
JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations
ISSN: 1647-7251
Vol. 2, n.º 2 (Autumn 2011), pp. 1-44
Some Trends and Perspectives on Globalization, Economic Growth, Equality, and Development
Giuseppe Ammendola
22
process, I would point out) were recovering, the report added that “it will take years,
and in some cases, decades, for most former Soviet countries to regain their per capita
income levels prevailing at the beginning of the transition.” (World Bank, 2005: 8).
Further, the report adds, with regard to Sub-Saharan Africa, in spite of good policy
reforms, foreign aid, debt relief, improvements in governance, a good external climate,
and some modest success stories like Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda, no major
take-off had taken place. The report also noted how the financial crises of the 1990s
were less predictable (using yield spreads) than those in the previous two decades,
citing as examples, Mexico in 1994-95, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia in
1997-98 (which taught many developing countries to build a large foreign exchange
reserves buffer, as I noted earlier), Russia and Brazil in 1998, Turkey in 2001, and
Argentina in 2001-02 (World Bank, 2005: 8). Last, but not least, there were negative
surprises in Latin America, where the region by 1990 had most definitely rejected the
Development Consensus logic of the past in favor of macroeconomic stabilization, fiscal
rigor, trade liberalization, and privatization (World Bank, ibidem)49. While major
successes were achieved in the fight against inflation since the beginning of the 1990s,
the results in terms of growth were disappointing and the decade saw altogether less
growth on a GDP per capita basis in comparison to the US than in the period between
1950 and 1980 (Birdsall, de la Torre, and Caicedo, 2010: 3; Rodrik, 2006: 975). Latin
America experts had problems understanding exactly what had gone wrong.
Regardless, the sense of disenchantment toward the Washington Consensus in the
region certainly grew as a consequence of the financial crises in Ecuador (1999-2000),
Uruguay (2002), the Dominican Republic (2003), in addition to the one in Argentina
that was just mentioned (Birdsall, de la Torre, and Caicedo, 2010).
Along with these negative surprises, as Rodrik (2006) cleverly points out, there was the
unexpected progress made on the front of global poverty. Most notably, according to
World Bank estimates (Chen and Ravallion, 2004), in 2001 the number of individuals
living on $1 a day was 1.1 billion, down nearly 400 million from twenty years before. To
a very large degree this stems from the rapid economic growth achieved by China and
India50.
In terms of the assessment we are trying to make, Washington Consensus supporters
would have some difficulties in attributing the economic successes experienced by the
two most populous nations in the world to their policy prescriptions. This is so because
the narrative centered on two giants awakening in 1978 (China) and in 1991 (India)
from a prolonged slumber to a new sunrise of economic liberalization is extremely
simplistic (Nayyar, 2008: 274). It leaves out the period of “near-stagnation” between
1900-50, when China and India were “among the most open and the least regulated
economies in the world” (Nayyar, 2008: 274). It underplays the yearly GDP growth
rates between 1950 and 1980 for both China (5 percent) and India (3.6 percent)
(ibidem). And, in citing the extraordinary yearly GDP growth rates of China (9.7
percent) and India (5.8 percent) between 1981 and 2005, the Washington Consensus-
49 In finance, liberalization policies were most aggressive, while they were most modest in the tax area,
and basically nil in labor markets (Birdsall, de la Torre, and Caicedo, 2010). However complicated the
picture is, there seems to be little doubt that the new orthodoxy was adopted widely and was
instrumental in showing the region’s worthiness of receiving debt relief through the Brady plan. See
Marangos (2009).
50 See also supra in the section on inequality. On the difficulty of counting the world’s poor see Chandy and
Gertz (2011) who estimate that by 2015 there will be almost 600 million people living on less than $1.25
a day.