políticas de oposición y compromisos críticos con la ‘ortodoxia’, bien sea de desarrollo orientado a mercado o a Estado. Esto puede ser identificado en el periodo contemporáneo como los sentimientos de antiglobalización de ‘los protestantes de Seattle y Génova’. Esta es una amalgama dispar de intereses y grupos antagónicos, pero cuyo principal resultado político, sugiere algún nuevo tipo de ‘proteccionismo’. De esta forma, se argumenta que el desafío es encontrar un de modelo de desarrollo alternativo fácilmente entendido, viable, sustentable y atractivo que se ajuste a las circunstancias actuales del sistema internacional. La sugerencia del autor, es que el oxímoro aparente –‘libre comercio administrado e inversión por los intereses del desarrollo económico’– podría proporcionar una base para pensar sobre esta alternativa. La segunda parte del artículo plantea las características que este enfoque alternativo podría contener.es-ES
dc.descriptionThis article explores the possibility of a different development model to those that have typified the debate about economic development in the last thirty to forty years. What has come to be known as the ‘Washington Consensus’, involving neo-liberal de-regulation, privatization, and liberalization. Equally, the major alternative to this policy programme, that of the ‘Developmental State’ approach, has had its own obvious successes. In addition, there has always been a radical alternative to both of these which has stressed a range of oppositional policies and critical engagements with the ‘orthodoxy’, whether that be market-led or state-led development. This can be characterised in the contemporary period as the anti-globalization sentiments of the ‘Seattle and Genoa protestors’. This is a rather disparate amalgam of disaffected groups and interests, but one whose main policy outcome would be a new ‘protectionism’ of some kind, it is suggested. Thus, it is argued, the challenge is to find an alternative easily understood, viable, sustainable and attractive development model to suit the present circumstances of that international system. The author’s suggestion is that the seeming oxymoron – ‘managed free trade and investment in the interests of economic development’ — could provide a basis for thinking about this alternative. The second part of the article outlines what the characteristics of this alternative approach might been-US
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherInstituto de Investigaciones Económicases-ES
dc.relationhttp://ojs.unam.mx/index.php/pde/article/view/7450/6945
dc.sourceProblemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía; Vol 34, No 131 (2002)es-ES
dc.source2007-8951
dc.source0301-7036
dc.subjectfr-CA
dc.subjectpt-BR
dc.subject‘Washington consensus’; neo-liberal policy programme; developmental state; anti-globalization protests; ‘managed free trade’; models of developmenten-US
dc.subject‘Consenso de Washington’; programa de política neoliberal estado de desarrollo; protestas antiglobalización; ‘comercio libre administrado’; modelos de desarrolloes-ES
dc.titleWither the ‘Washington Consensus’, the ‘Developmental State’ and the ‘Seattle Protests’: Can ‘Managed Free Trade and Investment’ become an alternative development model?fr-CA
dc.titleWither the ‘Washington Consensus’, the ‘Developmental State’ and the ‘Seattle Protests’: Can ‘Managed Free Trade and Investment’ become an alternative development model?pt-BR
dc.titleWither the ´Washington consensus´, the ´Gevelopmental State´ and the ´Seattle Protests´: Can ´Managed Free Trade and Investment´ become an alternative development model?es-ES
dc.titleWither the ‘Washington Consensus’, the ‘Developmental State’ and the ‘Seattle Protests’: Can ‘Managed Free Trade and Investment’ become an alternative development model?en-US
dc.typeArtículos de revistas
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución