fbpx

Eco. 362– 9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 2 on the Washington Consensus)

The Washington Consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries. In your opinion, do you think the prescribed policy reforms have really helped Nigeria or what is actually the problem with Nigeria?

Related Posts

Comments 197

  1. Avatar Igbokwe Cynthia Esther says:

    Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.
    In Nigeria, there is poor implementation of these policies due to some facts such as political instability; each government brings new policy scraping off the already existing one thereby causing the Washington Consensus not to function effectively in our economy.

  2. Avatar Michael Iloba says:

    2014/191971
    Economics

    Economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. These policies failed to improve socioeconomic conditions in African countries for several reasons due to, among others, the failure to account for political economy within countries, reforms that did not adequately emphasize the role of local ownership in domestic economic policy. The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance. Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Nigeria have adopted theses policies have show that these policies failed to improve economic conditions, as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest. Reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies was an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. Crucially, concurrent efforts to minimize the potential negative welfare impacts of macroeconomic reforms on domestic populations are important to increase needed public support for reforms.
    Research has show that while the country failed to show growth when these polies were implemented, there has been considerable improvement in the economy post 2000.Comparing the reform countries to non-reform countries, result shows that during the initial reform years, economic performance was worse for reformers, with average per capita real GDP growth declining in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, non-reform adopters experienced positive growth over this period. Between 2000 and 2019, average per capita GDP was higher than during the 1980s and 1990s for both reformers and non-reformers. However, the increase in growth was even higher for reform adopters.

  3. Avatar Ezeoha Chidera Claire says:

    Washington consensus
    Ezeoha Chidera Claire
    2017/249507

    The term “Washington Consensus” comes from a simple set of ten recommendations identified by economist John Williamson in 1989: fiscal discipline; redirecting public expenditure; tax reform; financial liberalization; adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate; trade liberalization; elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment and privatization of state owned enterprises; deregulation of market entry and competition; and secure property rights. The reference to “consensus” meant that this list was premised on the ideas shared at the time by power circles in Washington, including the US Congress and Administration, on the one hand, and international institutions such as the Washington-based IMF and the World Bank, on the other, supported by a range of think tanks and influential economists. All this were theoretical foundations of neoclassical economists.
    Washington Consensus policies were applied for more than two decades in such diverse contexts as Africa, Latin America and Asia, as well as in countries emerging from real socialism in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. There were usually two major stages of intervention: the first focused on macroeconomic stability and structural adjustment programs, and the second included such objectives as improving institutions, reducing corruption or dealing with infrastructure inefficiency (Naim, 1999). The conditionality exercised by the Bretton Woods institutions and wealthy countries played a crucial role in indebted countries’ decisions to push through macroeconomic stabilization reforms and structural adjustment programs. The debt crisis that first affected a number of Latin American countries and then African and Asian countries, in the 1970s and 1980s, further increased their dependence on external loans, leaving them no other option than to follow the prescriptions that enabled them to access financing. In other words the after effects of the debt crisis left some countries with option of praticing the Washington consensus to be able to get the loans given by the IMF and World bank.

  4. Avatar Uta-Daniel Nneoma Blossom says:

    Uta-Daniel Nneoma Blossom
    2017/249592
    Economics
    The Washington consensus as coined by John Williamson in 1989 are set of reforms policy makers believed would help developing countries.
    Many features in Nigeria’s economy combined with other non-economic factors have produced a weak private sector that is largely oriented towards distributive activities. The productive and technological base is weak, outdated, narrow, inflexible and externally dependent. Furthermore, infrastructure is poor, inadequate and lacks maintenance. Thus, the effectiveness of incentives has been generally low, giving rise to inadequate utilization of the factors of production. The paper blames the country’s overdependence on single product export-crude oil-without profound efforts to diversify the economy as a key weakness. As such, the country should develop a class of entrepreneurs that possess the tacit knowledge required for rapid industrialization and development of the manufacturing sector.
    In my opinion, the Washington consensus has not really worked in Nigeria mostly because of corruption in public offices(e.g tax reform)

  5. Avatar Chukwudi Christopher says:

    The Washington concensus is a market friendly framework of development. It was coined by John Williamson in 1989.
    He identified a set of reforms needed by countries of Latin America, Asia, Africa as well as other developing countries.
    Over the years the concensus should have been effective or achieved in Nigeria but due to some reasons outlined below it becomes ineffective or unachieved. They include:
    a. Corruption and other corrupt practices.
    b. Weak institutions and institutional framework.
    c. Over dependence on the central or state economy.
    d. Closed economy and import bans.
    e. Large size of public owned entities and companies.
    f. Barriers to market economy.
    g. Fluctuations in interest rates as well as exchange rates.
    Given all these problems listed above, this Washington concensus which was based on three Orthodox concepts namely;
    1. Macroeconomic discipline.
    2. A market economy.
    3. Openness to the world in the context of trade and foreign direct investment (FDI)

  6. Avatar EKPECHI AFOMA K says:

    EKPECHI AFOMA K
    2015/249546
    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US.
    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.
    1) Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2) Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3) Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4) Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    5)Competitive exchange rates;
    6) Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7) Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8) Privatization of state enterprises;
    9) Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10)Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.

    Implications of Washington Consensus
    Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.

    3. The Chinese approach. An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.

    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)

    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.

    6. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)

    7. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability.Washington Consensus policies were applied for more than two decades in such diverse contexts as Africa, Latin America and Asia, as well as in countries emerging from real socialism in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. There were usually two major stages of intervention: the first focused on macroeconomic stability and structural adjustment programs, and the second included such objectives as improving institutions, reducing corruption or dealing with infrastructure inefficiency (Naim, 1999). The conditionality exercised by the Bretton Woods institutions and wealthy countries played a crucial role in indebted countries’ decisions to push through macroeconomic stabilization reforms and structural adjustment programs. The debt crisis that first affected a number of Latin American countries and then African and Asian countries, in the 1970s and 1980s, further increased their dependence on external loans, leaving them no other option than to follow the prescriptions that enabled them to access financing.

    What Exactly Went Wrong?
    6
    Washington Consensus policies have been criticized since the 1990s by a significant number of leading economists. Most notably, Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist at the World Bank from 1997 to 2000, criticized the policies prescribed by the IMF in response to the financial crises in Russia and Asia (Stiglitz, 2003); Paul Krugman was in favor of Asian governments imposing controls on capital flows in 1997-98. The debate generated over the response to the crisis provided a good illustration of the deep divide between leading economists, who either supported or opposed the IMF. The Washington Consensus purists insisted on the importance of stabilizing exchange rates in times of crisis through public budget cuts, higher taxes and interest rates and other recessive measures. Their opponents criticized such policies, arguing that they would lead to recession (Naim, 1999). Stiglitz called attention to the fact that sharp increases in interest rates would contribute towards the deepening of the crisis (Stiglitz, 2003).

    It is now commonplace to say that structural adjustment (SAP) and macroeconomic stabilization programs had a disastrous impact on social policies and poverty levels in many countries. Following the first wave of reforms undertaken by debt-affected African and Latin American countries – which included public expenditure cuts, introduction of charges for health and education, and reductions in industrial protection, leading to high unemployment, poverty rise and unequal income distribution – UNICEF published the report Adjustment with a Human Face (1987), which called for “meso-policies” to be redirected towards protecting social and economic sectors that were essential to the survival of the poor, through the introduction of social protection programs.

  7. Avatar Ogundare Abisola Helen says:

    OGUNDARE ABISOLA HELEN
    2015/249546
    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    The term “Washington Consensus” comes from a simple set of ten recommendations identified by economist John Williamson in 1989:
    1) fiscal discipline;
    2) redirecting public expenditure;
    3) tax reform;
    4) financial liberalization;
    5) adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate;
    6) trade liberalization;
    7) elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment;
    8) privatization of state owned enterprises;
    9) deregulation of market entry and competition; and
    10) secure property rights.
    The reference to “consensus” meant that this list was premised on the ideas shared at the time by power circles in Washington, including the US Congress and Administration, on the one hand, and international institutions such as the Washington-based IMF and the World Bank, on the other, supported by a range of think tanks and influential economists.
    However, it seems that this policies are not working in nigeria. The state of the economy is in a worse situation. Poverty level has increased, unemployment level has skyrocketed, every thing is just in dissaray in the country. what then is the problem? The major problem nigerians have is leadership and corruption. As far as this problem is not solved, no poliy will work in the country

  8. Avatar Nweke Ngozi Veronica 2017/242946 says:

    The Washington consensus was intended to help developing countries attain a certain level of development but without strong institutions in place, the set of reforms will not work. The reforms which is not applicable to all developing countries like Nigeria that lacks in the industrial sector or have infant industries. Allowing free trade will lead to the market failure of these infant industries.
    The Washington consensus has failed in Nigeria because it lacks the necessary infrastructures ( manufacturing sector among others), largely a corrupt government that allocates funds to the areas that are not necessary for growth.

  9. Avatar Uwaezuoke Stephen Chinonso (2017/242432) says:

    Name: Uwaezuoke Stephen chinonso
    Reg No: 2017/242432
    Department: Economics

    THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS

    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.
    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.
    The widespread adoption by governments of the Washington Consensus was to a large degree a reaction to the macroeconomic crisis that hit much of Latin America, and some other developing regions, during the 1980s. The crisis had multiple origins: the drastic rise in the price of imported oil following the emergence of OPEC, mounting levels of external debt, the rise in US (and hence international) interest rates, and—consequent to the foregoing problems—loss of access to additional foreign credit. The import-substitution policies that had been pursued by many developing country governments in Latin America and elsewhere for several decades had left their economies ill-equipped to expand exports at all quickly to pay for the additional cost of imported oil (by contrast, many countries in East Asia, which had followed more export-oriented strategies, found it comparatively easy to expand exports still further, and as such managed to accommodate the external shocks with much less economic and social disruption). Unable either to expand external borrowing further or to ramp up export earnings easily, many Latin American countries faced no obvious sustainable alternatives to reducing overall domestic demand via greater fiscal discipline, while in parallel adopting policies to reduce protectionism and increase their economies’ export orientation.
    CRITICISM:
    As of the 2000s, several Latin American countries were led by socialist or other left wing governments, some of which—including Argentina and Venezuela—have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus policies. Other Latin American countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, in practice adopted the bulk of the policies included in Williamson’s list, even though they criticized the market fundamentalism that these are often associated with.

    General criticism of the economics of the consensus is now more widely established, such as that outlined by US scholar Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, in his paper Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion?
    As Williamson has pointed out, the term has come to be used in a broader sense to its original intention, as a synonym for market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism. In this broader sense, Williamson states, it has been criticized by people such as George Soros and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz. The Washington Consensus is also criticized by others such as some Latin American politicians and heterodox economists such as Erik Reinert. The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and the influence of the United States, and globalization more broadly, on countries’ national sovereignty. Some US economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, have challenged what are sometimes described as the ‘fundamentalist’ policies of the IMF and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a ‘one size fits all’ treatment of individual economies. According to Stiglitz the treatment suggested by the IMF is too simple: one dose, and fast—stabilize, liberalize and privatize, without prioritizing or watching for side effects.Besides the excessive belief in market fundamentalism and international economic institutions in attributing the failure of the Washington consensus, Stiglitz provided a further explanation about why it failed. In his article “The Post Washington Consensus Consensus”, he claims that the Washington consensus policies failed to efficiently handle the economic structures within developing countries. The cases of East Asian countries such as Korea and Taiwan are known as a success story in which their remarkable economic growth was attributed to a larger role of the government by undertaking industrial policies and increasing domestic savings within their territory. From the cases, the role for government was proven to be critical at the beginning stage of the dynamic process of development, at least until the markets by themselves can produce efficient outcomes

  10. Avatar Ahamefula miracle chisom says:

    Name:Ahamefula miracle chisom
    Reg no:2017/249478
    Dept:Economics
    Economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The socioeconomic effect of these policies remains widely debated to this day. Most early literature found that they failed to improve socioeconomic conditions in African countries for several reasons due to, among others, the failure to account for political economy within countries, and the politics of conditionality and reforms that did not adequately emphasize the role of local ownership in domestic economic policy. Over three decades after the initial reforms, in a new paper, we revisit the evidence of the links between the adoption of these Washington Consensus policies and economic performance in sub-Saharan Africa.
    We find that following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, the countries that adopted the reforms experienced notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post-2000 period. We complement the aggregate analysis with four country case studies that highlight important lessons for effective reform. Notably, the ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance. The findings of this paper could offer a useful guide to policymakers as they ramp up the structural reform agendas to build back better post-COVID economies.
    The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance.

    The Washington Consensus reforms and socioeconomic performance Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for African farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments.
    A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies was an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms.
    With the benefit of more recent data, we revisit market-oriented reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, notably privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness. Between 2000 and 2019, African economies experienced remarkable improvements in economic growth, with median country real GDP per capita growth rising from 0.2 percent per year on average in the 1980s and 1990s, when many of the reforms were first implemented, to 1.6 percent over 2000 to 2019. Inflation rates in the region have also declined from double digits in the 1980s and 1990s to stabilize at around 5 percent in the past two decades.
    Comparing the reform countries to non-reform countries, we find that during the initial reform years, economic performance was worse for reformers, with average per capita real GDP growth declining in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, non-reform adopters experienced positive growth over this period, consistent with the earlier literature showing that the reforms failed to bring about short-run economic growth. Between 2000 and 2019, average per capita GDP was higher than during the 1980s and 1990s for both reformers and non-reformers. However, the increase in growth was even higher for reform adopters. When we examine these comparative statistics by reform category, the difference in performance between reformers and non-reformers is largely driven by the adoption of fiscal discipline and domestic market-oriented reforms. While it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, the results point to a reversal of the economic fortunes of reform adopters in the last two decades, following their initial dismal economic performance during the 1980s and 1990s.
    To enrich the aggregate analysis, we conduct four case studies for Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, and Senegal, which allow for a more granular and nuanced assessment of the effect of the reforms. Overall, the case studies support the aggregate findings and reveal some useful lessons on the correlates of successful reform implementation. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies was an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. Crucially, concurrent efforts to minimize the potential negative welfare impacts of macroeconomic reforms on domestic populations are important to increase needed public support for reforms.

  11. Name: Agbo Precious Chinaza.
    Reg No: 2017/249477
    Department: Economics

    The term “Washington Consensus” comes from a simple set of ten recommendations identified by economist John Williamson in 1989: 1) fiscal discipline; 2) redirecting public expenditure; 3) tax reform; 4) financial liberalization; 5) adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate; 6) trade liberalization; 7) elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment; 8) privatization of state owned enterprises; 9) deregulation of market entry and competition; and 10) secure property rights. The reference to “consensus” meant that this list was premised on the ideas shared at the time by power circles in Washington, including the US Congress and Administration, on the one hand, and international institutions such as the Washington-based IMF and the World Bank, on the other, supported by a range of think tanks and influential economists.

    4It is important to note here that the theoretical foundations underlying these policy recommendations were nothing else but neoclassical economics espousing a firm belief in the market’s “invisible hand,” the rationality of economic actors’ choice, and a minimalistic vision of the states’ regulation of economies. The advent of this new paradigm has also marked the retreat of development economics as a distinct field, which had been long dominated by the “Dependency School” and other theories (Naim, 1999), often in sharp contrast with neoclassical economics and methodological individualism. It was development economics that had often guided policies experimented with in developing countries before the Washington Consensus era. Most independent African governments, for example, sought to promote industrialization, in an effort to develop local production and reduce imports, promote employment, raise the standard of living, and break out of the vicious circle of trade patterns epitomized in the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis (unfavorable terms of trade for commodity-exporting and manufacturer-importing countries). The Washington Consensus’ recipes, by contrast, were presented as universal, similarly applicable in the context of developed and developing countries, even if they ended up being implemented in a discriminatory and uneven fashion.

  12. Avatar Ogundare Abisola Helen says:

    OGUNDARE ABISOLA HELEN
    2017/249546
    ECONOMICS
    In as much as the washington consensus prescribed policies has worked for many developing countries it seems Nigeria is quite different.This is because ourr major issue in the country is bad governance coupled with corruption. as long as the issues has not been dealt with, any policy appilied would be like pourin water into a basket

    • Avatar Tony Orji says:

      Please be notified that you have not done this assignment well so don’t expect any score. You think we are joking here that you wrote 3 lines for me.

  13. Avatar Udeh Rita Ezinne says:

    Udeh Rita Ezinne
    2017/249578
    In my own honest opinion given the proposition of the Washington consensus and it’s prescribed policy reform I believe the policy has not really helped Nigeria as a country. I think Nigeria is still lagging behind due to its high level of corrupt officials, we will keep coming short with our resources if we don’t institutionalise transparency and accountability in governance. No amount of money or ideas will work in Nigeria with short-termism and wasteful expenditures by the Nigerian ruling class.We need selfless leaders who are ready to take bold ideas and understand where we need to go. Nigeria will only move forward as a nation forged in unity, by optimising every single public resource and making the health, safety and the prosperity of its people an urgent concern.

  14. Avatar MBAH CHIEBONAM says:

    NAME: MBAH CHIEBONAM
    REG NO: 2017/249525
    DEPT: ECONOMICS

    Did the policy reforms of the Washington Consensus really help Nigeria? Or what is actually wrong with Nigeria.

    The Washington Consensus was coined by John Williamson in 1989 for improving economic performance in Latin American Countries. The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the standard reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. These standard reforms includes; Trade Liberalization which is the removal of all trades barriers between and among counties, Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline which deals with the government revenue and expenditure. The main aim of these Washington consensus policy on developing countries was to help developing countries improve on their economic growth and development of their nation.
    In Nigeria, there is obviously poor implementation of these policies due to some facts such as political instability; each government brings new policy scraping off the already existing one thereby causing the Washington Consensus not to function effectively in our economy. Also there is no stable government and a sociopolitical environment in Nigeria and this is needed for the Washington Consensus to work in an economy.
    The Fiscal discipline policy has suffered due to corruption in Nigeria; the people in power only think about themselves ,their personal interest and gain regarding nothing the interest of the masses which worsened the situation and the consensus reforms wouldn’t survive.

  15. Avatar Ezeke nnenna says:

    Ezeke Nnenna
    2017/249506

    Washington Consensus is a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. Some of the key policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment, Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for African farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when there is government intervention.

    In the Nigerian case, these policy reforms remained on paper. Perhaps, the country would have become a better place, had its key figures embraced these policy reforms. The country is far from fiscal discipline and majority of the reform measures, although privatization of state-owned enterprises has gone a long way. Now what was the case of Nigeria why it has not being able to meet up to this policy?
    Nigeria on its own have some issues to settle like government instability, corruption, over dependency on other countries, infrastructural development etc. In our country today, it’s obvious that there is government instability even if the current government should implement the policy reforms, another government might come up tomorrow and scrape it off to bring his own policy, and the policy will end up not yielding anything to the economy, corruption which is the major problem of Nigeria exist even at the lowest level of governance.

  16. Avatar Ali Chukwuemeka Japhet says:

    ALI CHUKWUEMEKA JAPHET

    2017/242427

    The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute For International Economics, an international economic guru based in Washington, D.C. He used the term to summarize commonly shared themes among policy advice by Washington-based institutions at the time, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, which were believed to be necessary for the growth of developing countries such as Nigeria.

    The policy tended to achieve macro-economic discipline, market economy and trade liberalisation.

    However, these consensus seems to be non-effective in Nigeria due to the following reasons:

    1. Bad governance and corruption: Everything rises and falls on the leadership. Nigeria have been missing it big time when it comes to the issue of good governance. We have leaders who have no interest of the masses at heart. They initiate policies that will only solve their private need. Thus, leading to embezzlement and mismanagement of public funds.

    2. Weak institutions/ Poor implementation of policies; Most times when policies are being enacted, it seems to not be actualised because of weak institutions to implement such policies.

    These few points are the main reason why it seems that the good intentions of Washington consensus is not being seen in Nigeria.

  17. Avatar Nwachukwu Maryjane says:

    NAME: NWACHUKWU MARYJANE
    REG.NO: 2017/249533
    DEPT: ECONOMICS
    LEVEL: 300

    DOES THE WASHINGTON CONCENSUS APPLY TO Nigeria?
    The Washington consensus is a series of ideas which where meant to encourage free market economy, supported by prominent economist and international organizations like the IMF, World bank, the European Union e.t.c. The Washington consensus was coined out by a British Economist named John Williamson in 1989withe the aim to help develop countries that are in economic crisis. The main emphasis were on free trade, floating exchange rate, and macroeconomics stability. The consensus played a great role in the economic development of South East Asia, Latin America, e.t.c. The Washington free market economy was also embraced by some well known financial institutions such as the World bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the U.S Treasury.
    The following principles were originally set by the Washington consensus in 1989:

    1. Low government borrowing: This was meant to discourage borrowing. It advocated the avoidance of large fiscal fiscal deficits relative to GDP.

    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies: This principle emphasizes on the need to direct subsidies to capital project such as the primary education, primary health care and infrastructure development.

    3. Tax reform: to broaden the tax base and adopt marginal tax rates.

    4. Adoption of interest rates that are moderate and market friendly.

    5. Exchange rates that are competitive.

    6. Trade liberalization

    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment.

    8. Privatization of state own enterprises

    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that restrict market entry.

    10. LegAl security for property right.

    CRITICISMS OF THE WASHINGTON CONCENCUS

    The Washington consensus was criticized for the following reasons
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some Economists were of the opinion that free market economy is not the necessary criteria for an economy to traive. They argued that the free economy if practiced in developing countries cann lead to low income and volatile price of primary products.

    2. Problem of privatization. There is always efficiency and improvement in the quality of product and services as result of privatization. However this can lead unavailability of some products to certain group of people. Simply put, the poor.

    3. Mis- interpretation. The emphasizes on the second point or principle may lead to more market oriented policy thereby ignoring government interventions.

    4. The macroeconomics crisis of Latin America 1980 and South East Asia in 1990 made gave more ground to the free market economy in countries where they are implemented.

    5. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The 2007 crisis illustrated the inability of the free market to create stability and tackle unemployment, so does the financial deregulation.

    The prescriptions of Washington consensus are as follows:

    1. Fiscal Adjustment:

    This means that developing countries should take steps to reduce fiscal deficit through curtailing Government expenditure by drastically explicit and implicit subsidies provided by the Government of developing countries.

    2. Tax Reforms:

    It was suggested that tax rates should be cut substantially to promote saving and private investment. This will promote investment and ensure a higher rate of economic growth. This was in line with supply-side economics. In fact, Jagdish Bhagwati and T.N. Srinivasan invoked Laffer Curve Concept of supply-side economics to argue that reduction in rates of taxes would cause not only greater private saving and investment but will lead to greater revenue of the government. Besides, it was suggested to broaden the tax base by withdrawing exemptions and plugging the loopholes in taxes.

    3. Deregulation:

    This was most significant policy measure under which it was recommended that industrial licensing controls be abolished but also such measures as Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) and FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) be done away with so that private sector should grow without any obstructions.

    4. Trade Liberalization:

    Under this it was suggested that tariffs on imports should be drastically reduced to promote free trade. Besides, all quantitative restrictions on imports were also to be eliminated to permit free trade.

    5. Competitive Exchange Rate:

    Under this it was recommended that developing countries like India should devalue their over-valued currencies and ultimately adopt flexible exchange rate system. Besides, it was suggested to make the currency convertible so that obstacles to growth of free trade and capital mobility are removed.

    6. Privatization:

    This is another significant measure of development policy under which it was proposed that there should be disinvestment of public sector enterprises and accordingly either they should be sold out-rightly to the private sector or Government stake should be reduced and its shares sold or transferred to private enterprises.

    7 Protection of Property Rights:

    According to this, suitable legislative measures should be taken to protect property rights. Besides, labour law should be amended so that it becomes easy and it was recommended that private enterprise to enter and exit the industries. In this, freedom to exit was emphasised and labour laws be made flexible so that it should be easy to retrench workers.

    8. Removal of Barriers to Foreign Investment:

    It was stressed that economic growth in developing countries could be accelerated through larger foreign direct investment (FDI). Therefore, all barriers put up by developing countries should be eliminated to attract foreign investment in their countries. To facilitate foreign investment it was also suggested to adopt Convertibility of currency on Current account as well as on capital account.

    9. Financial Reforms:

    They involved reforms, in the banking and insurance system and also in capital market.

    10. Redirection of Public Sector Investment:

    Lastly, it was emphasised that public sector investment should be redirected towards education, health and infrastructure only and also leave these and other fields open to private sector operation.

    In summary, The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-trade, floating exchange rates and free market. In my own opinion the Washington consensus is not realistic in Nigeria because of the corrupt nature of the Nigeria system. A market free from government regulations in a country like ours will mean a free ticket for manufacturers to exploit the poor masses, with high price and substandard products.

  18. The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. John Williamson who was the first used this term in 1989 saw it as a set of reform policies to see how developing countries could advance to be like developed countries.
    Some of these policies include: the prescriptions encompassed free-market promoting policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, interest rate flexibility, tax reforms and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.

    This consensus has really helped lots of developing countries become better and some even developed as a result of this consensus.

    However, this was not effective in Nigeria because of the instability in the implementation of policies. Another key reason why these policies were not properly implemented is because of the level of corruption in the Nigerian government. Knowing that these policies are favorable to the nation but not favorable to some government officials. Moreover, these officials know that if these policies were implemented some major gateways to their corrupt activities will be completely shut so they rather do what is favorable to them and their activities than what is favorable to the nation as a whole.

  19. Avatar Metu Sandra C says:

    Name: Metu Sandra C
    Department: Economics
    Reg number: 2017/249526
    Email address: sandra.metu.249526@unn.edu.ng

    The Washington Consensus, is a concept developed by John Williamson and his team was a set of ten reform policies that they thought if the government of developing countries practice could help them develop like their developed counterparts. The decision reached include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among countries), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Pr0000ivatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these are good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    However various factors has affected the effect of these reform policies in Nigeria.
    The ability of a government to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms plays a central role in successful policy performance. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with purposrful focus on pro-poor policies is a necessary condition in implementing successful reforms.
    Poor fiscal policy measure has however hindered progess in Nigeria as her government has borrowed more and more money for recurrent expenditures that will not let this fiscal policies payoff.

    Most institutions are weak. Corruption exist even at the lowest level of governance. Tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the Nigerian society. All the aforementioned problems have to be tackled before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually be significant in Nigeria.

  20. Avatar Ijara Peter Elochukwu. says:

    Name: Ijara Peter Elochukwu
    Reg no: 2017/249513
    Department : Economics department
    petochris86@yahoo.com

    The Washington Consensus was developed by John Williamson and his team was a set of reform policies on how developing countries could develop like their developed counterparts. They include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    It has however not yielded the desired results in Nigerian due to Fiscal indiscipline on the part of government. Over the years the Nigerian government has borrowed more and more money for recurrent expenditures not capital expenditures that will lay the foundation for development.
    In conclusion, corruption has however stalled the effects of this policies in Nigeria. Nigerian leaders pursue policies that favour the ruling class and embezzle public supposed to be used for capital projects to set the economy in motion.
    This above is my honest opinion.

  21. The aim of the Washington consensus was to ensure market – oriented reforms would correct domestic policy induced distortions in prices such as the overvalued exchange rates, subsidies, high wage rate, low interest rates which characterized the less developed countries. But to their dismay, most early economists found out that these policies failed to improve the economic conditions in the less developed countries, and the removal of agricultural subsidies mad it difficult for Nigerian farmers to compete favourably in the international markets and unemployment and sociopolitical unrest were vivid in these less developed countries.
    Now, the major problem with Nigeria is the poor implementation of policies. The bodies which are entrusted with these policies prefer to satisfy themselves or fill their pockets first and would not perform their duties effectively and efficiently. The Nigerian bodies would prefer leaving the said policies on their desks unattended to for a long while before the policies are even carried out. There is also mismanagement of funds and corruption, tribalism and nepotism is adverse in Nigeria which hinders proper discharge of these policies.

    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.

    3. The Chinese approach: An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.
    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)
    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.

  22. Name: Nkwocha Ikechukwu BonaventureHistory
    Reg No: 2017/249530
    Dept: Economics Major
    Topic: THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS MADE A LOT OF INTERESTING PRESCRIPTION FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. IN YOUR OPINION,DO YOU THINK THE PRECRIBED POLICY REFORMS HAVE REALLY HELP NIGERIA OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY THE PROBLEM WITH NIGERIA
    INTRODUCTION
    Washington Consensus is set of policies prescription for developing countries to see how carry them along in the things of development as this countries were fear distanced from development.
    MAIN ARGUMENT
    The term Washington Consensus was first used by John Williamson the English Economist. The term Washington Consensus represent a set of 10 economic policies prescription by Washington, D. C – based institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and United States Department of the Treasury considered to constitute the “standard reform” package promoted for the crisis wracked developing countries, as the 10 prescription was titled under three major Sub-heads. The prescription encompasses policy in such areas as economic opening regarding to trade and investment, macroeconomic stabilization and expansion of market forces within the domestic
    THE TEN PRESCRIPTION
    1. Fiscal policy discipline, Government of this countries is required to avoid spending money on irrelevant things so as not run into large deficit. with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment; because always provision of subsidy can also lead to market failure while efficiency is what the government should go for.
    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms; to allow the forces of demand and supply to determine interest rates.
    5. Competitive exchange rates; developing countries were urged to lower their currency so as to attract market from advanced countries.
    6. Trade liberalization : liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8. Privatization of state enterprises; moving state enterprise into the hands of the private individual to foster competition and this leads to economic growth.
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10. Legal security for property rights. Ensure property rights are well enforced to encourage starters and upcoming.

    HISTORY.
    The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C. Williamson used the term to summarize commonly shared themes among policy advice by Washington-based institutions at the time, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, which were believed to be necessary for the recovery of countries in Latin America from the economic and financial crises of the 1980s.[ citation needed ]
    HAVE THIS 10 PRESCRIPTION HELP NIGERIA OR WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH NIGERIA.
    Mr. President Sir, I personally say NO to whether the ten Washington Consensus prescription have helped us looking at its percentage of achievement, evaluation of the ten prescription from fiscal discipline, our government spends money without an answer to the question “THE VALUE FOR MONEY” so our budget deficit every year only is almost half of what we earn and it continues to increase every year currently. Privatization for example PHCN that the federal government privatised, no change in their service even now its worse, go to some villages that had light or is it interest rates, you can say that the federal government or Central Bank of Nigeria to allow the forces of demand and supply to determine interest rates it will be a death trap for the poor masses.
    Only on liberalization can we say some achievement have been made intense of we importing things at low cost but we don’t export much so in this expecting we are still losing.
    The 10 present present prescription is recognized in Nigeria, as some are in practice like privatisation and liberalization while some are not like interest rates and fiscal discipline. Mr present president, our country Nigeria actual problem is because political interest ( individualism ) is more important than economic state interest ( nationalism ) and to me the question we need ask ourselves is how can we have solve the problems of political power because it every powerful in Nigeria and individuals have taken advantage of that to feed their bags.

  23. Avatar Edochie Praise Ifeoma says:

    Name: Edochie Praise Ifeoma
    Reg no: 2017/249492
    Economics department
    Edochie80@gmail.com

    Washington Consensus developed by John Williamson and his team was a set of reform policies ( they’re ten in number) on how developing countries could develop like develop counterparts. Some of which include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    It has however not yielded the desired results in Nigerian due to Fiscal indiscipline on the part of government. Over the years the Nigerian government has borrowed more and more money for recurrent expenditures that will not let this fiscal policies payoff.
    Also corruption is very high in the country and therefore leaders pursue policies that favour the ruling class and embezzle public supposed to be used for capital projects to set the economy in motion.

  24. Avatar IJE VORDA GOODNESS says:

    NAME: IJE VORDA GOODNESS
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS
    REG NO: 2017/249514
    Email: vordagoodness78@gmail.com

    The Washington consensus consists of ten prescriptions ranging from low government borrowing, redirection of public spending, tax reforms ( broadening tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rate), trade liberation, competitive exchange rate, privatization of state enterprises, deregulation of the economy to ease barriers to entry and exit etc. However development in developing countries has not being corresponded with the prescriptions.

    In Nigeria there’s has been widespread privatization of state owned enterprises but this has only further widened the gap between the rich and the poor as the people who are able to acquire them see it as a means to exploit the people.
    High fiscal indiscipline has further dampened the effects of the Washington consensus prescriptions. Nigeria over the years has borrowed more and more money and has failed to use this loans and funds for what it’s meant for. The weak institutions in the country allows the mismanagement of funds and corruption that don’t let the country to develop.
    The prescription of trade liberation meant that the industries in developing countries remained agricultural because they cannot compete with their counterparts in developed economies.
    Hopefully with great fiscal discipline and stronger institutions Nigeria will experience greater economic growth that is in line with the Washington consensus.

  25. Avatar Ugwu Kingsley ugochukwu says:

    Ugwu Kingsley ugochukwu
    2017/249585

    The Washington consensus made some interesting recommendations to help developing countries attain development, these recommendations includes but not limited to fiscal policy discipline, tax reform, competitive exchange rate etc.

    Nigeria overtime have gradually adopted the recommendations but have still remained undeveloped. The reason for this is that the recommendations only looked at the economic factors that affects development but failed to consider socioeconomic, political and other factors, due to Nigeria’s poor political and socioeconomic state, The country have failed to attract enough foreign investors.

    Secondly, they recommended market determined interest rate which have caused the interest rate to sky rocket which in turn leads to reduced access to capital and therefore reduced production in the economy.

    Furthermore, it recommended competitive exchange rate which have lead to the depreciation of the Naira currency to other international currency which make import expensive and export not attractive which is detrimental to the economy.

    The washington consensus made some valiant recommendations but its obvious that the harm it has caused the Nigerian Economy is greater than its benefit therefore Nigeria should tailor make a reform that will work for her rather than the already failed Washington consensus.

  26. Avatar Ugwoke Cornelius Esomchi says:

    Ugwoke Cornelius Esomchi
    2017/249581

    The Washington Consensus brought up by John Williamson was a set of reform policies on how developing countries could advance or become or grow to be like the developed countries. Some of which include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    As regards the issue whether these reform policies have helped Nigeria or not, the reform policies have actually not be helpful or even working today the least in Nigeria.
    This is mainly due to the fact that first, there is poor implementation of these policies. Like obviously, we have all these excellent, mouthwatering polices that are very much making a lot of sense, but the issue with this country is the poor implementation of these policies. The body with which would be saddled with the responsible of discharging these duties could be either not discharging them at all or not effectively and efficiently carrying them out as stated.
    Second, I would say that the poor implementation problem could be due to fact that we suffer from political instability. Our government today could bring up a policy and then tomorrow’s government can come and scrap off that existing policy and which may sometimes have not even started started it’s work in the economy thereby causing us to suffer for it as such reform polices like the Washington Consensus would not even work in our economy.

  27. Avatar Mgbada Ogochukwu Emelda says:

    Mgbada Ogochukwu Emelda
    2017/245040

    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.
    By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that the results of the Washington Consensus were far from optimal. Increasing criticism led to a change in approach that shifted the focus away from a view of development as simply economic growth and toward poverty reduction and the need for participation by both developing-country governments and civil society. That change of direction came to be known as the post-Washington Consensus.

  28. Avatar Okoye Kingsley Chigozie says:

    Okoye Kingsley Chigozie
    Economics
    2017/249561
    OkoyeKingsley93@gmail.com

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US .Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. The Washington Consensus refers to a set of free-market economic policies supported by prominent financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the US. Treasury. A British economist named John Williamson coined the term Washington Consensus in 1989.The ideas were intended to help developing countries that faced economic crises. In summary, The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade. These are the ten specific principles originally set out by John Williamson in 1989:
    1.Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2.Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.
    3.Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.
    4.Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5.Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.
    6.Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7.Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.
    8.The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.
    9.The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10.Development of property rights.

    CRITICISMS OF THE WASHINGTON CONCENCUS
    a. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. Some strategic and infant industries have to be protected initially to provide long-term growth. These industries may also require protection in the form of subsidies or tariffs against imports.
    b. Chinese firms, aided by the government, have been investing large sums in developing economies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These firms typically invest in infrastructure, creating opportunities for long-term trade and growth.
    c. Privatization can increase productivity and enhance the quality of the product or service. However, privatization can often lead to companies ignoring certain low-income markets or the social needs of a developing economy.
    d. The free market has its own faults and instabilities. As we saw with the Great Recession in 2008-2009, increased deregulation can lead to financial volatility that can infect the entire economy.
    Critics have pointed out that the policies were unhelpful and imposed harsh conditions on the developing countries, others have defended the long-term positive impact of these ideas. Unfortunately, the Washington Consensus is strictly considered as a failed consensus by many major institutions and economists from group of Marxism, Dependency Theory and Structuralist after some economic crisis in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and lastly the global financial crisis in 2008. According to Stiglitz, the adoption of the Washington Consensus agenda in some Latin American and African countries has contributed to the economic crisis. In contrast, India and several East Asian countries like China, Taiwan and South Korea show a great development when they ignored the Washington Consensus and its representative institutions.Many critiques and debates have been addressed towards the Washington Consensus since last two decades which question the effectiveness of this consensus and its original sense.

    The failure of the Washington Consensus has provided many lessons that can be learned by new government leaders in developing and less-developed countries to concern on their policies and international financial institutions to do a reform and create a new economic package or policies to boost global growth and development. The neo-liberalist people have to believe that the Washington Consensus has failed to give a solution for global development. However, it has given a bad experience for countries adopting the policy package from this consensus. As many interpretations of the Washington Consensus exist as there are regions in the world. For Africa, the panoply of reforms subsumed under the term has been useful as a guide to economic policymaking—with the main focus on fiscal discipline and privatization—even though it has proved difficult for most African countries to pursue all of them. Few countries anywhere have applied the reforms of the Washington Consensus completely, not least because some of them are culturally and historically sensitive. A larger difficulty, however, is that the reform agenda only partially addresses the growth constraints faced by many developing countries. Macroeconomic stabilization is critical for growth, but it is not clear that privatization is. Moreover, privatization and deregulation simply do not apply to African countries in the same way that they may in Latin American countries.

    Nevertheless, most African states have made strong progress with many of the reforms, which helps explain, in part, the continent’s improved economic performance in recent years. Economic growth in Africa is expected to average 3.1 percent this year and 4.2 percent next year—more than twice the average in 1984–93 and marginally higher than the average for all developing countries. Macro-economic stability is being consolidated, with average consumer price inflation at 9.7 percent in 2002, down from 13.2 percent in 2001 and 54.6 percent in 1994. Underpinning the better inflation picture are lower fiscal deficits, which have declined from an average 5.2 percent of GDP in 1994 to 2.1

  29. Name: Oroke charity Nnedimma
    Reg no : 2017/243816
    Depart : Economics
    Course : Development Economics
    Washington consensus
    The term Washington consensus was coined by Williamson, he identified a set of reforms which he believes policy maker in Washington could agree were needed in later n America , Asia, Africa and other developing fiscal descipline in order to combert that led to balance of payment crises and high inflation.
    This reforms include :
    Tax reform to broaden tax rate
    A competive exchange rate
    Liberalization of inward investment
    Trade liberalization
    Privatization of state owned enterprises
    Deregulation of economy to ease barrier to entry and exit
    Property right for information sector
    Reordering public expenditure , priorities to target the poor

    The three Orthodox base of Washington consensus
    (1). Macro economic descipline
    (2). A Market economy
    (3). Open to the world on the context of trade and foreign direct investment
    The policies that makes up the Washington consensus where intended to resolve global apartheid perspective which claimed that developing countries were not part of the orthodox economy world.

  30. The Washington Consensus was foundered in the year 1989 by Williamson John. He made alot of prescriptions which he hope will be very helpful to developing countries which Nigeria is one of them.
    One of his prescription is Tax Reform. According to him,if the tax system is restructured,foreign investors will be encouraged and the economy will be boosted.
    He also prescribed that privatization of government owned companies will go a long way in improving the economy of the country. Although, Nigeria has gone a long way in privatization of industries but more still need to be done in order to achieve a better economy.
    Liberation is also one of his prescription which implies that if companies are giving free hand,they will perform better than when under government watch.
    Personally I believe that Nigeria will be better but then we need to tackle our problems as they come.

  31. Avatar Ani, Gabriel ogbonna says:

    Name: Ani Gabriel Ogbonna
    Reg.Number: 2017/249483
    Email: anigabriel05@gmail.com
    Department: Economics

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    This policy originally enacted by John Williamson in 1989,which includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations in order to increase Economic performance of developing countries. This policies includes:

    1.Low government borrowing: Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP.
    2.Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment.
    3 Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates.
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms.
    5.Competitive exchange rates
    6.Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.) any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs.
    7.Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment.
    8. Privatization of state enterprises.
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions.
    10. Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Africa, Latin America, South East Asia and other countries.
    This principles of this policy is very important to every developing Economy but it will prove abortive in Nigeria because of the structural issues that are prevailing in Nigeria Economy such as lack of implementation of policies, corruption and many more. For example the first principle of this policy talk about low government borrowing, but Nigeria government never consider this principle rather they keep accumulating debt through borrowing. Even the money borrowed are embezzled and use for personal interest rather than Economic development of the country. This policy may not really work perfectly in Nigeria because of bad system. It will only work in a country which the government and it’s citizen are willing to embrace development in it’s Economy.

  32. Avatar Doro Yahaya Adamu says:

    NAME: DORO YAHAYA ADAMU
    REG NO: 2017/249490
    DEPT: ECONOMICS

    The Washington Consensus made alots of interesting prescription for developing countries In your opinion Do you Think The presciption policy reforms by Washington consensus have really helped Nigeria, or what is the problem with Nigeria?

    The Washington consensus refers to a set of free market economic policies supported by prominent financial institutions such as, the international monetary fund, the World bank and U.S treasury. A British economist named John Williamson coined the term Washington consensus in 1989.
    The ideas were intended to help developing countries that faced economic crisis. In short note, the Washington consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. These are the ten specific principles set out by John Williamson in 1989;
    1. Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economy from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2. Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sector like primary education, primary healthcare and infrastructures.
    3. Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rate.
    4. Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5. Encouraging competitive exchange rates through free- floating currency exchange.
    6. Adopting of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7. Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment
    8. The privatization of state enterprises. Typically in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil and gas.
    9. The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10. Development of property right

    The policies were intended to convert global apartheid perspective, which claimed that developing countries were not part of the orthodox economic world, but rather pursued a model of development that included inflation and import substitution.

    In the case of Nigeria most of the Washington prescription remain inactive. The Washington prescription work and helped in many developing countries, but in Nigeria it only remain on paper. that is it can only be prescribe and published on paper. looking at the structural reforms in Nigeria for instance, prior to the recent reforms, the Nigerian public sector was underperforming and imposed significant drain on the treasury. Large public investments in state owned enterprises in previous decades had yield very few concrete benefits. For two decades prior to economic reform, Nigeria’s trade regime was viewed as complex, restrictive and opaque (WTO, 2005). The Nigerian banking sector was weak and fragmented, often financing short- term arbitrage opportunities rather than productive private investments.
    Nigeria need a broad range of active structural reforms to improve the domestic business climate and enhance competitiveness to deregulate and reduce government activities in various economic sectors and to address various structural constraint to growth.

  33. Avatar ODOH KOSISOCHI DORIS says:

    NAME : ODOH KOSISOCHI DORIS
    REG NO : 2017/249542
    E-mail : kosisochidoris@gmail.com
    DEPT : ECONOMICS

    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    The Washington consensus which advocates for free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability especially in developing countries was supposed to help improve the Nigeria economy like it has done in other countries but other political and economic problems such as embezzlement of public funds, tribalism, nepotism and so on has haulted the effects of these policies in Nigeria. All these reforms would be helpful to the Nigerian economy if well implemented. However, the guerilla’s who claim to be policy actors misuse these policies by making them favourable for themselves and there rich folks, just like the structural adjustment program ( SAP).
    In conclusion the problem of Nigeria lies on the poor implementation of these policies.

  34. Washington concensus brought things like Anti corruption, secure of property rights, Tax reform etc
    All these would have been evident in Nigeria but we are still undeveloped ,corrupt and the leaders are not passionate about the country.As long as we keep neglecting important issues such as the reform we will remain stagnant

  35. Avatar Nwobodo Christian Chukwuemeka says:

    Name: NWOBODO CHRISTIAN CHUKWUEMEKA
    Reg No: 2017/241437
    Department: Economics

    The Washington Consensus is primarily a set of 10 recommendations identified by John Williamson in 1989 which postulates that when duly implemented will bring about considerable amount of economic development in developing nations.

    In the case of Nigeria, the Washington Consensus may be considered ineffective to a great extent but certain policies like privatisation of state-owned entities like NEPA has to a great extent improved the experience of power supply in the country.
    The economy has undergone series of deregulation to ease the barriers to entry into markets which increased Nigeria’s ease of doing business indices according to IMF.

    Despite the negative narratives about the Nigerian economy, we are working towards a new and better Nigeria which in years to come these policies will be considerably more effective in the country.

  36. Avatar Nwobodo Christian Chukwuemeka says:

    Name: NWOBODO CHRISTIAN CHUKWUEMEKA
    Reg No: 2017/241437
    Department: Economics

    The Washington Consensus is primarily a set of 10 recommendations identified by John Williamson in 1989 which postulates that when duly implemented will bring about considerable amount of economic development in developing nations.

    In the case of Nigeria, the Washington Consensus may be considered ineffective to a great extent but certain policies like privatisation of state-owned entities like NEPA has to a great extent improved the experience of power supply in the country.
    The economy has undergone series of deregulation to ease the barriers to entry into markets which increased Nigeria’s ease of doing business indices according to IMF.

    Despite the negative narratives about the Nigerian economy, we are working towards a new and better Nigeria which in years to come these policies will be considerably more effective in the country.

  37. Obioma God’swill Nnaemeka
    2017/251914
    Economics

    The Washington consensus made some interesting recommendations to help developing countries attain development, these recommendations includes but not limited to fiscal policy discipline, tax reform, competitive exchange rate etc.

    Nigeria overtime have gradually adopted the recommendations but have still remained undeveloped. The reason for this is that the recommendations only looked at the economic factors that affects development but failed to consider socioeconomic, political and other factors, due to Nigeria’s poor political and socioeconomic state, The country have failed to attract enough foreign investors.

    Secondly, they recommended market determined interest rate which have caused the interest rate to sky rocket which in turn leads to reduced access to capital and therefore reduced production in the economy.

    Furthermore, it recommended competitive exchange rate which have lead to the depreciation of the Naira currency to other international currency which make import expensive and export not attractive which is detrimental to the economy.

    The washington consensus made some valiant recommendations but its obvious that the harm it has caused the Nigerian Economy is greater than its benefit therefore Nigeria should tailor make a reform that will work for her rather than the already failed Washington consensus.

  38. Avatar Ojigwe Shalom Chinaza says:

    Name: Ojigwe Shalom Chinaza
    Reg No: 2017/249549
    Department: Economics
    The Concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C. Williamson used the term to summarize commonly shared themes among policy advice by Washington-based institutions at the time, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, which were believed to be necessary for the recovery of countries in Latin America from the economic and financial crises of the 1980s.
    The consensus as originally stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    • Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP
    • Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    • Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    • Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    • Competitive exchange rates;
    • Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    • Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    • Privatization of state enterprises;
    • Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    • Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington Consensus primarily believed that developing countries needed the above policies so that growth and development could exist.
    They believed that developing countries needed foreign interference to boost their economy. Now, using Nigeria as a case study; it is safe to say that all these policies did not play out well in the country. For example, foreign direct investment cannot exactly yield the necessary results when there are no established infrastructure such as electricity, good roads and a workable environment. An industry would need other basic necessities in other to produce effectively, which apparently Nigeria does not provide at affordable prices.
    Also, trade liberalization has done more harm than good in Nigeria. Trade liberalization has made Nigeria a dumping ground for various goods and services, Nigeria is now the place where goods are dumped in. Also, Nigerians would rather patronize foreign industries rather than the domestic ones. All these factors affect the local industries negatively because production and sales are not being made, down-sizing occurs leading to unemployment which affects the economy negatively.
    Also, privatization of industries has done more harm than good in Nigeria, because the private industries no longer focus on the social objective but now aim at minimizing costs and maximizing profits . This makes basic amenities become inaccessible to the poor masses. This does not encourage growth. Also, the high level of corruption in Nigeria cannot support the legal security of property rights as well as liberalization of foreign direct investment.
    It is safe to say that due to the nature of our leaders, laissez faire attitude of policy makers; the Washington Consensus did not aid Nigeria, and could be almost said to be useless.

  39. Avatar EZE UDOKA CHIDIEBUBE says:

    Name:Eze Udoka Chidiebube
    Reg no:2017/242428
    Dept:Economics

    The Washington consensus examines the practice and policies and its impacts on the Nigerian economy. It traced major economic reforms adopted in Nigeria.The policies adopted throughout the period were a blend of institutional plans, market mechanism and reforms. The major policies practiced in the period include: government control, privatization, liberalization, anti-corruption, public sector reforms, governance and institutional reforms among others. Secondary data was collected from CBN bulletin and descriptive statistics of tables and graphs were adopted in analysis.This reveals that the policies achieved a moderate economic growth with macroeconomic instability, unemployment and high poverty incidence in Nigeria. The research also revealed that the anti-graft agencies are weak and that corruption has eaten deep into the fabrics many Nigerians. Also, the privatizations of the power and downstream petroleum sectors have not yielded the much desired results. The study advocates for proper implementation of fiscal responsibility laws to ensure greater fiscal discipline, transparency, accountability and good governance in Nigeria.

  40. Avatar Eric-nnaji Chiamaka Ngozi says:

    Eric-nnaji Chiamaka Ngozi
    2017/249499
    Economics Department

    The Washington Consensus helped Nigeria in the sense that it gave the country a sense of direction in order to develop it’s economy better but it hasn’t helped in actually making the economy better. The policies are not to blame for this but the structure of the Nigerian economy itself. There are no efficient enough entities to ensure that the policies are well carried out and the entities available have somehow been corrupted. There is also political instability in the country which would definitely hinder the effect of the policies in the country.
    The large population of the country would also disrupt the implementation of the policies.
    Non-cooperation from the citizens concerning the instructions of the government is another problem of the country.
    The government of the country are already in huge debts for the first policy to be feasible.
    Privatization of some public companies hasn’t really helped the country’s economy either for instance, even after the privatization of NEPA, the country still experience a lot of power disruptions.
    In conclusion, the Washington Consensus policies should have been a great way to kickstart our Economic growth and development in Nigeria but the lack of a strong structural base has robbed us of the benefits.

  41. Avatar Okoye Amblessed Amarachi says:

    Given the propositions of the Washington consensus and it’s prescribed policy reforms Nigeria as a country still lags behind in terms of development.
    In my own opinion, Nigeria still lags behind as a result of structural and institutional constraints. According to research reports shortly after World war II , European countries heaved a sigh of relief and began to grow again due to a strong institutional base.
    Therefore, Nigeria’s problem is decadence in it’s structural and institutional facilities. Hence, there need for Nigeria to re-enforce here infrastructures as well as improve her institutional base in order to spur economic development.

  42. Avatar Mba Grace Ijeoma Economics 2017/249524 says:

    The Washington Consensus relates to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organizations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union and the United States. Essentially, the Washington Consensus advocates free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets, and macro economic stability. The implications of Washington Consensus support of free trade through the WTO and NAFTA is to reduce the tariff barriers. IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money. The criticisms of the Washington Consensus include: strategic trade theory, low government borrowing is not always appropriate, the chinese approach, the problem of privatisation, misinterpretation, the macro economic crisis and credit crisis and instability of free markets. The policy reform actually has not helped Nigeria.

  43. Avatar OGBONNA CHIKA PHILIP 2017/242029 ECONOMICS EDUCATION says:

    Ogbonna chika philip
    Education Economics
    2017/242029
    Email address:
    Chika.ogbonna.242029@unn.edu.ng

    The Washington consensus centered on the central theme of market friendly framework of development have helped Nigeria in the sense that few among the many policy reform which is the enforcing of public expenditure priorities targeted to the poor is seen from the meaningful improved rural infrastructures in the likes of primary health cares, dam project more access to knowledge through education and extension programs. That of unhindered access to trade such that goods and services are traded within and across continent with ease. Encouragement of Private property ownership, entrepreneurship, innovation and the likes through deregulation of the economy. Tax and interest rate liberalization to encourage investment and economic stability have been a credit to the Nigerian State.
    However, macro economic discipline, market economy and openness to the world in the context of trade and foreign direct investment which appears as the summary of the Washington consensus is to my opinion a one sided policy majoring in the economy and it’s workings but the cultural, religious, tribal and the characteristics and personalities of individuals in terms of the social and institutional differences, moral status and standard of those to whom project and program execution heavily rest on has been ignored by this policy reforms.
    In addition there is the problem of greed, corruption, favoritism, tribal sentiment and a lot more which disrupt the actualization of good policy initiatives and must be addressed because there lies the Nigerian problem before much as expected could be achieved.

  44. Avatar Mba Grace Ijeoma Economics 2017/249524 says:

    The Washington Consensus relates to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union and the United States. Essentially, the Washington Consensus advocates for free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets, and macro economic stability. The implications of Washington Consensus support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA is to reduce tariff barriers. IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money. The criticisms of the Washington Consensus include: Strategic trade theory, low government borrowing is not always appropriate, the Chinese approach, the problem of privatisation, misinterpretation, the macro economic crisis and credit crisis and instability of free markets. The policy reform actually has not helped Nigeria.

  45. Avatar NWANKWO BASIL CHUKWUEMEKA says:

    NWANKWO BASIL CHUKWUEMEKA
    2016/233850
    ECONOMICS
    The Washington Consensus which was coined by Williamson was a set of reform policies on how developing countries could advance or become or grow to be like the developed countries.
    The tenets of the Washington Consensus are listed below
    1. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits.
    2. Redirection of public spending.
    3. Tax reform
    4. Market regulated interest rates
    5. Competitive exchange rate.
    6. Privatisation of state enterprises.
    7. Deregulation
    8. Trade liberation
    9. Promotions of foreign direct investment
    The Washington consensus couldn’t work in Nigeria due to some factors like:
    Corruption: Policies like fiscal discipline for instance have suffered due to corruption. Those at the hem of affairs are so corrupt that all they think about are personal gains and interests. The interest of the masses mean nothing to them. Due to this, fiscal discipline has continued to worsen over the years.
    Poor policy implementation: After so many years and still counting, we’ve had numerous policies with the same aim and end product as the Washington Consensus but due to poor implementation, the results has always been futile.
    Bad governance: due to the way our nation is being run by those in power, the Washington consensus couldn’t be achieved as bribery, nepotism, embezzlement of public funds was the order of the the day.
    All these contributed to the ineffectiveness of the Washington consensus in Nigeria.

  46. Eke promise chinaza
    2017/241531
    Economic Education

    Washington Consensus
    This article includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2015).
    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson.The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.
    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.
    History
    Original sense: Williamson’s Ten Points
    The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C. Williamson used the term to summarize commonly shared themes among policy advice by Washington-based institutions at the time, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, which were believed to be necessary for the recovery of countries in Latin America from the economic and financial crises of the 1980s.
    The consensus as originally stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    Competitive exchange rates;
    Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state enterprises;
    Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.
    Origins of policy agenda
    Although Williamson’s label of the Washington Consensus draws attention to the role of the Washington-based agencies in promoting the above agenda, a number of authors have stressed that Latin American policy-makers arrived at their own packages of policy reforms primarily based on their own analysis of their countries’ situations. Thus, according to Joseph Stanislaw and Daniel Yergin, authors of The Commanding Heights, the policy prescriptions described in the Washington Consensus were “developed in Latin America, by Latin Americans, in response to what was happening both within and outside the region.”[4] Joseph Stiglitz has written that “the Washington Consensus policies were designed to respond to the very real problems in Latin America and made considerable sense” (though Stiglitz has at times been an outspoken critic of IMF policies as applied to developing nations).[5] In view of the implication conveyed by the term Washington Consensus that the policies were largely external in origin, Stanislaw and Yergin report that the term’s creator, John Williamson, has “regretted the term ever since”, stating “it is difficult to think of a less diplomatic label.”
    Kate Geohegan of Harvard University’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies credited Peruvian neoliberal economist Hernando de Soto for inspiring the Washington Consensus.[6] Williamson partly credited de Soto himself for the prescriptions, saying his work was “the outcome of the worldwide intellectual trends to which Latin America provided” and said that de Soto was directly responsible for the recommendation on legal security for property rights.
    A 2010 paper by Nancy Birdsall, Augusto de la Torre, and Felipe Valencia Caicedo likewise suggests that the policies in the original consensus were largely a creation of Latin American politicians and technocrats, with Williamson’s role having been to gather the ten points in one place for the first time, rather than to “create” the package of policies.
    In Williamson’s own words from 2002:
    It is difficult even for the creator of the term to deny that the phrase “Washington Consensus” is a damaged brand name (Naím 2002). Audiences the world over seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on hapless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth.

    My own view is of course quite different. The basic ideas that I attempted to summarize in the Washington Consensus have continued to gain wider acceptance over the past decade, to the point where Lula has had to endorse most of them in order to be electable. For the most part they are motherhood and apple pie, which is why they commanded a consensus.
    Broad sense
    Williamson recognizes that the term has commonly been used with a different meaning from his original prescription; he opposes the alternative use of the term, which became common after his initial formulation, to cover a broader market fundamentalism or “neoliberal” agenda.
    I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization (…I quite consciously excluded that), monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas. If that is how the term is interpreted, then we can all enjoy its wake, although let us at least have the decency to recognize that these ideas have rarely dominated thought in Washington and certainly never commanded a consensus there or anywhere much else…
    More specifically, Williamson argues that the first three of his ten prescriptions are uncontroversial in the economic community, while recognizing that the others have evoked some controversy. He argues that one of the least controversial prescriptions, the redirection of spending to infrastructure, health care, and education, has often been neglected. He also argues that, while the prescriptions were focused on reducing certain functions of government (e.g., as an owner of productive enterprises), they would also strengthen government’s ability to undertake other actions such as supporting education and health. Williamson says that he does not endorse market fundamentalism, and believes that the Consensus prescriptions, if implemented correctly, would benefit the poor. In a book edited with Pedro-Pablo Kuczynski in 2003, Williamson laid out an expanded reform agenda, emphasizing crisis-proofing of economies, “second-generation” reforms, and policies addressing inequality and social issues.
    As noted, in spite of Williamson’s reservations, the term Washington Consensus has been used more broadly to describe the general shift towards free market policies that followed the displacement of Keynesianism in the 1970s. In this broad sense the Washington Consensus is sometimes considered to have begun at about 1980. Many commentators see the consensus, especially if interpreted in the broader sense of the term, as having been at its strongest during the 1990s. Some have argued that the consensus in this sense ended at the turn of the century, or at least that it became less influential after about the year 2000. More commonly, commentators have suggested that the Consensus in its broader sense survived until the time of the 2008 global financial crisis. Following the strong intervention undertaken by governments in response to market failures, a number of journalists, politicians and senior officials from global institutions such as the World Bank began saying that the Washington Consensus was dead. These included former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who following the 2009 G-20 London summit, declared “the old Washington Consensus is over”. Williamson was asked by The Washington Post in April 2009 whether he agreed with Gordon Brown that the Washington Consensus was dead. He responded:
    It depends on what one means by the Washington Consensus. If one means the ten points that I tried to outline, then clearly it’s not right. If one uses the interpretation that a number of people—including Joe Stiglitz, most prominently—have foisted on it, that it is a neoliberal tract, then I think it is right.
    After the 2010 G-20 Seoul summit announced that it had achieved agreement on a Seoul Development Consensus, the Financial Times editorialized that “Its pragmatic and pluralistic view of development is appealing enough. But the document will do little more than drive another nail into the coffin of a long-deceased Washington consensus.”
    Context
    The widespread adoption by governments of the Washington Consensus was to a large degree a reaction to the macroeconomic crisis that hit much of Latin America, and some other developing regions, during the 1980s. The crisis had multiple origins: the drastic rise in the price of imported oil following the emergence of OPEC, mounting levels of external debt, the rise in US (and hence international) interest rates, and—consequent to the foregoing problems—loss of access to additional foreign credit. The import-substitution policies that had been pursued by many developing country governments in Latin America and elsewhere for several decades had left their economies ill-equipped to expand exports at all quickly to pay for the additional cost of imported oil (by contrast, many countries in East Asia, which had followed more export-oriented strategies, found it comparatively easy to expand exports still further, and as such managed to accommodate the external shocks with much less economic and social disruption). Unable either to expand external borrowing further or to ramp up export earnings easily, many Latin American countries faced no obvious sustainable alternatives to reducing overall domestic demand via greater fiscal discipline, while in parallel adopting policies to reduce protectionism and increase their economies’ export orientation.
    Many countries have endeavored to implement varying components of the reform packages, with implementation sometimes imposed as a condition for receiving loans from the IMF and World Bank.
    Effects
    The Washington Consensus would result in socioeconomic exclusion and weakened trade unions in Latin America, resulting with unrest in the region. Countries who followed the consensus initially alleviated high inflation and excessive regulation, though economic growth and poverty relief was insignificant. The consensus resulted with a shrinking middle class in Latin America that prompted dissatisfaction of neoliberalism, a turn to the political left and populist leaders by the late-1990s, with economists saying that the failure of the consensus established support for Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.
    Williamson has summarized the overall results on growth, employment and poverty reduction in many countries as “disappointing, to say the least”. He attributes this limited impact to three factors: (a) the Consensus per se placed no special emphasis on mechanisms for avoiding economic crises, which have proved very damaging; (b) the reforms—both those listed in his article and, a fortiori, those actually implemented—were incomplete; and (c) the reforms cited were insufficiently ambitious with respect to targeting improvements in income distribution, and need to be complemented by stronger efforts in this direction. Rather than an argument for abandoning the original ten prescriptions, though, Williamson concludes that they are “motherhood and apple pie” and “not worth debating”. Both Williamson and other analysts have pointed to longer term improvements in economic performance in a number of countries that have adopted the relevant policy changes consistently, such as Chile (below).
    Speaking at a fundraiser for the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in November 2018, Barack Obama acknowledged that globalization and the policies associated with the Washington Consensus exacerbated economic inequality which helped fuel the rise of the alt-right. According to a 2020 study, the implementation of policies associated with the Washington Consensus significantly raised real GDP per capita over a 5- to 10-year horizon.
    Argentina
    1998–2002 Argentine great depression and Argentine debt restructuring.
    Police responding to the December 2001 riots in Argentina
    The Argentine economic crisis of 1999–2002 is often held out as an example of the economic devastation said by some to have been wrought by application of the Washington Consensus. Argentina’s former Deputy Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana, in an interview with the state news agency Télam on August 16, 2005, attacked the Washington Consensus. There never was a real consensus for such policies, he said, and today “a good number of governments of the hemisphere are reviewing the assumptions with which they applied those policies in the 1990s”, adding that governments are looking for a development model to guarantee productive employment and the generation of real wealth.
    Many economists, however, challenge the view that Argentina’s failure can be attributed to close adherence to the Washington Consensus. The country’s adoption of an idiosyncratic fixed exchange rate regime (the convertibility plan), which became increasingly uncompetitive, together with its failure to achieve effective control over its fiscal accounts, both ran counter to central provisions of the Consensus, and paved the way directly for the ultimate macroeconomic collapse. The market-oriented policies of the early Menem-Cavallo years, meanwhile, soon petered out in the face of domestic political constraints (including Menem’s preoccupation with securing re-election).
    In October 1998, the IMF invited Argentine President Carlos Menem, to talk about the successful Argentine experience, at the Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors. President Menem’s Minister of Economy (1991–1996), Domingo Cavallo, the architect of the Menem administration’s economic policies, specifically including “convertibility”, made the claim that Argentina was at that moment, “considered as the best pupil of the IMF, the World Bank and the USA government”:
    On the second semester of 1998 Argentina was considered in Washington the most successful economy among the ones that had restructured its debt within the Brady’s Plan framework. None of the Washington Consensus’ sponsors were interested in pointing out that the Argentine economic reforms had differences with its 10 recommendations. On the contrary, Argentina was considered the best pupil of the IMF, the World Bank and the USA government.
    The problems which arise with reliance on a fixed exchange rate mechanism (above) are discussed in the World Bank report Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform, which questions whether expectations can be “positively affected by tying a government’s hands”. In the early 1990s there was a point of view that countries should move to either fixed or completely flexible exchange rates to reassure market participants of the complete removal of government discretion in foreign exchange matters. After the Argentina collapse, some observers believe that removing government discretion by creating mechanisms that impose large penalties may, on the contrary, actually itself undermine expectations. Velasco and Neut (2003) “argue that if the world is uncertain and there are situations in which the lack of discretion will cause large losses, a precommitment device can actually make things worse”. In chapter 7 of its report (Financial Liberalization: What Went Right, What Went Wrong?) the World Bank analyses what went wrong in Argentina, summarizes the lessons from the experience, and draws suggestions for its future policy.
    The IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office has issued a review of the lessons of Argentina for the institution, summarized in the following quotation:
    The Argentine crisis yields a number of lessons for the IMF, some of which have already been learned and incorporated into revised policies and procedures. This evaluation suggests ten lessons, in the areas of surveillance and program design, crisis management, and the decision-making process.
    Mark Weisbrot says that, in more recent years, Argentina under former President Néstor Kirchner made a break with the Consensus and that this led to a significant improvement in its economy; some add that Ecuador may soon follow suit. However, while Kirchner’s reliance on price controls and similar administrative measures (often aimed primarily at foreign-invested firms such as utilities) clearly ran counter to the spirit of the Consensus, his administration in fact ran an extremely tight fiscal ship and maintained a highly competitive floating exchange rate; Argentina’s immediate bounce-back from crisis, further aided by abrogating its debts and a fortuitous boom in prices of primary commodities, leaves open issues of longer-term sustainability. The Economist has argued that the Néstor Kirchner administration will end up as one more in Argentina’s long history of populist governments. In October 2008, Kirchner’s wife and successor as President, Cristina Kirchner, announced her government’s intention to nationalize pension funds from the privatized system implemented by Menem-Cavallo. Accusations have emerged of the manipulation of official statistics under the Kirchners (most notoriously, for inflation) to create an inaccurately positive picture of economic performance. The Economist removed Argentina’s inflation measure from its official indicators, saying that they were no longer reliable.
    In 2003, Argentina’s and Brazil’s presidents, Néstor Kirchner and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed the “Buenos Aires Consensus”, a manifesto opposing the Washington Consensus’ policies. Skeptical political observers note, however, that Lula’s rhetoric on such public occasions should be distinguished from the policies actually implemented by his administration. This said, Lula da Silva paid the whole of Brazil’s debt with the IMF two years in advance, freeing his government from IMF tutelage, as did Néstor Kirchner’s government in 2005.
    Venezuela

    Military response during the Caracazo
    One notable instance of unrest against the consensus was the Caracazo in Venezuela in 1989. Carlos Andrés Pérez stated while campaigning for the 1988 Venezuelan general election that the IMF was a “neutron bomb that killed people but left buildings standing”. However after being elected into the presidency, President Andrés Pérez immediately implemented Washington consensus reforms. On the weekend of 25–26 February 1989, gasoline prices doubled while public transportation fares increased thirty percent. The price hikes, along with Andrés Pérez’s opulent spending and corruption, led to widespread looting in Venezuela’s capital Caracas.President Andrés Pérez orders a military crackdown and according to his government, 275 are killed, though the Venezuelan media reports at least 3,000 killed. Shortages of coffins were reported and many Venezuelans had to line up at government food distribution centers since markets were destroyed by rioters. Insurance estimates of damage caused during the rioting were $90 million USD ($120 million CAD) in 1989.
    The Caracazo and previous inequality in Venezuela leads to the rise of Hugo Chávez’s Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement-200 and the subsequent 1992 Venezuelan coup d’état attempts. Once elected, Chávez began to withdraw Venezuela from the prescriptions of the Washington consensus.
    Criticism
    As of the 2000s, several Latin American countries were led by socialist or other left wing governments, some of which—including Argentina and Venezuela—have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus policies. Other Latin American countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, in practice adopted the bulk of the policies included in Williamson’s list, even though they criticized the market fundamentalism that these are often associated with.
    General criticism of the economics of the consensus is now more widely established, such as that outlined by US scholar Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, in his paper Goodbye Washington Consensus,
    As Williamson has pointed out, the term has come to be used in a broader sense to its original intention, as a synonym for market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism. In this broader sense, Williamson states, it has been criticized by people such as George Soros and NobelLaureate Joseph E. Stiglitz. The Washington Consensus is also criticized by others such as some Latin American politicians and heterodox economists such as Erik Reinert. The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and the influence of the United States, and globalization more broadly, on countries’ national sovereignt.
    “Stabilize, privatize, and liberalize” became the mantra of a generation of technocrats who cut their teeth in the developing world and of the political leaders they counseled.
    Some US economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, have challenged what are sometimes described as the ‘fundamentalist’ policies of the IMF and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a ‘one size fits all’ treatment of individual economies. According to Stiglitz the treatment suggested by the IMF is too simple: one dose, and fast—stabilize, liberalize and privatize, without prioritizing or watching for side effects.
    The reforms did not always work out the way they were intended. While growth generally improved across much of Latin America, it was in most countries less than the reformers had originally hoped for (and the “transition crisis”, as noted above deeper and more sustained than hoped for in some of the former socialist economies). Success stories in Sub-Saharan Africa during the 1990s were relatively few and far in between, and market-oriented reforms by themselves offered no formula to deal with the growing public health emergency in which the continent became embroiled. The critics, meanwhile, argue that the disappointing outcomes have vindicated their concerns about the inappropriateness of the standard reform agenda.
    Besides the excessive belief in market fundamentalism and international economic institutions in attributing the failure of the Washington consensus, Stiglitz provided a further explanation about why it failed. In his article “The Post Washington Consensus Consensus”, he claims that the Washington consensus policies failed to efficiently handle the economic structures within developing countries. The cases of East Asian countries such as Korea and Taiwan are known as a success story in which their remarkable economic growth was attributed to a larger role of the government by undertaking industrial policies and increasing domestic savings within their territory. From the cases, the role for government was proven to be critical at the beginning stage of the dynamic process of development, at least until the markets by themselves can produce efficient outcomes.
    The policies pursued by the international financial institutions which came to be called the Washington consensus policies or neoliberalism entailed a much more circumscribed role for the state than were embraced by most of the East Asian countries, a set of policies which (in another simplification) came to be called the development state.
    The critique laid out in the World Bank’s study Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform (2005) shows how far discussion has come from the original ideas of the Washington Consensus. Gobind Nankani, a former vice-president for Africa at the World Bank, wrote in the preface: “there is no unique universal set of rules…. [W]e need to get away from formulae and the search for elusive ‘best practices’….” The World Bank’s new emphasis is on the need for humility, for policy diversity, for selective and modest reforms, and for experimentation.
    The World Bank’s report Learning from Reform shows some of the developments of the 1990s. There was a deep and prolonged collapse in output in some (though by no means all) countries making the transition from communism to market economies (many of the Central and East European countries, by contrast, made the adjustment relatively rapidly). Academic studies show that more than two decades into the transition, some of the former communist countries, especially parts of the former Soviet Union, had still not caught up to their levels of output before 1989. A 2001 study by economist Steven Rosefielde posits that there were 3.4 million premature deaths in Russia from 1990 to 1998, which he party blames on the shock therapy imposed by the Washington Consensus.Neoliberal policies associated with the Washington Consensus, including pension privatization, the imposition of a flat tax, monetarism, cutting of corporate taxes, and central bank independence, continued into the 2000s. Many Sub-Saharan African’s economies failed to take off during the 1990s, in spite of efforts at policy reform, changes in the political and external environments, and continued heavy influx of foreign aid. Uganda, Tanzania, and Mozambique were among countries that showed some success, but they remained fragile. There were several successive and painful financial crises in Latin America, East Asia, Russia, and Turkey. The Latin American recovery in the first half of the 1990s was interrupted by crises later in the decade. There was less growth in per capita GDP in Latin America than in the period of rapid post-War expansion and opening in the world economy, 1950–80. Argentina, described by some as “the poster boy of the Latin American economic revolution”, came crashing down in 2002.
    A significant body of economists and policy-makers argues that what was wrong with the Washington Consensus as originally formulated by Williamson had less to do with what was included than with what was missing. This view asserts that countries such as Brazil, Chile, Peru and Uruguay, largely governed by parties of the left in recent years, did not—whatever their rhetoric—in practice abandon most of the substantive elements of the Consensus. Countries that have achieved macroeconomic stability through fiscal and monetary discipline have been loath to abandon it: Lula, the former President of Brazil (and former leader of the Workers’ Party of Brazil), has stated explicitly that the defeat of hyperinflation was among the most important positive contributions of the years of his presidency to the welfare of the country’s poor, although the remaining influence of his policies on tackling poverty and maintaining a steady low rate of inflation are being discussed and doubted in the wake of the Brazilian Economic Crisis currently occurring in Brazil.
    These economists and policy-makers would, however, overwhelmingly agree that the Washington Consensus was incomplete, and that countries in Latin America and elsewhere need to move beyond “first generation” macroeconomic and trade reforms to a stronger focus on productivity-boosting reforms and direct programs to support the poor. This includes improving the investment climate and eliminating red tape (especially for smaller firms), strengthening institutions (in areas like justice systems), fighting poverty directly via the types of Conditional Cash Transfer programs adopted by countries like Mexico and Brazil, improving the quality of primary and secondary education, boosting countries’ effectiveness at developing and absorbing technology, and addressing the special needs of historically disadvantaged groups including indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant populations across Latin America.
    In a book edited with future president of Peru, Pedro Pablo Kuczynski in 2003, John Williamson laid out an expanded reform agenda, emphasizing crisis-proofing of economies, “second-generation” reforms, and policies addressing inequality and social issues.[11]
    Anti-globalization movement
    Many critics of trade liberalization, such as Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Susan George, and Naomi Klein, see the Washington Consensus as a way to open the labor market of underdeveloped economies to exploitation by companies from more developed economies. The prescribed reductions in tariffs and other trade barriers allow the free movement of goods across borders according to market forces, but labor is not permitted to move freely due to the requirements of a visa or a work permit. This creates an economic climate where goods are manufactured using cheap labor in underdeveloped economies and then exported to rich First World economies for sale at what the critics argue are huge markups, with the balance of the markup said to accrue to large multinational corporations. The criticism is that workers in the Third World economy nevertheless remain poor, as any pay raises they may have received over what they made before trade liberalization are said to be offset by inflation, whereas workers in the First World country become unemployed, while the wealthy owners of the multinational grow even more wealthy.
    Despite macroeconomic advances, poverty and inequality remain at high levels in Latin America. About one of every three people—165 million in total—still live on less than $2 a day. Roughly a third of the population has no access to electricity or basic sanitation, and an estimated 10 million children suffer from malnutrition. These problems are not, however, new: Latin America was the most economically unequal region in the world in 1950, and has continued to be so ever since, during periods both of state-directed import-substitution and (subsequently) of market-oriented liberalization.
    Some socialist political leaders in Latin America have been vocal and well-known critics of the Washington Consensus, such as the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Cuban ex-President Fidel Castro, Bolivian President Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador. In Argentina, too, the recent Justicialist Party government of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner undertook policy measures which represented a repudiation of at least some Consensus policies.
    Proponents of the “European model” and the “Asian way”
    Some European and Asian economists suggest that “infrastructure-savvy economies” such as Norway, Singapore, and China have partially rejected the underlying Neoclassical “financial orthodoxy” that characterizes the Washington Consensus, instead initiating a pragmatist development path of their own[66] based on sustained, large-scale, government-funded investments in strategic infrastructure projects: “Successful countries such as Singapore, Indonesia, and South Korea still remember the harsh adjustment mechanisms imposed abruptly upon them by the IMF and World Bank during the 1997–1998 ‘Asian Crisis’ What they have achieved in the past 10 years is all the more remarkable: they have quietly abandoned the Washington Consensus by investing massively in infrastructure projects this pragmatic approach proved to be very successful”.
    While opinion varies among economists, Rodrik pointed out what he claimed was a factual paradox: while China and India increased their economies’ reliance on free market forces to a limited extent, their general economic policies remained the exact opposite to the Washington Consensus’ main recommendations. Both had high levels of protectionism, no privatization, extensive industrial policies planning, and lax fiscal and financial policies through the 1990s. Had they been dismal failures they would have presented strong evidence in support of the recommended Washington Consensus policies. However they turned out to be successes. According to Rodrik: “While the lessons drawn by proponents and skeptics differ, it is fair to say that nobody really believes in the Washington Consensus anymore. The question now is not whether the Washington Consensus is dead or alive; it is what will replace it”.
    Rodrik’s account of Chinese or Indian policies during the period is not universally accepted. Among other things those policies involved major turns in the direction of greater reliance upon market forces, both domestically and internationally.
    Subsidies for agriculture
    The Washington Consensus as formulated by Williamson includes provision for the redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment. This definition leaves some room for debate over specific public spending programs. One area of public controversy has focused on the issues of subsidies to farmers for fertilizers and other modern farm inputs: on the one hand, these can be criticized as subsidies, on the other, it may be argued that they generate positive externalities that might justify the subsidy involved.
    Some critics of the Washington Consensus cite Malawi’s experience with agricultural subsidies, for example, as exemplifying perceived flaws in the package’s prescriptions. For decades, the World Bank and donor nations pressed Malawi, a predominantly rural country in Africa, to cut back or eliminate government fertilizer subsidies to farmers. World Bank experts also urged the country to have Malawi farmers shift to growing cash crops for export and to use foreign exchange earnings to import food. For years, Malawi hovered on the brink of famine; after a particularly disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost five million of its 13 million people needed emergency food aid. Malawi’s newly elected president Bingu wa Mutharika then decided to reverse policy. Introduction of deep fertilizer subsidies (and lesser ones for seed), abetted by good rains, helped farmers produce record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007; according to government reports, corn production leapt from 1.2 million metric tons in 2005 to 2.7 million in 2006 and 3.4 million in 2007. The prevalence of acute child hunger has fallen sharply and Malawi recently turned away emergency food aid.
    In a commentary on the Malawi experience prepared for the Center for Global Development, development economists Vijaya Ramachandran and Peter Timmer argue that fertilizer subsidies in parts of Africa (and Indonesia) can have benefits that substantially exceed their costs. They caution, however, that how the subsidy is operated is crucial to its long-term success, and warn against allowing fertilizer distribution to become a monopoly. Ramachandran and Timmer also stress that African farmers need more than just input subsidies—they need better research to develop new inputs and new seeds, as well as better transport and energy infrastructure. The World Bank reportedly now sometimes supports the temporary use of fertilizer subsidies aimed at the poor and carried out in a way that fosters private markets: “In Malawi, Bank officials say they generally support Malawi’s policy, though they criticize the government for not having a strategy to eventually end the subsidies, question whether its 2007 corn production estimates are inflated and say there is still a lot of room for improvement in how the subsidy is carried out”.
    Alternative usage vis-à-vis foreign policy
    In early 2008, the term “Washington Consensus” was used in a different sense as a metric for analyzing American mainstream media coverage of U.S. foreign policy generally and Middle East policy specifically. Marda Dunsky writes, “Time and again, with exceedingly rare exceptions, the media repeat without question, and fail to challenge the “Washington consensus”—the official mind-set of US governments on Middle East peacemaking over time.” According to syndicated columnist William Pfaff, Beltway centrism in American mainstream media coverage of foreign affairs is the rule rather than the exception: “Coverage of international affairs in the US is almost entirely Washington-driven. That is, the questions asked about foreign affairs are Washington’s questions, framed in terms of domestic politics and established policy positions. This invites uninformative answers and discourages unwanted or unpleasant views.” Like the economic discussion above the foreign policy usage of the term has less to do with what is included than with what is missing.
    A similar view, though by a different name, is taken by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a progressive media criticism organization. They note “Official Agendas” as one of nine ‘issue areas’ they view as causing ‘What’s Wrong With the News?” They note: “Despite the claims that the press has an adversarial relationship with the government, in truth U.S. media generally follow Washington’s official line. This is particularly obvious in wartime and in foreign policy coverage, but even with domestic controversies, the spectrum of debate usually falls in the relatively narrow range between the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties.

  47. Avatar Uta-Daniel Nneoma Blossom says:

    Uta-Daniel Nneoma Blossom
    2017/249592
    Economics

    The Washington consensus is really helpful when it comes to economy development but then when there is corruption and mismanagement it doesn’t seem to work.

  48. Avatar Uta-Daniel Nneoma Blossom says:

    Uta-Daniel Nneoma Blossom
    2017/249592
    Economics

    The Washington consensus is really helpful when it comes to economy development but then when there is corruption and mismanagement it doesn’t seem to work

  49. Avatar Abiazia Rufus Chidiebube (2017/243371) Economics says:

    NAME: ABIAZIA RUFUS CHIDIEBUBE
    REG.NO.: 2017/243371
    DEPT: ECONOMICS
    LEVEL: 300
    EMAIL: Rufus6175@gmail.com

    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS REFORM AND NIGERIA PROBLEM
    These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.

    THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS REFORMS AND SOCIOECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN AFRICA:

    Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries.
    The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy.

    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects

    THE PROBLEM WITH NIGERIA: IS IN RELATION TO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
    In this context, policies or programmes are haphazardly implemented and even sometimes abandoned or dismantled midway because the basis for formulating the policy was not, in the first instance, predicated on existing data, realities or need. Hence. Nigeria has no comprehensive policy standards and objectives to guide the bureaucracy in its policy formulation and implementation activities and procedures.

    There is thus politics of implementation because, the resources needed for adequate implementation of relevant policies are not provided to realize policy objectives. This has resulted to situations where laws could not be enforced, services were not provided and reasonable regulation not developed and applied. The Poverty Alleviation Policy for instance, is brilliantly articulated but yet to realize its essence due largely to inadequate fund or resources.

    Generally, policy as seen, is a purposive course of action taken by those in power in pursuit of certain goals or objectives. A policy should contain its purpose in an ambiguous way and in the case of educational policies; they should be specific on why and how they came to exist.

    Furthermore, Makinde (2005) identified that stakeholders that are involved in policy making most times fail to take cognizance of some environmental variables which include social, political, economic and administrative variables when analyzing and planning policy and programme formulation and implementation. Failure to take these variables into consideration may also spell doom to policy implementation.

  50. Avatar Okonkwo Faith Munachi says:

    NAME: OKONKWO FAITH MUNACHI
    REG NO: 2017/242422
    E-MAIL: faith.okonkwo.242422@unn.edu.ng

    ANSWER:
    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS: DOES IT APPLY IN NIGERIA?
    The term “Washington Consensus” was coined in 1989 by the famous Economist, John Williamson. The concept was in reference to a set of ten(10) market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Africa, Asia and Latin American countries. The Washington Consensus refers to a set of free-market economic policies supported by prominent financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury. These are the ten specific principles originally set out by John Williamson in 1989:
    1. Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2. Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.
    3. Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.
    4. Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5. Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.
    6. Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7. Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.
    8. The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.
    9. The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10. Development of property rights.
    Generally, these policies centered on fiscal discipline, redirecting public expenditure, tax reform, financial liberalization, adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate, trade liberalization, elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises especially in developing countries.
    The consensus was supposed to help improve the Nigeria economy like it has done in other countries but other political and economic problems in Nigeria retarded the effects of these policies in Nigeria. This is mainly due to the fact that there is poor implementation of these policies. Like obviously, we have all these excellent, mouthwatering polices that are very much making a lot of sense, but the issue with this country is the poor implementation of these policies. The body with which would be saddled with the responsible of discharging these duties could be either not discharging them at all or not effectively and efficiently carrying them out as stated.

    The Washington Consensus would not even work in our economy because of reasons such as political instability and poor execution of policies. One thing is to make policies and another is to make sure the policies are functioning. Since the policies in Nigeria are not usually functioning, the Washington consensus would not help the Nigerian economy grow since it’s not been executed. Also, the lack of consistency and the politicians’ greed are among the causes of the problems in the economy.

  51. Avatar Nnadi Olivia ijeoma says:

    Nnadi Olivia ijeoma
    2016/232856
    Education economics

    The Washington consensus which is based on institutions like the IMF, World Bank and the united states department of the treasury is set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the standard reform package promoted for development in developing countries. The term was first used by English economist John Williamson in 1989. It is also known as a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organizations.
    The ten economic policies are;
    • Reordering of he public expenditure priorities to target the poor.
    • Low government borrowing (Avoidance of large fiscal deficit).
    • Tax reform to broaden the tax base with moderate marginal tax rate.
    • Liberalizing interest rates in the context of a broader financial liberalization.
    • A competitive exchange rate.
    • Trade liberalization
    • Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment.
    • Privatization of state owned entities.
    • Deregulation of the economy to ease barriers to entry and exit.
    • Property rights for the informal sector.
    These policies was summarized into three (3) orthodox (broadly accepted in the developed countries) concepts;
     Macro economic discipline
     A market economy
     Openness to the world in the context of trade and foreign direct investment.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, Asia, Africa and other countries.
    This consensus hasn’t really helped Nigeria because it hasn’t been fully implemented in Nigeria. The idea of this consensus is to discourage developing countries from borrowing, to divert public spending from subsidies to important long term growth supporting sectors like primary education, healthcare and infrastructure, help developing countries that faced economic crises.
    These ideas are good and idealistic but due to corruption, mismanagement, unaccountability, immunity for public office holders, these ideas or reforms hasn’t been fully implemented in Nigeria, thereby setting the Nigeria economic back.
    The frequent increase in prices of petroleum products and it’s ripple effect on other sectors of the economy, has increased inflation rate rapidly. Though there’s a rise in GDP but not in people’s standard of living. The import ratio to export is quite high, there’s little conducive atmosphere for business to strive, very few are striving with majority folding out due to economic challenges like; high tax rate, epileptic power supply, bad roads, low exchange rate (devalued currency), macro-economic instability, high interest rates, costly telecommunication services and more importantly corruption, dishonesty, misappropriation of funds amongst many social ills from public office holders.

  52. Avatar Mmadu Joy Ukamaka says:

    Name: Mmadu Joy Ukamaka
    Dept: Economics
    Reg No: 2017/249528
    email:joymmadu5@gmail.com

    How the prescriptions of the Washington’s Consensus has been able to help Nigeria

    From my observation on the outlined prescriptions, the Washington’s Consensus has been able to help Nigeria in some aspects which they have inculcated what was prescribed but even at that due to the corrupt nature of the country most of the prescriptions were not able to be implemented and this has contributed to our state of underdevelopment.
    However, starting with the Fiscal discipline which has to do with the wise spending of the government, Nigeria has failed to embrace discipline in the government expenditure
    Nigeria’s potential for growth and poverty reduction is yet to be realized. A key constraint has been the recent conduct of macroeconomics, particularly fiscal and monetary policies. This has led to rising inflation and decline in real incomes. National economic management became a Herculean task as the economy has to contend with volatility of revenue and expenditure. The widespread lack of fiscal discipline was further exacerbated by poor co-ordination of fiscal policy among the three tiers of government. Also, there is a weak revenue base arising from high-marginal tax rate with very narrow tax base, resulting in low tax compliance. As a result of these and other factors, serious macroeconomic imbalances have emerged in Nigeria. A review of these macroeconomic indices shows that inflation has accelerated to double- digit levels in 2000 and 2001. It increased from 6.94 to 18.87,respectively. This double-digit inflation continued up to 2005, and decreased to single digit in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, the inflation rate reverted to double digit (11.58) and continued to increase, and in 2010, it was 13.72%(International Monetary Fund [IMF], 2011). Unemployment is a major political and economic issue in most countries. In Nigeria, the years of corruption, civil war, military rule, and mismanagement have hindered economic growth of the country.
    Redirection of public spending fro subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment; however, the government spending on infrastructure in Nigeria seems to be a waste of scarce resources
    and to the detriment of the taxpayers because the growth in the economy does not physically depict infrastructural development. For example, Nigeria
    has failed in producing electricity nationwide. Food is costly. Drinkable water is scarce in many areasof the country. Moreover, the wellness statistics, such as poverty rates, are high.
    Privatization of State owned Enterprise: In 1986, the inefficiency of state owned
    enterprises became the launching pad of a global programme – Structural
    Adjustment Programme (SAP) with the main objective of ensuring efficient and
    effective resource allocation and utilization in Nigeria. Privatization was
    then adopted to achieve this objective and formed an integral part of the SAP.
    A positive effect of privatization in Nigeria, is the increase in the number
    of companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange by privatizing through
    public offering and the attendant increments in public participation in
    capital market activities. It is important to note that the Capital Market plays a
    significant role and serves as a facilitator and stimulant for socioeconomic growth and
    development through the mobilization of long-term funds.
    Property Right for the informal Sector: In a 2014 report monitoring street vending, WIEGO suggested urban planners and local economic development strategists study the carrying capacity of areas regularly used by informal workers and deliver the urban
    infrastructure necessary to support the informal economy, including running water and toilets, street lights and regular electricity, and adequate shelter and storage facilities.That study also called for basic legal rights and protections for informal workers, such as appropriate licensing and permit practices.
    Liberalization of Inward Foreign Investment: Nigeria has been attracting strong inflows from American companies, including giants like Uber, and Facebook, as well as Emergent Payments, and Meltwater Group. China has also been investing considerably in the country, mainly in the textile, automotive and aerospace industries.
    Trade Liberalization: The study carried out to examine the effects trade liberalisation will have on poverty in Nigeria using a Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Model to analyse this issue has shown that the positively affected sectors are capital intensive therefore capital income improves over time while land and labour income reduce. This has positive implications for urban households and negative for rural households due to the dependence of the later on mostly land and labour income. As a result, urban poverty decreases in the short and long run while rural poverty increases in both periods. For trade liberalization to have a pro-poor effect, policies to improve the agricultural sector will have to be implemented before or concurrently with it. In this way the rural areas which obtain most of their income from this sector will respond more positively to trade liberalization.

  53. Avatar OKOYECHUKWU CHIOMA AUGUSTINA says:

    NAME: OKOYECHUKWU CHIOMA AUGUSTINA
    REG NO: 2017/244837
    DEPT: ECONOMICS EDUCATION
    EMAIL: augustinachioma5@gmail.com

    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS

    When economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin-American countries. The ten policies included:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.
    Nigeria embarked on macroeconomic reforms under then finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala aimed at stabilizing the macroeconomic environment and improving social in-dicators and general economic performance. The focus of the reforms was on privatization, budget monitoring and, crucially, investment in education and health under the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). As part of the NEEDS pol-icy and to reduce volatility in public finances, Nigeria adopted an oil price-based fiscal rule (OPFT) that used the long-run (10 year) average oil price to set government budgets and targets for spending. Based on the rule, the government would set aside some excess revenues from oil in the form of a savings account called the Excess Crude Oil Account (ECA) headquartered at the central bank. The fiscal rule, which was institutionalized in national law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act signed in 2007, linked savings to fiscal discipline around government spending, aiming for a fiscal deficit of 3 percent of GDP. The policy was successful both in building fiscal discipline and helping Nigeria weather shocks like the financial crisis of 2008-2010 when oil prices fell from over $140 to $40 per barrel.
    Reforms also targeted sectors that were large drains on public finances for privatization in the telecommunications sector, the downstream petroleum sector and the power sector, to name a few, with varying degrees of success. So, the Washington Consensus applicable in Nigeria if executed properly.

  54. Avatar Okoye Obinna says:

    OKOYE OBINNA CHIDIEBERE
    2014/191864
    ECONOMICS

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.

    The policy recommendations could have been a good means of bringing about a great turn around for Nigeria, but the huge flaws and incompetence of the Government has led to her stagnation. There is poor implementation and application of these policies as a result of poor leadership and incompetence of the body responsible for discharging these policies. The Nigeria Government is amongst others, characterized by Corruption, political instability, and fiscal irresponsibility. Our Government is characterized by self ambitious and greedy leaders who misappropriate and embezzles funds. Fiscal discipline would only be a “dream”, as the Government keeps spending (unnecessarily) above her “revenue ” and end up in debt. Unaccountability has become their identity.
    We find favouritism and inequality play out explicitly, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. The Nigeria Government obviously do not have the interest of her citizens at heart, and therefore Could not have fully Implemented these reforms.

    Also, political instability also contribute to the inability of the policies to be properly implemented because a new government can come into power and change the policies of the previous government. The present government can kick start the implementation of a policy reforms and be abandoned by the next government when it’s effect has not started it’s work in the economy thereby making the Economy miss out from such reform polices like the Washington Consensus.

    Among many other problems, to solve the problems of poor policy implementation and the problems of Nigeria as a whole, there should be a presence of a stable, transparent, accountable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies was an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms.

  55. Avatar Asogwa Arinze Godwin says:

    Name: ASOGWA Arinze GODWIN
    Reg no: 2016/235173
    Department: Economics

    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.

    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued (see Origins of policy agenda and Broad sense below) that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.

    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.
    Implications of Washington Consensus
    1. Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    2. IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    3. Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    In defence of the Washington consensus
    1. The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits.
    It’s always easy to criticise when things go wrong. When 2. South East Asian economies were in great difficulties in the 1990s, it is likely that any policies would be unpopular. When you have a crisis there tends to be no easy way out.
    3. The problems of the EU are related to difficulties of managing a single currency. A return to competitive exchange rates would help the crisis to be overcome more easily.
    4. The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for targeted economic diversification; some developing economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries. But, even this depends on how it is implemented. If African countries, tried to use tariffs to develop a motor industry, it would probably lead to government failure because the infrastructure isn’t there to support a new motor industry. However, if there was some support to develop primary product processing within the country, it is more likely to be successful. With privatisation it depends on what you privatise. In the UK, the privatisation of BT was relatively uncontroversial, but the privatisation of British rail was much more controversial. The difference here is that railways are a natural monopoly and have social benefits.
    5. An important point is that an economic policy may have sound justification, but it might not be universally applicable, e.g. free trade. Free trade can tend to give greater benefit to developed economies than developing. But, at the same time, developing countries would benefit if the developed world (EU and US) actually cut agricultural tariffs.
    In Conclusion the Washington consensus has diverged somewhat from the original intention of John Williamson. Despite the failings of the free market, there is still merit in considering each of the 10 principles. However, there needs to be greater discrimination and less blanket implementation. The privatisation of state owned car industry may be good, but water supplies may not. Perhaps the most interesting development is the rise of the Chinese and Indian economies. In particular, Chinese investment is playing a considerable role in enabling economic development within developing economies. The Washington consensus is partly tied to the strength of the US economy. But, the US economy is likely to decline in relative terms. Perhaps in a few decades, we will be talking about the ‘Chinese consensus’ – whatever that may turn out to be.

  56. Avatar Francis Chibuezem David says:

    Francis Chibuezem David
    2017/241445
    francischibuezem247@gmail.com
    The washington consensus is a very good set of reforms or recommendation that could build up and speed up the development of most developing countries if they had good governance.
    The washington consensus took time to settle the financial and even infrastructural problems of developing countries with very good solutions, but this is not enough. Using Nigeria as an example, fiscal discipline has been partially followed to combat deficit, but that has not exactly stopped us from running into a recession. Just like this policy, many others have been practiced but yet without a substantial result.
    So can these policy reforms help Nigeria? Yes it can, but Has it helped Nigeria? No it hasn’t. Because if it has, Nigeria would have been far better off than than where they are now. Now the question is Why is this so? What is really Nigeria’s problem? In a statement, I’ll call bad governance. This single statement is really a wide one but I’ll explain using the arms of government (Executive, Legislature, Judiciary)
    The executive arm of government has the responsibility of implementing laws and enforcing these laws but corrupt officials have chosen to rather bend the laws to suit their taste and selfish desires, thereby causing the nation to suffer because they want what’s best for themselves alone. No Nation can make progress with such misconduct.
    The legislative arm is in charge of law and policy making, infact they are the ones meant to add those policy reforms into the country’s policy but policies get enacted through lobbying, tribalistic and religious sentiments and other wrong reasons different from the interest of the nation and her people.
    The Judiciary who is in charge of interpreting the law and sanctioning offenders are now infiltrated by bribery and corruption where offenders and law breakers have their way as long as they have some money to give and this is not meant to be.
    In summary the washington consensus is a very good set of policy reforms majorly for financial and infrastructural restructure, but Nigeria needs far more than that, a good government will be starting point for this country.

  57. Avatar Mmadu Joy Ukamaka says:

    Name: Mmadu Joy Ukamaka
    Reg no: 2017/
    Dept: Economics
    Email: joymmadu5@gmail.com

    From my observation the prescriptions of the Washington’s Consensus has been able to help Nigeria in some aspects which they have inculcated what was prescribed but even at that due to the corrupt nature of the country most of the prescriptions were not able to be implemented and this has contributed to our state of underdevelopment.
    However, starting with the Fiscal discipline which has to do with the wise spending of the government, Nigeria has failed to embrace discipline in the government expenditure
    Nigeria’s potential for growth and poverty reduction is yet to be realized. A key constraint has been the recent conduct of macroeconomics, particularly fiscal and monetary policies. This has led to rising inflation and decline in real incomes. National economic management became a Herculean task as the economy has to contend with volatility of revenue and expenditure. The widespread lack of fiscal discipline was further exacerbated by poor co-ordination of fiscal policy among the three tiers of government. Also, there is a weak revenue base arising from high-marginal tax rate with very narrow tax base, resulting in low tax compliance. As a result of these and other factors, serious macroeconomic imbalances have emerged in Nigeria. A review of these macroeconomic indices shows that inflation has accelerated to double- digit levels in 2000 and 2001. It increased from 6.94 to 18.87,respectively. This double-digit inflation continued up to 2005, and decreased to single digit in 2006 and 2007. In 2008, the inflation rate reverted to double digit (11.58) and continued to increase, and in 2010, it was 13.72%(International Monetary Fund [IMF], 2011). Unemployment is a major political and economic issue in most countries. In Nigeria, the years of corruption, civil war, military rule, and mismanagement have hindered economic growth of the country.
    Redirection of public spending fro subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment; however, the government spending on infrastructure in Nigeria seems to be a waste of scarce resources
    and to the detriment of the taxpayers because the growth in the economy does not physically depict infrastructural development. For example, Nigeria
    has failed in producing electricity nationwide. Food is costly. Drinkable water is scarce in many areasof the country. Moreover, the wellness statistics, such as poverty rates, are high.
    Privatization of State owned Enterprise: In 1986, the inefficiency of state owned
    enterprises became the launching pad of a global programme – Structural
    Adjustment Programme (SAP) with the main objective of ensuring efficient and
    effective resource allocation and utilization in Nigeria. Privatization was
    then adopted to achieve this objective and formed an integral part of the SAP.
    A positive effect of privatization in Nigeria, is the increase in the number
    of companies listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange by privatizing through
    public offering and the attendant increments in public participation in
    capital market activities. It is important to note that the Capital Market plays a
    significant role and serves as a facilitator and stimulant for socioeconomic growth and
    development through the mobilization of long-term funds.
    Property Right for the informal Sector: In a 2014 report monitoring street vending, WIEGO suggested urban planners and local economic development strategists study the carrying capacity of areas regularly used by informal workers and deliver the urban
    infrastructure necessary to support the informal economy, including running water and toilets, street lights and regular electricity, and adequate shelter and storage facilities.That study also called for basic legal rights and protections for informal workers, such as appropriate licensing and permit practices.
    Liberalization of Inward Foreign Investment: Nigeria has been attracting strong inflows from American companies, including giants like Uber, and Facebook, as well as Emergent Payments, and Meltwater Group. China has also been investing considerably in the country, mainly in the textile, automotive and aerospace industries.
    Trade Liberalization: The study carried out to examine the effects trade liberalisation will have on poverty in Nigeria using a Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Model to analyse this issue has shown that the positively affected sectors are capital intensive therefore capital income improves over time while land and labour income reduce. This has positive implications for urban households and negative for rural households due to the dependence of the later on mostly land and labour income. As a result, urban poverty decreases in the short and long run while rural poverty increases in both periods. For trade liberalization to have a pro-poor effect, policies to improve the agricultural sector will have to be implemented before or concurrently with it. In this way the rural areas which obtain most of their income from this sector will respond more positively to trade liberalization.

  58. Avatar Ifetayo Kosi Anwoluwa says:

    Name: Ifetayo Kosi Anwoluwa
    Reg no: 2017/249343
    Department: Economics
    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries.
    Some implications of the Washington consensus.
    1. Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA reduce tariff barriers.
    2. IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    3. Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.
    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.
    3. The Chinese approach. An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.
    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation).

  59. Avatar Ugochukwu Onyinyechi Marycynthia says:

    Name: Ugochukwu Onyinyechi Marycynthia
    Reg no: 2017/249580
    Department: Economics
    The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C.Williamson used the term to summarize commonly shared themes among policy advice by Washington-based institutions at the time, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, which were believed to be necessary for the recovery of countries in Latin America from the economic and financial crises of the 1980s.
    The consensus as originally stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP
    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment
    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms
    5. Competitive exchange rates
    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment
    8. Privatization of state enterprises;
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions.
    10. Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.

    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations. Low government borrowing. fundamentalism or neoliberalism). Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.

  60. Avatar Izuchukwu Dominic Chinedu says:

    Izuchukwu Dominic Chinedu
    2017/249522
    The Washington Consensus, a term coined by John Williamson, identified a set of policy reforms which are popular among policymakers in the Washington DC. These policies, though they sound pleasant, didn’t take into consideration the peculiarities of the developing nations for whom they were made. These people are not in our shoes, they prepared the policies based on what they think will solve the problem of under development in Africa, Asia and Latin America (if at all their intentions were genuine)
    Although, some of these policies(for example property right protection, liberalization of FDI, fiscal discipline, tax reforms) when properly implemented and managed yield the desired results. Some (like trade liberalization and privatization) on the other hand need some modifications.
    I strongly believe that some of the policies in this Washington Consensus are part of our problem here in Nigeria.
    Trade liberalization for instance includes policy measures to increase trade openness and trade openness is usually consider as an increase in the size of a country’s trade sector in relation to total output. This trade liberalization is in sharp contrast with the infant industry argument. The infant industry argument is an economic rationale for trade protectionism. The core of the argument is that infant industries often do not have the economies of scale that their older competitors from other countries may have and thus need to be protected until they can attain similar economies of scale. Trade protectionism has been a useful tool to the developed nations.
    The United States of America practiced protectionism in the 19th century and it worked perfectly well for them. Coming to 20th century, the same United States of America and their policymakers adviced us to embrace trade liberalization. This alone is enough to show that there is something fishy about that consensus.
    Nigerian government in August, 2019 closed her land border because of some reasons associated with smuggling of arms, importation of rice, transshipment etc. During this period, domestic producers of rice exploited their potential capacity to produce. If this should continue over a given period of time, domestic rice producers must have grown fit enough to feed the nation and have surplus for export.
    Partial Autarky is necessary if a nation must experience rapid growth in the industrial sector. Partial because no man is an island. No nation is self-sufficient and so there is a need for international trade but a regulated one.
    Again, privatization which is converting state owned enterprises to private hands is targeted to create efficiency. Nigeria had recorded some success in this aspect but in some cases, a total mess.
    In 2013, the Nigerian power sector was privatised. Immediately it became clear that privatization would be no quick fix of the problem. Just in the very first month after the handover, the sector recorded decline in the generation of power.
    Even the senate president Ahmed Lawan once said, ”I think the privatisation of the power sector has not worked. It has failed because the essence of privatization is to create efficiency”.
    In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP). These reforms were often prerequisites for financial assistance to indebted African countries during the global recession and debt crisis of the 1980s, when the external debt rose sharply to unsustainable levels.
    The story of how African countries got into a debt crisis that led to the introduction of structural adjustment programs is often told as follows: first, expansionary fiscal spending aimed at economic development spearheaded by newly independent African governments, struggling to recover from the ravages of European colonialism, increased government spending in the 1960s and 1970s. Governments also borrowed significantly to finance development expenditures over this time. Oil price shocks that significantly decreased the price of oil in 1980s led to declines in export revenue for many governments. This decline in export revenue, along with a collapse in world prices of primary agricultural commodities, which made up 88 percent of Africa’s exports, resulted in a shortfall in revenue that put enormous pressure on governments’ finances.
    They know full well these problems and the only way they think they can help us is by giving us policies. When they see that this consensus is not working, why not find another way to help a country like Nigeria that specializes in exporting primary goods to add value to these raw materials and make much out of it.
    I think it’s high time we learn our lessons, we shouldn’t blindly accept and implement everything in that consensus. We need to modify them in a way that will help our economy grow.

  61. Avatar Agba Chidiebere maryann(2017/249474) says:

    The Washington consensus was a set of 10 market oriented policies that were popular among Washington based policy institutions. In Africa, the Washington consensus inspired market based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) and international monetary funds(IMF) under SAP as prerequisites to financial assistance.
    In Africa like in Nigeria, these policies failed to improve the socioeconomic conditions due to lack of accountability, corruption, political incompetence, etc along with poor policies programs for it to be implemented.
    These policies was a help but the implementation of these policies were hard cause of the reduction in government spendings, no agricultural subsidies and no pro-poor programs which caused an increase in the country’s major problems such as unemployment, corruption, sociopolitical unrest etc.
    The Washington consensus policies was a good for Nigeria but we lacked the state capacity to implement them.

  62. Avatar Okwuchie Amos says:

    Name: Okwuchie Amos
    Reg. no: 2017/249562
    Dept: Economics
    Email: okwuchieamos@gmail.com

    EFFECT OF WASHINGTON CONCENSUS IN NIGERIA.

    Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for African farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments.

    SUMMARY
    In sum, we can agree that the prescription of the Washington consensus would have been the best reform that will bring the development that is sought after by the developing nation.
    But our problem lies on the nature of government and her leadership style.
    First, bad leadership. The arrogant and insensitive leaders that we have have made it difficult for us to achieve that which the concensus aimed at.
    Again, corruption. A corrupt nation hardly achieve it’s goal because instead of pursuing that which can give them what they need, they keep embezzling and looting money that is meant to implement certain government policy.
    On the other hand, l don’t care attitude of followers. Most of the citizens don’t contribute to the issue in the society. They live as if it doesn’t concern them. This makes the nation to keep going back because no tangible opinion is made to move it forward by her citizens.

    Mr President, l think this prescribed policy would have helped in great way but the aforementioned problem is holding us back.
    Thank you!

  63. NAME: OKOLI MARYANN AMAUCHE
    REG NO: 2017/243272
    DEPT: ECONOMICS EDUCATION
    EMAIL: maryannokoli14@gmail.com

    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS

    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.
    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.
    The widespread adoption by governments of the Washington Consensus was to a large degree a reaction to the macroeconomic crisis that hit much of Latin America, and some other developing regions, during the 1980s. The crisis had multiple origins: the drastic rise in the price of imported oil following the emergence of OPEC, mounting levels of external debt, the rise in US (and hence international) interest rates, and—consequent to the foregoing problems—loss of access to additional foreign credit. The import-substitution policies that had been pursued by many developing country governments in Latin America and elsewhere for several decades had left their economies ill-equipped to expand exports at all quickly to pay for the additional cost of imported oil (by contrast, many countries in East Asia, which had followed more export-oriented strategies, found it comparatively easy to expand exports still further, and as such managed to accommodate the external shocks with much less economic and social disruption). Unable either to expand external borrowing further or to ramp up export earnings easily, many Latin American countries faced no obvious sustainable alternatives to reducing overall domestic demand via greater fiscal discipline, while in parallel adopting policies to reduce protectionism and increase their economies’ export orientation.
    CRITICISM:
    As of the 2000s, several Latin American countries were led by socialist or other left wing governments, some of which—including Argentina and Venezuela—have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus policies. Other Latin American countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, in practice adopted the bulk of the policies included in Williamson’s list, even though they criticized the market fundamentalism that these are often associated with.

    General criticism of the economics of the consensus is now more widely established, such as that outlined by US scholar Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, in his paper Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion?
    As Williamson has pointed out, the term has come to be used in a broader sense to its original intention, as a synonym for market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism. In this broader sense, Williamson states, it has been criticized by people such as George Soros and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz. The Washington Consensus is also criticized by others such as some Latin American politicians and heterodox economists such as Erik Reinert. The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and the influence of the United States, and globalization more broadly, on countries’ national sovereignty. Some US economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, have challenged what are sometimes described as the ‘fundamentalist’ policies of the IMF and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a ‘one size fits all’ treatment of individual economies. According to Stiglitz the treatment suggested by the IMF is too simple: one dose, and fast—stabilize, liberalize and privatize, without prioritizing or watching for side effects.Besides the excessive belief in market fundamentalism and international economic institutions in attributing the failure of the Washington consensus, Stiglitz provided a further explanation about why it failed. In his article “The Post Washington Consensus Consensus”, he claims that the Washington consensus policies failed to efficiently handle the economic structures within developing countries. The cases of East Asian countries such as Korea and Taiwan are known as a success story in which their remarkable economic growth was attributed to a larger role of the government by undertaking industrial policies and increasing domestic savings within their territory. From the cases, the role for government was proven to be critical at the beginning stage of the dynamic process of development, at least until the markets by themselves can produce efficient outcomes.

  64. Avatar Nweke Ngozi Veronica 2017/242946 says:

    The Washington consensus formulated in 1989 by John Williamson has helped Nigerian economy and also not helped the economic Nigeria in other ways . Free trade policy under the consensus, is not encouraging for infant firms in the country as this will cause them to leave the market quickly due to competition across borders. As to the privatisation of government owned business, this has helped the economy so far . This is seen the privatisation of the power supply industry in Nigeria, I would say the sector has done better in private hands than in the hands of the government. It promoted quality and reliability. Nigeria has no where achieved low government borrowing under the Washington consensus. Year in year out our debts continue to rise due to increased expenditure. And we can’t borrow less because then this will affect the productivity of the economy. Most of the points under the consensus I would say it will take a while for the economy to achieve those .

  65. Avatar EZEH JUDE OBIOMA says:

    Ezeh Jude Obioma
    2017/249504
    Economics major
    judeobioma07@gmail.com

    The Washington Concesus and its effect on Nigeria.
    The term “Washington Consensus” was coined by an economist John Williamson in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The socioeconomic effect of these policies remains widely debated to this day. Most early literature found that they failed to improve socioeconomic conditions in African countries for several reasons due to, among others, the failure to account for political economy within countries, and the politics of conditionality and reforms that did not adequately emphasize the role of local ownership in domestic economic policy.
    Research shows that following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, the countries that adopted the reforms experienced notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post-2000 period.
    In my own point of view, I believe that the Washington consensus can effectively work in a country that has a stable government and a sociopolitical environment, as well as concentrating on pro-poor policies which is an important factor for the successful implementation of such reforms. But the problem with most developing countries especially Nigeria, is the high level of corruption and poor implementation of several economic reforms and policies that have been formulated in the past by different administrations.
    Another problem militating against the effective implementation of these reforms is the issue of political instability, when a new government comes into power, the policies and programmes of the former administration will be scrambled and a set of new ones will be formulated, thereby slowing down the economic development of Nigeria.

  66. Avatar Njoku Theddeus o says:

    Njoku Theddeus o
    2017/241028
    Education Eco

    The debate on economic policy has developed significantly in the past decade. The so-called Washington Consensus, which dictated most of the solutions proposed by international financial organizations, began to be questioned when a large number of emerging economies reduced their reliance on multilateral debt. The crisis of 2008 and 2009 accelerated the process of reflection on the prescriptive nature of the policy proposals advocated by monetarists, with their insistence on a uniform view as if all situations were alike. This has been termed ideology, and the ideology associated with the Washington Consensus has failed even in its methodological principles, as clearly demonstrated by the internal debate within organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This article reviews the various internal arguments of the international financial organizations, and provides a critique of preconstructed models involving a return to Keynesian economics. It ends with an optimistic view of the broadening and democratization of the debate on economic policies, termed the new post-Washington Consensus.

  67. Avatar Udeh Rita Ezinne says:

    Udeh Rita Ezinne
    2017/249578

    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    With the onset of a debt crisis in the developing world during the early 1980s, the major Western powers, and the United States in particular, decided that both the World Bank and the IMF should play a significant role in the management of that debt and in global development policy more broadly.
    In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.

  68. Avatar Okoye Felix Onyekachi says:

    Okoye Felix Onyekachi
    2017/241446
    Felix.okoye.241447@unn.edu.ng

    The Washington consensus is a set of policy prescriptions put forward by the Washington-based financial institutions and were recommended for the less-developed countries. This set of policies as believed by the proponents would help transform the economic outlook of most of the developing countries and prepare them for take-off into self-sustaining growth.
    Sadly and despite much of the hype which accompanied this policies at the time they were formulated in the late eighties and early nineties, this set of policies has not yielded the expected result in some developing countries especially Nigeria. The arguments below could explain why this set of policies has not yielded positive result in Nigeria :
    First, Nigeria’s political economy is bedevilled by pervasive corruption. This inherent corruption in Nigeria’s political system has been a great obstacle to achieving any developmental project carried out by the government in Nigeria. For example the first among the set of policies that constitute the Washington consensus advocates for fiscal policy discipline with avoidance of large fiscal deficit relative to GDP. But in Nigeria, this rule has been violated with reckless abandon as funds which are supposed to be invested in the critical sectors of the economy such as the railways, education etc often end up not being accounted for. The country’s debt profile over the years has been piling up and sadly this borrowed funds end up being looted.
    Second, these neo-liberal policies which centers on trade liberalisation, market-oriented economy and privatisation might have negatively affected Nigeria’s economy. This is because, apart from Nigeria, a lot of economies which applied the IMF and World Bank prescriptions experienced retarded growth. For instance, a study carried out by Nwafor and Ononibu (2018) shows that Sub-saharan African countries experienced increasing unemployment rates, retarded GDP growth rate, declining exports, declining agricultural output, declining investment in the 1980’s and 1990’s after adopting the World Bank and IMF policies. Within this period also, Africa’s quota to world export declined significantly. In comparison, some countries in the East Asia and Pacific which did not adopt this policies fared much better. This drawbacks could have resulted from lack of managerial expertise on the part of the implementing countries nonetheless.

  69. I believe the prescribed policy reforms has not helped Nigeria and will not help Nigeria unless the fundamental problem of Nigeria which is the problem of corruption is dealt with. A good number of the reforms has been applied to Nigeria but still its effect of development is not seen, a good number of state owned companies have been privatized , trade liberalization, tax reforms etc have all been carried out but Nigeria is getting worse, public expenditure priorities have been alleged to target the poor but this remains theoretical, eradication of corruption is what will help to bring development to Nigeria.

  70. Avatar Nnadi Chinwe Monica says:

    Name: Nnadi Chinwe Monica
    2Reg. No. : 2017/241532
    Blog: Chiebest.blogspot.com
    E-mail: chinwe.nnadi.241532@unn.edu.ng
    Dept: Education Economics

    Washington Consensus: has it helped Nigeria? And what is the problem of Nigeria?

    My view:

    The policy of Washington Consensus has helped Nigeria as a developing country but the impact hasn’t been so much felt due to incompetence of the implementing body and the flauntuation in the political system where by every regime will not continue with the existing project(s) but starting a new one which might not be completed till the end of the regime.
    The major problem of Nigeria is corruption, incompetency and political flauntuation.

  71. Avatar Okoye Obinna says:

    NAME: OKOYE OBINNA CHIDIEBERE
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS
    REG NO: 2014/191864

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.

    The policy recommendations could have been a good means of bringing about a great turn around for Nigeria, but the huge flaws and incompetence of the Government has led to her stagnation. There is poor implementation and application of these policies as a result of poor leadership and incompetence of the body responsible for discharging these policies. The Nigeria Government is amongst others, characterized by Corruption, political instability, and fiscal irresponsibility. Our Government is characterized by self ambitious and greedy leaders who misappropriate and embezzles funds. Fiscal discipline would only be a “dream”, as the Government keeps spending (unnecessarily) above her “revenue ” and end up in debt. Unaccountability has become their identity.
    We find favouritism and inequality play out explicitly, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. The Nigeria Government obviously do not have the interest of her citizens at heart, and therefore Could not have fully Implemented these reforms.

    Also, political instability also contribute to the inability of the policies to be properly implemented because a new government can come into power and change the policies of the previous government. The present government can kick start the implementation of a policy reforms and be abandoned by the next government when it’s effect has not started it’s work in the economy thereby making the Economy miss out from such reform polices like the Washington Consensus.

    Among many other problems, to solve the problems of poor policy implementation and the problems of Nigeria as a whole, there should be a presence of a stable, transparent, accountable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies was an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms.

  72. Avatar Umelo Chidera Nicole says:

    NAME: UMELO CHIDERA NICOLE
    REGISTERATION NUMBER: 2017/249589
    MAIL: nicoleumelo@gmail.com
    Personally, I believe the Washington consensus failed because it was no adapted for use in developing countries. it was made to fit into the economic system of latin America, and not that of developing countries. however, Nigeria still lacks in development due to problems including:
    1. corruption
    2. poor governance
    3. illiteracy
    4. inability to fashion models for Nigeria itself
    5. political instability

  73. Avatar Omada Dorathy Amarachukwu says:

    Name: Omada Dorathy Amarachukwu
    Reg No: 2017/ 243131
    Department: Economics Education
    300 Level
    dorathyamarachi.blogpost.com
    amarachidora8@gmail.com

    The Washimgton consensus emerged in the early 1980s as a dramatic right-wing reaction against the perceived weaknesses of the pre-WC developmentalist consensus. Rhetorically, the WC involved a heavy attachment to a universalist Neo-liberal ideology, with absolute commitment to the free market and the presumption of the state as a source of both inefficiency and corruption, not least through rent-seeking . At the level of scholarship, the WC suppressed the old development economics as a separate and respected field and instead imposed rigid adherence to the deductive and formal methods of neoclassical economics that were thought to be equally and directly applicable for analysis of the problems of poor countries. The WC comprised four elements. First is the hegemony of modern neoclassical theory within development economics. In general, the neoclassical theory assumes that the market is efficient and the state is inefficient. It naturally follows from this assumption that the market rather than the state should address such economic problems of development as industrial growth, international competitiveness and employ￾ment creation. Unquestioned belief in the neoclassical theory also leads to the assumption that capital mobility and the relentless advance of “globalization” is good for the world economy and all individual economies.
    Although these policies offer the possibility of rapid growth by attracting foreign capital, this can be achieved only if domestic policies conform to the interests of the (financial) markets—otherwise capital will be driven elsewhere. Finally, given the priority attached to monetary policies over fiscal policies, interest rates became the most important economic policy tool. It was believed that “correct” interest rates could deliver balance of payments equilibrium, low inflation, sustainable levels of consumption and investment, improved allocation of resources and, therefore, high long-run growth rates.
    Second, for the pre-WC, the main reason why poor countries remain poor is their lack of capital (machines, infrastructure and money), and development is a process of systemic transformation through modernization and industrialization, driven by domestic consumption and domestically-financed capital accumulation. In contrast, in view of the WC, countries are poor because of misconceived state intervention corruption, inefficiency and misguided economic incentives. According to WC, development is the inevitable outcome of a set of “appropriate” incentives and neoclassical economic policies, including fiscal restraint, privatization, the abolition of government intervention in prices, labour market “flexibility”, and trade, financial, and capital account liberalization. There is little specification of what the end state would look like but, presumably, all countries would eventually approach an idealized version of the United States.Third, the WC emphasis on the virtues of the market was supported by the neo-Austrianism associated with Friedrich von Hayek and the general equilibrium theory of mainstream economics.. Despite the libertarian streak associated with these theories, even the most ardent supporter of freedom of the individual in general, and through the market in particular, agrees that these freedoms can be guaranteed only through state provision of, and coercion for, a core set of functions and institutions. These range from fiscal and monetary policies to law and order and property rights, and includes military intervention to secure the “market economy” when this becomes necessary. Not surprisingly, then, WC policies are often associated with authoritarianism, while the WC declarations of support for political democracy are hedged and conditional in practice. While the WC claimed to be leaving as much as possible to the market, in practice it encouraged state intervention on a discretionary basis, and directed to systematic promotion of a globalized and heavily financialized capitalism.
    Fourth, under the WC the World Bank set the agenda for the study of development, with the Bank and the IMF imposing the standards of orthodoxy within development economics, and enforcing the relevant policies through conditionalities imposed on poor countries facing balance of payments, fiscal or It is apparent that this combination of policies, regulations and incentives is designed to shift the economic role of state institutions away from direct intervention in the allocation of resources, and transfer to the (financial) markets control over the levels of investment and consumption, the allocation of investment funds, the composition of output and employment, and the selection of competitive advantages. In these circumstances, poverty alleviation cannot be a priority except only rhetorically and, even then, distributive aspirations were tempered by “recognition” of their alleged inefficiency-generating implications. Significantly, with the WC, states lost much of their capacity to select, implement and monitor distributive and welfare policies because of legislative changes, departmental reorganizations, salary reductions and large-scale redundancies. Given these pressures, the improvement of the lot of the poor under the WC would depend upon the vicissitudes of the trickle-down process.
    The conditionalities through which WC policies were imposed upon poor and post Socialist countries went far beyond the core monetary and fiscal macroeconomic policies (in the case of the IMF) and the sector-specific, micro and financial policies (for the World Bank) that were prevalent in the pre-WC period. An expanding set of policy areas were claimed by the IFIs in the 1980s, including pricing policy, ownership of productive and financial enterprises, market structures and regulation, public sector management and political and economic governance. The widening scope of policy condi￾tionality was justified by the need to avoid moral hazard and adverse selection, and by the hope of securing improved governance, which would demonstrate public sector commitment to the new policy agenda. At a further remove, the endogenous growth literature suggested that economic convergence was not inevitable, as was implied by the Solow model. Rather, convergence was conditional on “good policies” and sound investment decisions which could be secured only by market-friendly Governments. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the hegemony of the WC came under attack both in the academia and in the emerging social movements, with three (not necessarily complementary) criticisms pushed to the fore. The first was inspired by the notion of the developmental state, huhthought to apply to the successful East Asian newly industrializing economies (NIEs), with Japan as the precursor, followed by the four “tigers” (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Taiwan Province of China) in the 1960s and 1970s, followed, in turn, by China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam. In all these cases, it was found that the state had violated the main tenets of the WC through long-term planning, protectionism, directed finance and other departures from the free market. The second approach focused on the notion of “adjustment with a human face.” Irrespective of the merits of WC in bringing stability and growth, the adverse impact of the WC policies on those in, or on the borders of, poverty was highlighted by a growing literature beginning with Cornia, They documented the human costs of the crisis, showed that poverty was rising in the “adjusting” countries, and demonstrated the tendency of the adjustment costs to fall on the most vulnerable. The WC stood accused of being at least oblivious to the disproportionate burden on the poor arising from the pro￾cesses of adjustment and stabilization In its defence, the World Bank deployed questionable appeals to the empirical evidence, selective reference to the occasional if invariably temporary star performers, and the argument that the problem was not with the policies but with their insufficient implementation, opening the way to subsequent discourses around corruption, good governance and the like, invariably shifting the blame to the underperforming countries themselves. This effort culminated in the publication of a major report on the East Asian newly industrialized countries arguing that government intervention had been exten￾sive but had only succeeded because it had been along the lines of what the market would have done had it been working perfectly, and that the East Asian experience, in any case, was not replicable elsewhere. These implausible claims were received with a combination of astonishment and derision, and the Bank’s report was soon forgotten .
    The third criticism of the WC concerns the interface between economics and politics. The closely re￾lated transitions to neoliberal economic policies and to political democracy in several countries in the South and in Eastern Europe have introduced a potentially severe tension because of the deployment of democratic and supposedly inclusive political systems to enforce exclusionary economic policies. The neoliberal economic policies demand a state hostile to the majority, even though a democratic state should be responsive tomajority pressures.
    CONCLUSION
    The prescribed policy reforms has not helped Nigeria because Nigeria as a country lacks such economic development like industrial growth, internal competitives and employment creation. Nigeria as a country lacks enough funding requirement and capital such as machines, infrastructure and money and that Nigeria remaining to be undeveloped is due to the miscomcerned state intervention, corruption, inefficiency and misguided economic incentives.

  74. Avatar MADUKO MAUREEN ADAEZE says:

    MADUKO MAUREEN ADAEZE
    2017/249049
    ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT

    The Washington consensus was originated by John Williamson in 1989 and the policies are as follows:
    1.Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2.Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.
    3.Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.
    4.Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5.Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.
    6.Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7.Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.
    8.The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.
    9.The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10.Development of property rights.

    The truth is, Nigeria’s problems are beyond the implementation of these policies. The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms plays a central role in successful policy performance. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies is an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. However, this is not the case with Nigeria. Most institutions are weak. Corruption exist even at the lowest level of governance. Tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the average Nigerian. All these problems, and innumerable others, have to be tackled before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually make significant impacts in Nigeria.

  75. Avatar Agholor Sozorchukwu Jason says:

    Name: Agholor Sozorchukwu Jason
    Reg No: 2017/243874
    Department: Economics
    Email: jasonagholor7@gmail.com

    Personally, i do not feel these policy reforms have really helped Nigeria. Lets look at the reform to promote foreign direct investment for example.
    Foreign direct investment (FDI) is the term that describes investment from one country into another country (normally by companies) that involves establishing operations or acquiring tangible assets, including stakes in other businesses. 
    When looking at FDI in Nigeria, an array of fundamental problems such as prolonged insecurity, a poor investment climate and a significant infrastructure deficit, still make the country appear highly risky to long-term investors.
    Nigeria appears risky to foreign investors for some reasons briefly discussed here.
    First, the country relies heavily on hydrocarbons for government revenue and foreign-exchange remains a fundamental weakness of the economy, which subjects it to boom and bust cycles. This lack of economic diversification is a major deterrent for investors and partly plays a role in the FDI inflow fluctuations tracked by the National Bureau of Statistics.
    Secondly, the prolonged state of insecurity in Nigeria is another major factor. It does little to attract foreign investors. The country continues to deal with series of violence in the middle belt, between herdsmen and communal farmers; threats of secession in the South-East; and insecurity in the Niger Delta and North-East. Very few foreign companies are willing to jeopardize the lives of their employees and assets in such a volatile and sometimes violent environment.
    Finally, the nation’s huge infrastructure deficit is another major factor that deters investment. The lack of stable power means manufacturers have to rely on expensive alternative energy sources, such as diesel generators.

  76. Avatar MADUKO MAUREEN ADAEZE says:

    The Washington consensus was originated by John Williamson in 1989 and they are as follows
    1.Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2.Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.
    3.Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.
    4.Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5.Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.
    6.Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7.Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.
    8.The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.
    9.The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10.Development of property rights.

    The truth is, Nigeria’s problems are beyond the implementation of these policies. The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms plays a central role in successful policy performance. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies is an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. However, this is not the case with Nigeria. Most institutions are weak. Corruption exist even at the lowest level of governance. Tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the average Nigerian. All these problems, and innumerable others, have to be tackled before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually make significant impacts in Nigeria.

  77. Avatar Assi kaetti Marian says:

    Name: Assi kaetti Marian
    Name: 2017/241454

    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations.

    The following are the 10 principles of the Washington Consensus. They include

    1. Low government borrowing. The avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive.
    5. Competitive exchange rates;
    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.)
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8. Privatization of state enterprises;
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10. Legal security for property rights

    Analysis on whether the policy implementations and reforms has been helpful in Nigeria.

    1) In the issue of privatization.
    The Privatisation of state controlled enterprise has helped increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels

    3) Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention

    The truth is, Nigeria’s problems are beyond the implementation of these policies. The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms plays a central role in successful policy performance. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies is an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. However, this is not the case with Nigeria. Most institutions are weak. Corruption exist even at the lowest level of governance. Tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the average Nigerian.

  78. Avatar UGWU PERPERTUA ODINAKA says:

    UGWU PERPERTUA ODINAKA
    2017/244848
    EDUCATION/ ECONOMICS
    everlastinggift9507@gmail.com
    ugwuodinakap.blogspot.com
    ECO 362

    THE EFFECTS OF THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS IN THE NIGERIAN LABOUR MARKET
    Deincentivizes Production: Trade liberalization makes the Nigerian economy dependent on imports to the point of absurdity. We import toothpicks and handkerchiefs. Because of this few venture capitalists are willing to take on the hard work of manufacturing goods moreso in a polity lacking infrastructural basics.
    Sensitivity to Exchange Rates: This is a direct result of trade liberalization. When an economy heavily depends on foreign imports then devaluation of its currency pushes inflation. This is less true of countries with a favorable balance of trade. The recent glut in oil prices has adversely affected Nigeria’s income and made the dollar scarce driving its price up. This spilled over into locally-made goods like food, drinks etc since Nigerians depend heavily on imports example phones. Of course, jobs were lost in the ensuing recession.
    Fiscal Discipline Hard to Enact: Fiscal deficits are almost impossible to avoid in Nigeria’s current administrative setup. All states with very few exceptions like Lagos rely heavily on the federal government to fund their economies. The bulk of funds are always wasted in recurrent expenditure. Not to mention a culture of corruption which makes it impossible.
    Skyrocket Inflation: Indeed indiscriminate subsidies are unwanted but the subsidies Nigerians enjoy are well-deserved given an inept govt. For instance, one would think the fuel subsidy is indiscriminate. It isn’t. That more or less is what keeps inflation in the country from skyrocketing. Unlike developed countries, Nigeria and other developing countries rely heavily on fuel for transport and power.
    Tax Reform Is Crucial to Nigeria’s Development: This is one of the few positives of the Washington consensus. The Nigerian government has gorged blindly on unstable petrodollars whilst ignoring the more reliable source of funds taxes are. This policy has shown remarkable success in Lagos and to lesser extent Edo and Ogun states which aggressively implemented it. Broad based tax reforms gave the government a wider, more stable pool of funds. In Lagos its success is such that the state can undertake huge projects like the Metroline Railway project to connect major towns by rail without needing FG funds.
    In my own opinion, some of the Washington Consensus prescriptions such as Tax reform helped Nigeria while many other Washington prescriptions such as liberalization, fiscal adjustment, left Nigeria in overdependence on imports and wastage of resources.

  79. Avatar IJE VORDA GOODNESS says:

    NAME: IJE VORDA GOODNESS
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS
    REG NO: 2017/249514

    The Washington consensus consists of ten prescriptions ranging from low government borrowing, redirection of public spending, tax reforms ( broadening tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rate), trade liberation, competitive exchange rate, privatization of state enterprises, deregulation of the economy to ease barriers to entry and exit etc. However development in developing countries has not being corresponded with this prescriptions.

    In Nigeria there’s has been widespread privatization of state owned enterprises but this has only further widened the gap between the rich and the poor as the people who are able to acquire them see it as a means to exploit the masses.
    High fiscal indiscipline has further dampened the effects of the Washington consensus prescriptions. Nigeria over the years has borrowed more and more money and has failed to use this loans and funds for what it’s meant for. The weak institutions in the country allows the mismanagement of funds and corruption that don’t let the country to develop.
    The prescription of trade liberation meant that the industries in developing countries remained agricultural because they cannot compete with their counterparts in developed economies.
    Hopefully with great fiscal discipline and stronger institutions Nigeria will experience greater economic growth that is in line with the Washington consensus.

  80. Avatar ONAH SOMTOCHUKWU KERIAN 2017/249566 says:

    KEY LESSONS FROM THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS REFORMS IN AFRICA\NIGERIA
    Economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin American countries and other developing countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment.
    The speed with which many of the reforms were carried out initially, especially domestic reforms like privatization of state-owned enterprises, without careful consideration of the environment of incomplete markets and the institutional challenges faced by African\ nigeria governments, affected the initial effectiveness of policy implementation and contributed to lower growth rates during the 1980 to 1999 reform period. The Washington Consensus framework contained some caveats that were subsequently lost in policy design, creating wedges between the theory of policy reform and the realities of implementation. It cautioned against capital account liberalization and, importantly, warned that privatization should occur with strict regulation only in competitive markets. They also advocated for pro-poor fiscal expenditures and advised against abolishing deregulation designed for safety or environmental reasons.
    In practice,nigeria governments seeking immediate debt relief were often under significant pressure to quickly meet IFI policy measures under debt conditionality. The weakening of state apparatuses essential in implementing effective reform further reduced the ability of African/nigeria governments to effectively regulate the pace of policy adoption, with sometimes detrimental consequences for their populations in the initial reform period.
    Finally, reforms should be a process of continuous reevaluation, adjustment, and recalibration over the reform period.
    THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS REFORMS AND SOCIOECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
    Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output but we see that reverse is the case.

  81. Avatar Egbo Chinemelum Chinonso says:

    EGBO CHINEMELUM CHINONSO
    2017/249493
    egboemecs@gmail.com

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organizations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.
    1. Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    5. Competitive exchange rates;
    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8. Privatization of state enterprises;
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10. Legal security for property rights.
    Implications of Washington Consensus
    Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialize in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.
    In essence, all these reforms will be helpful to Nigeria if well implemented, but because of corruption of the implementing body and ineffective policy implementation that there problems arising.

  82. NAME: OBUTE CHISOM HELLEN
    DEPT: ECONOMICS
    REG NO: 2017/249539
    EMAIL ADDRESS: hellytec4@gmail.com
    BLOGGERS ADDRESS; obutechisomhellen.blogspot.

    The Washington Consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries. In your opinion, do you think the prescribed policy reforms have really helped Nigeria or what is actually the problem with Nigeria?
    DEFINITION OF WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    The Washington Consensus basically replaced development, which meant growth and inclusiveness, and economic development with a new concept of adjustment. The adjustment programs of the WC (excuse me for the abbreviation) focused on stabilization of macroeconomic indicators without paying any attention to the needs and capacities of the developing countries or their poorer population.
    THIS PRESCRIBED POLICY REFORMS HAVE REALLY HELPED NIGERIA IN A WAY BUT IT AlSO CREATED MORE PROBLEMS.
    I would say that this reforms did constituted more problems to Nigeria with the following points below. In the course, to reduce poverty, more consistent and rapid economic growth is required. One of the most important drawbacks of the Washington Consensus was that, while it provided a good mixture of reforms to both stabilize the economy and encourage private sector activity, it did very little to help resolve structural and institutional constraints on growth.
    Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies.
    Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.
    Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)
    Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.
    The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)
    Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability.

  83. NAME: OBUTE CHISOM HELLEN
    DEPT: ECONOMICS
    REG NO: 2017/249539
    EMAIL ADDRESS: hellytec4@gmail.com
    BLOGGERS ADDRESS; obutechisomhellen.blogspot
    The Washington Consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries. In your opinion, do you think the prescribed policy reforms have really helped Nigeria or what is actually the problem with Nigeria?
    DEFINITION OF WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    The Washington Consensus basically replaced development, which meant growth and inclusiveness, and economic development with a new concept of adjustment. The adjustment programs of the WC (excuse me for the abbreviation) focused on stabilization of macroeconomic indicators without paying any attention to the needs and capacities of the developing countries or their poorer population.
    THIS PRESCRIBED POLICY REFORMS HAVE REALLY HELPED NIGERIA IN A WAY BUT IT AlSO CREATED MORE PROBLEMS.
    I would say that this reforms did constituted more problems to Nigeria with the following points below.
    In the course, to reduce poverty, more consistent and rapid economic growth is required. One of the most important drawbacks of the Washington Consensus was that, while it provided a good mixture of reforms to both stabilize the economy and encourage private sector activity, it did very little to help resolve structural and institutional constraints on growth.
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies.
    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.
    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)
    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.
    6. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)
    7. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability.

  84. Asika joy ogechukwu
    2017/242025
    Economics dept
    joy.asika.242025@unn.edu.ng

    John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin-American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus
    inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP). These reforms were often prerequisites for financial assistance to indebted African countries during the global recession and debt crisis of the 1980s, when the external debt rose sharply to unsustainable levels.

    The story of how African countries got into a debt crisis that led to the introduction of structural adjustment programs is often told as follows: first, expansionary fiscal spending aimed at economic development spearheaded by newly independent African governments, struggling to recover from the ravages of European colonialism, increased government spending in the 1960s and 1970s. Governments also borrowed significantly to finance development expenditures over this time. Oil price shocks that significantly decreased the price of oil in 1980s led to declines in export revenue for many governments.
    The tenets of the Washington Consensus are listed below
    1. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits.
    2. Redirection of public spending.
    3. Tax reform
    4. Market regulated interest rates
    5. Competitive exchange rate.
    6. Privatisation of state enterprises.
    7. Deregulation
    8. Trade liberation
    9. Promotions of foreign direct investment
    10. Legal security of property rights
    The Washington Consensus would work to the economic growth of Nigeria but the main problem with the Nigerian economy is the visible unwillingness on the part of the government to implement the economic ideas of the consensus by their actions and inactions.

  85. Avatar Onah Peace says:

    ONAH PEACE
    2017/243367
    ECONOMICS
    The Washington concensus are set of reforms made to make economies particularly the developing countries a friendly environment for development. If applied, I believe that it will speed up economic growth that will lead to sustainable development.
    Nigeria actually have adopted these reforms, but it has not led to economic development in Nigeria, we till witness poverty and unequal distribution of income in the economy. These is because, here in Nigeria, the political system is corrupt. The reforms are not applied, they are just making laws concerning it, but don’t work by it, and since the government is not accountable to the people the way they should, things are done they way they want it. During the class, we discussed about a Governor who gave a huge sum of money to another state whose market got burnt, that is an obvious lack of fiscal discipline, In our budget huge amount of money is given to recurrent expenditure than capital, and our lawmakers are taking huge salaries to the detriment of the citizen. The public expenditure are directed to the poor, but only those close to the government can access the money leading to unequal distribution of income , some loot it because of no proper crime eradication agency in place that work in justice and absolute sovereignty. Most of the public expenditure are tribalized, we see nepotism every where, they end up giving the jobs to their family members and tribe. At the political sphere in Nigeria, our are leaders do not have what it take to make these reform effective, imagine a minister saying family members abroad should be sending money to their people here to bring Naira down, it is ridiculous, qualified economic makers and advisers are ignored, and those who are not qualified are on sit, these is the reason why we have a fluctuating exchange rate and naira is just raising. These has led to reductions in foreign investment. For these reforms to work in Nigeria a strong political, social, legal, and economic institution must be in place, to make sure there is compliance.

  86. Avatar IWUCHUKWU OBILO REGINALD 2017/249521 ECONOMICS says:

    Over the year’s, after market-oriented structural reforms, termed “Washington consensus” policies, were first put to use, we revisit the evidence on policy adoption and the effects of these policies on socio-economic performance using Nigeria as a case Study. We focus on three key important reform policies which include
    1.Fiscal discipline,
    2.Trade openness
    3.Privatization and
    4.document significant improvements, in economic performance for reformers over the past two decades.
    Following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, reform adopters experienced
    notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post 2000 period. Notably, the ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance.

    What is the WASHINGTON CONSENSUS?.
    When economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin-American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP). These reforms were often prerequisites for financial assistance to indebted African countries during the global recession and debt crisis of the 1980s, when the external debt rose sharply to unsustainable levels.

    The story of how African countries got into a debt crisis that led to the introduction of structural adjustment programs is often told as follows: first, expansionary fiscal spending aimed at economic development spearheaded by newly independent African governments, struggling to recover from the ravages of European colonialism, increased government spending in the 1960s and 1970s. Governments also borrowed significantly to finance development expenditures over this time. Oil price shocks that significantly decreased the price of oil in 1980s led to declines in export revenue for many governments. This decline in export revenue, along with a collapse in world prices of primary agricultural commodities, which made up 88 percent of Africa’s exports, resulted in a shortfall in revenue that put enormous pressure on governments’ finances. Additionally, government featured largely in domestic financial institutions like the banking sector, with many African governments nationalizing foreign banks or creating new state-owned financial institutions.

    Washington Consensus Policies and Structural Adjustment Programs.
    A first step to understand the economic effects of Washington Consensus policy adoption is to examine the proposed reforms and the drivers of policy adoption across African countries. Washington Consensus reforms, as outlined in Serra and Stiglitz (2008), included the following 10 policy recommendations:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to
    avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased
    expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax
    rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and
    achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.

    The Washington Consensus Effect in Nigeria.
    Of the three key reforms described in Section 3, Nigeria scored highly on two: domestic market oriented reforms around privatization and fiscal reforms aimed at improving the fiscal balance over the 1980 to 1999 period. Previous work has described the Nigerian economic experience post policy adoption in the 1980s as dismal by citing decreases in GDP growth rates from 6.9 percent pre-adjustment to -1.7 percent in the post-period. In Nigeria, the main determinant of adoption of World Bank-funded reforms was the pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling.

    The second main determinant was the nature of leadership in power at the time and its commitment to the reform process. Nigeria has been a heavily oil commodity dependent country since the 1970s, with over 70 percent of government revenue from petroleum and petroleum exports as a share of total exports growing to over 90 percent in the 2000s. The heavy dependence on oil exports has made the country very vulnerable to external price shocks, with deleterious implications for the ability to finance public spending and debt. Following a drop in oil prices to between $8 and $10 per barrel in 1985-1987, and subsequent steep increases in the country’s debt to GDP ratio, Nigeria implemented policy reform in the form of structural adjustment programs with the support of the IMF and World Bank under then military president General Ibrahim Babangida.

    A key driver of reform adoption was pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling as mentioned earlier. The reform focused on fiscal tightening and privatization but also induced severe cuts in social spending on education and health which reduced the wellbeing of Nigerian citizens and increased hostility for the reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, contrary to the
    Washington Consensus which emphasized reorientation of spending toward pro-poor programs. The reforms were subsequently abandoned by the Babangida regime and the country continued to be beset by poor macroeconomic policy over the following decades of military rule. As an illustration, Nigeria continued to borrow and accumulated up to $30 billion in debt to the Paris Club of Creditors even though the country earned more than $300 billion in crude oil revenues
    over the 1970s-2001 period. The debt became incredibly difficult to service during periods of low oil prices in the mid-1980s. And while some of the oil revenue and borrowed money was invested in needed infrastructure, education and health, lack of monitoring of spending and opaque ad-hoc budgets meant there was a significant amount of spending on “white elephant” projects like unproductive steel mills.

    Following the transition to democracy in 1999 and under the helm of then President Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria was faced with an unstable macroeconomic environment characterized by volatile exchange rates, double digit inflation (23 percent per year in 2003), a relatively high fiscal deficit (3.5 percent of GDP in 2003) and low GDP growth (2.3 percent on average for the previous decade). Nigeria embarked on macroeconomic reforms under then finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
    aimed at stabilizing the macroeconomic environment and improving social indicators and general economic performance. The focus of the reforms was on privatization, budget monitoring and, crucially, investment in education and health under the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). As part of the NEEDS pol-icy and to reduce volatility in public finances, Nigeria adopted an oil price-based fiscal rule (OPFT) that used the long-run (10 year) average oil price to set government budgets and targets for spending. Based on the rule, the government would set aside some excess revenues from oil in the form of a savings account called the Excess Crude Oil Account (ECA) headquartered at the central bank. The fiscal rule, which was institutionalized in national law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act signed in 2007, linked savings to fiscal discipline around government spending, aiming for a fiscal deficit of 3 percent of GDP. The policy was successful both in building fiscal discipline and helping Nigeria weather shocks like the financial crisis of 2008-2010
    when oil prices fell from over $140 to $40 per barrel.

    Over this period, Nigeria was able to draw on savings from the ECA to implement a fiscal stimulus of around 0.5 percent of GDP and maintain public spending. Increased public savings between 2004 and 2006 as a result of policy reform had real positive effects on macroeconomic performance- leading to fiscal surpluses of 7.7 percent of GDP in 2004 and 10 percent of GDP in 2005. The increased public spending enabled Nigeria to pay off its external debt arrears of about $6 billion, increase its foreign reserves from $7 billion in 2003 to $46 billion by the end of 2006, and implement tighter monetary policy to reduce inflation from 21.8 percent in 2003 to 10 percent in 2004. The $6 billion in arrears was paid as part of debt relief of a $30 billion debt, of which $18 billion was completely written off by the Paris Club. This also helped to spur private sector investment. Growth averaged 8.1 percent a year from 2003 to 2006 and the share of spending on health and education rose to 5 percent and almost 10 percent, for health and education in 2007, respectively.

    Reforms also targeted sectors that were large drains on public finances for privatization in the telecommunications sector, the downstream petroleum sector and the power sector, to name a few, with varying degrees of success. Nigeria also benefited from the increase in oil prices in the post 2000 period, and both the reforms and increases in prices combined to create an attractive environment for private investors in the country

  87. Avatar EZE ONYEDIKACHI VICTOR says:

    Name : EZE ONYEDIKACHI VICTOR

    REG NUMBER: 2017/ 241442
    Dept: Economics
    Email: Dikachyezev@gmail.com

    After the financial crises in the 20th century, there was an increase focus in market-friendly framework eventually become associated with the Washington consensus. The major policies are:
    1. Fiscal discipline
    2. A redirection of public expenditure priorities towards social fields
    3. Tax reforms
    4. Interest rate liberalization
    5. Competitive exchange rate
    6. Trade liberalization
    7. Liberalization of inflows of foreign direct investment
    8. Privatization
    9. Deregulation
    10. Secure property rights

    The implementation of the Washington Consensus had failed due to the following reasons.
    Political instability: this has contribute to the inability of the policies to be properly implemented this is as a result of change in government because a new government can come into power and change the policies of the previous government.

    It will be applicable in Nigeria, as the case may be, because from historical evidence sectirs that are privatized are likely to account for a large of the GDP. For example: the entertainment industry; music , Nollywood and the rest. In these markets, the forces of demand and supply has been determining price for a long time It is only problematic in the face of poor leadership and infrastructural facilities.

  88. Avatar OBODIKE LOVETH OGADIMMA says:

    NAME: OBODIKE LOVETH OGADIMMA
    REG NO: 2017/ 249537
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS

    INTERESTING PRESCRIPTIONS MADE BY THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND WHAT HAS LED TO THE DRAWBACK IN OUR COUNTRY NIGERIA

    The need for radical re-thinking on development strategy is imperative for African countries to be relevant in the global economy. This is further reinforced by the stark reality of extreme poverty in Africa. Over the years, the share of Africa in global trade remained insignificant despite the implementation of the policies that were recommended by international financial and development institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
    Available statistics revealed that Africa had largely under-performed when compared to other developing regions. Economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) had been low; with an average real gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate of 2.6 per cent in the 1980s compared to 6.7 per cent in developing Asia over the same period. The global oil price shocks that occurred in the early 1980s worsened the economic performance in most African economies and led to the adoption of economic measures in the spirit of the Washington consensus. Noteworthy, is the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) with key policy measures designed to achieve economic stabilization and enhance efficiency in resource allocation mainly through economic restructuring and macroeconomic balance. During this period, the growth rate of SSA declined precipitously from 2.3 per cent in 1985 to 0.8 per cent in 1986, whereas Developing Asia recorded a growth rate of 6.1 per cent in 1986. In the 1990s, the economic performance of SSA declined further to an average of 2.4 per cent,

    Comparing the reform countries to non-reform countries, we find that during the initial reform years, economic performance was worse for reformers, with average per capita real GDP growth declining in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, non-reform adopters experienced positive growth over this period, consistent with the earlier literature showing that the reforms failed to bring about short-run economic growth. Between 2000 and 2019, average per capita GDP was higher than during the 1980s and 1990s for both reformers and non-reformers. However, the increase in growth was even higher for reform adopters. When we examine these comparative statistics by reform category, the difference in performance between reformers and non-reformers is largely driven by the adoption of fiscal discipline and domestic market-oriented reforms. While it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions, the results point to a reversal of the economic fortunes of reform adopters in the last two decades, following their initial dismal economic performance during the 1980s and 1990s.

    The Washington consensus contains ten rules namely, fiscal discipline, tax reform, re-ordering public expenditure priorities, competitive exchange rate, privatization, trade liberalization, liberalizing interest rates, deregulation, liberalizing of inward FDI and property rights. These rules mirrored the tenets of liberal market-oriented capitalism and policies of the then Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher governments which, were strong promoters of capitalism and neo-liberal ideology. Neoliberal ideology derived its tenets from the work of 18th century Economist, Adam Smith, who advocated free trade among nations as a way of promoting global growth. The policy prescriptions of conditioning aid and compelling developing countries to open their capital accounts and promote unhindered movement of portfolio investment across international borders by the IMF and World Bank have close similarities to the tenets of the Washington consensus. Although, most African Countries have continued to apply the principles of both consensuses in their economic policies, the road to development remains bleak with very little consideration for their growth potentials. According to Manuel (2003), one of the most important drawbacks of the Washington Consensus was that, while it provided a good mixture of reforms to stabilize an economy and encouraged private sector activities, it did very little to help resolve structural and institutional constraints on growth. He noted that part of Africas growth problems were the incentives and disincentives embedded in the global environment, which had reduced the continent to mere exporter of primary commodities. The continents economic growth has been grossly inhibited by a global trade system inimical to the full exploitation of its comparative advantage. Furthermore, limited market access for low-cost textiles, cotton, and agricultural products and competition from heavily subsidized exports from industrialized economies has effectively prevented growth (Manual, 2003). Thus, unable to produce capital intensive goods, African countries have been reduced to net importers of finished products. Hence, for African economies to achieve their growth potentials, they should be able to utilize their export earnings to broaden their production base and productivity. The primary commodities that are sources of export earnings have become highly susceptible to price volatility and adverse shifts in the terms of trade. Price volatility has not only resulted from adverse weather conditions and other supply shocks, but also from the secular decline in real prices caused by structural oversupply in commodity markets from output in the advanced economies (Kahl, 2004). Furthermore, the lack of support for price stabilization through commodity agreements by the international community hinders favourable pricing. While the World Bank and IMF are constantly discouraging the use of subsidies in African countries in line with one of the tenets of the Washington Consensus, the developed countries have continued to use subsidies to stabilize their economy, particularly in critical sectors such as the agricultural sector.

    Over three decades after market-oriented structural reforms, termed “Washington consensus” policies, were first implemented, we revisit the evidence on policy adoption and the effects of these policies on socioeconomic performance in sub-Saharan African countries. We focus on three key ubiquitous reform policies around privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness and document significant improvements in economic performance for reformers over the past two decades. Following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, reform adopters experienced notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post 2000 period. We complement aggregate analysis with four country case studies that highlight important lessons for effective reform. Notably, the ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance.

    Even though there is no panacea when it comes to economic reforms, the following lessons provide a useful general guide going forward: First, while market-oriented reforms can be beneficial for growth, each reform policy needs to be carefully considered in the institutional contexts, initial conditions of development and socio-political environment, among others. Second, ownership of the reform agenda by local government with stakeholder buy-in is important to encourage support for the reforms and increase the likelihood of success. Third, the negative spill overs of reform policies need to be minimized. Investment in social safety nets is a crucial part of reforms to protect the most vulnerable populations within the countries. Fourth, where reforms aim to achieve macroeconomic stability, they should not trade away social investment in human capital like education and health. Finally, reforms should be a process of continuous re-evaluation, adjustment, and recalibration over the reform period. There is not and will never be a one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to economic development, and the reform agenda should be approached carefully and with flexibility. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of international financial institutions. conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for African farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and socio-political unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments.
    The external problem is that the global economic environment makes it less likely that internal reforms will be either initiated or sustained. For example, reliance on exporting a single commodity partly reflects inadequate external incentives to diversify production. Reform of revenue management (broadening the tax base and lowering marginal rates) becomes difficult because there is heavy dependence on a few sources of tax revenue, such as export and import tariffs. This makes it more difficult and much more important to reform the public sector and public expenditure management or to agree to sweeping trade liberalization.
    In order for Africa to succeed under the proposed new economic development paradigm, the continent must cultivate a sense of urgency in overcoming some of the likely challenges currently confronting it. These challenges include: Corruption The high incidence of corruption constitutes a major challenge to the successful implementation of any new development strategies in Africa. The effects of corruption are multi-dimensional. Corruption promotes the diversion, depletion and misallocation of scarce resources, as well as increase in the costs of production of goods and services. It results in inefficient state ownership, excessive private accumulation and widening inequalities. The lack of transparency and accountability associated with corruption prevents public participation in the decision-making process thus, limiting positive developmental outcomes. The multiplicity of functions and the wanton duplication of agencies in some African countries equally promote wastages and inefficiencies in the management of resources. Corruption also distorts fiscal discipline and impedes institution of good corporate governance practices. Market access Low level of inter-complementarity of African goods limits the ability of the continent to support a high level of intra-African trade. This results from the production of the same category of goods primary goods, in addition to the fact that they service the same international market. There is a strong need therefore for diversification of the production base in Africa. Market access is also greatly reduced by the existence of sanitary phytosanitory measures conditions under the WTO, which promotes conditions that African countries cannot meet. There is need for the revaluation of the international trade rules that have limited the bargaining power of the continent. Due to the weaknesses of the domestic production base, African countries are unable to reciprocate the most favourable nation status in countries with which they sign bilateral trade agreements, and also fully participate in preferential trade agreements such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). Technological constraints The low technology base in Africa is a major constraint to development. Old technologies are often deployed with over-reliance on traditional methods of production which results in low productivity and competitiveness due to the lack of economies of scale. African countries have also been unable to develop cutting edge technologies owing to weak research and development. This results from poor funding of research institutes and science education. There is need therefore for better funding of research initiatives in order to stimulate technological advancements. Structural/institutional constraints The lack of critical infrastructure such as transport and communication networks does not support the growth of economic activities in Africa. The inadequate supply of electricity, for example, leads to increase in production costs thereby rendering products expensive. Most of the existing legal infrastructure that is vital for the enforcement of competition laws, bankruptcy and other commercial laws are weak and inadequate. Rule of law, property rights, among others must therefore be firmly rooted to provide the enabling legal environment for Africas development. Information/Data constraints Many development projects are poorly implemented due to lack of data, which often lead to insufficient knowledge on the magnitude developmental challenge. The poor data base is largely due to lack of adequate infrastructure and skills for data mapping and analysis. There is need to focus on addressing these challenges to aid effective policy formulation and implementation.

  89. Avatar Igweh Sixtus Ozioma says:

    Igweh Sixtus Ozioma
    2017/247588
    Igwehsixtus9@gmail.com

    A British economist named John Williamson coined the term Washington Consensus in 1989.The ideas were intended to help developing countries that faced economic crises. In summary, The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade. These are the ten specific principles originally set out by John Williamson in 1989:

    1.Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.

    2.Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.

    3.Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.

    4.Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).

    5.Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.

    6.Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.

    7.Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.

    8.The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.

    9.The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.

    10.Development of property rights.

    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus:

    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products.

    2. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives.

    3. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.

    4. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented.

    But in the case of Nigeria this policies will not work for Nigeria well due to the poor implementation and application of these policies as a result of poor leadership and incompetence of the body responsible for discharging these policies. Secondly, political instability also contribute to the inability of the policies to be properly implemented because a new government can come into power and change the policies of the previous government.

  90. Avatar Obi prosper uche says:

    Obi prosper uche
    2017/241318
    Economics
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.

    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.
    Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    Competitive exchange rates;
    Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state enterprises;
    Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.

    Implications of Washington Consensus
    Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.

    3. The Chinese approach. An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.

    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)

    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.

    6. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)

    7. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability.
    In defence of the Washington consensus
    The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits.
    It’s always easy to criticise when things go wrong. When South East Asian economies were in great difficulties in the 1990s, it is likely that any policies would be unpopular. When you have a crisis there tends to be no easy way out.
    The problems of the EU are related to difficulties of managing a single currency. A return to competitive exchange rates would help the crisis to be overcome more easily.
    The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for targeted economic diversification; some developing economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries. But, even this depends on how it is implemented. If African countries, tried to use tariffs to develop a motor industry, it would probably lead to government failure because the infrastructure isn’t there to support a new motor industry. However, if there was some support to develop primary product processing within the country, it is more likely to be successful. With privatisation it depends on what you privatise. In the UK, the privatisation of BT was relatively uncontroversial, but the privatisation of British rail was much more controversial. The difference here is that railways are a natural monopoly and have social benefits.
    velopment of property rights.

    Nigeria flawed development
    The story of Nigeria development is one interesting one, and not sufficiently told or understood outside of Nigeria and Africa more generally. In the 1970s its government pursued the conventional import-substitution industrialisation strategy of that time. The exchange policy adopted favoured a high valuation of the Nigerian naira, deliberately to assist local producers to source foreign inputs cheaply. Similarly, the increasing revenue from oil exports also precipitated this over-valuation of the currency. However, these factors affected adversely agricultural production which had previously been the main revenue source for the economy. So, with the oil price crash in early 1980, Nigeria suffered huge shocks: the depletion of its foreign reserves and the emergence of huge trade deficits.
    To alleviate these problems, the IMF and the World Bank proposed neoliberal policies of deregulation and liberalisation. It was argued that subsidisation, which many governments in the developing countries were adopting to boost capital accumulation, was in fact the reason why most of them ran very low surpluses (worsened by low tax revenues), which then in turn generated low government savings to be mobilised by the financial institutions. In similar fashion, it was suggested that the use of ceilings prevented interest rates from playing the role of balancing the supply and demand for money.
    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects. Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).

  91. Avatar Nwosu Angel Chiamaka says:

    Name: Nwosu Angel Chiamaka
    Reg Number: 2017/249536
    Angelapaul230@gmail.com.

    The Washington Consensus is a set Economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C. The ten principles of The Washington consensus originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    1. Fiscal discipline
    2. A redirection of public expenditure priorities towards social fields
    3. Tax reforms, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates
    4. Interest rate liberalization
    5. Competitive exchange rate
    6. Trade liberalization
    7. Liberalization of inflows of foreign direct investment
    8. Privatization of state owned enterprise
    9. Deregulation
    10. Secure property rights

    The Washington Consensus believed that private markets, not government intervention, are critical for development. It was a market-friendly framework of development. The underlying assumption, as other scholars have pointed out, was that competitive markets would work well to efficiently allocate resources to residents in these African countries suffering under the burden of debt and illiberal fiscal and monetary policies. Hence, market-based policies like privatizing public enterprises, removing or relaxing exchange rate controls that biased export trade towards certain commodities and fiscal adjustment to balance budgets by reducing.

    It has informed policy considerations in developing countries, even in Nigeria. In Nigeria there have been many times tried to incorporate it in her macroeconomic policy. It is evident that this policy framework has a lot of potential if implemented properly but that is not the case in Nigeria.

    Firstly, because of lack in social overhead capital that is necessary to push this privatized industry. Secondly, competition with more developed market. Thirdly, lack of human capital resources to increase productivity in these emerging markets. Fourthly, lack of technology to increase productivity. Finally, corruption and flawed privatization model. For example when the power sector. It will really be problematic if it was to be adopted in Nigeria
    .

  92. Avatar EZIKE MARYCYNTHIA CHIAMAKA says:

    NAME: EZIKE MARYCYNTHIA CHIAMAKA
    REG NO: 2017/242944
    EMAIL: marycynthiachiamaka95@gmail.com
    DEPT: ECONOMICS

    A British economist named John Williamson coined the term Washington Consensus in 1989.The ideas were intended to help developing countries that faced economic crises. In summary, The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade. These are the ten specific principles originally set out by John Williamson in 1989:
    1.Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2.Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.
    3.Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.
    4.Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5.Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.
    6.Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7.Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.
    8.The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.
    9.The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10.Development of property rights.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products.
    2. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives.
    3. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.
    4. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented.
    5. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.
    But in the case of Nigeria this policies will not work for Nigeria well due to the poor implementation and application of these policies as a result of poor leadership and incompetence of the body responsible for discharging these policies. Secondly, political instability also contribute to the inability of the policies to be properly implemented because a new government can come into power and change the policies of the previous government.

  93. Avatar OKEKE NANCY OGADIMMA says:

    NAME:OKEKE NANCY
    REG NO:2017/249557
    EMAIL: ogadimmanancy@gmail.com

    Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy.
    In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for African farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments.
    It is important to note here that the theoretical foundations underlying these policy recommendations were nothing else but neoclassical economics espousing a firm belief in the market’s invisible hand,” the rationality of economic actors’ choice, and a minimalistic vision of the states’ regulation of economies.
    There were usually two staged of intervention: the first focused on macroeconomic stability and structural adjustment programs, and the second included such objectives as improving programs, and the second included such objectives as improving institutions, reducing corruption or dealing with infrastructure inefficiency. The conditionality exercised by the Bretton Woods institutions and wealthy countries played a crucial role in indebted countries’ decisions to push through macroeconomic stabilization reforms and structural adjustment programs. The debt crisis that first affected a number of Latin American countries and then African and Asian countries, in the 1970s and 1980s,further increased their dependence on external loans, leaving them no other option than to follow the prescriptions that enabled them to access financing.
    One of the major drawbacks of the policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank was lack of technical expertise and strategic capability on the part of the implementing countries. A structurally unequal donor-recipient relationship was established, in part due to the weakening of the public sector induced by the drastic reduction of the administrative machine.

  94. Avatar Omeke Anslem Francisco says:

    Omeke Anslem Francisco
    2017/249564
    assurance081@gmail.com

    The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, e.t.c. John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America, Africa e.t.c. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade.
    Critics have pointed out that the policies were unhelpful and imposed harsh conditions on the developing countries, others have defended the long-term positive impact of these ideas.
    The ten(10) sets of relatively specific policy recommendations originally stated by John Williamson in 1989 are as follows;

    1. Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP.

    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment.

    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates.

    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms.

    5. Competitive exchange rates.

    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs.

    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment.

    8. Privatization of state enterprises.

    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions.
    10. Legal security for property rights.

    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus are; it’s support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers. IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money and a belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.

    An important point is that an economic policy may have sound justification, but it might not be universally applicable, e.g free trade. As regards it’s effectiveness(Washington consensus recommendation s) in developing countries (Nigeria), i will not attest to a positive outcome if implemented due to the countries poor implementation of policy as a result of incompetence in the part of the body responsible for discharging or implementing these policies, corrupt practice and political instability, tribalism and nepotism which have eaten deep into the minds of leaders in power.

  95. Avatar Fidelis Emmanuel Oluebubechukwu says:

    Name: Fidelis Emmanuel Oluebubechukwu
    Reg. No.: 2017/241440
    Email: emmanuel.fidelis.241440@unn.edu.ng

    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.

    1. Fiscal Adjustment
    2. Tax Reforms
    3. Deregulation
    4. Trade Liberalisation
    5. Competitive Exchange Rate
    6. Privatisation
    7. Removal of Barriers to Foreign Investment
    8. Financial Reforms
    9. Protection of Property Rights
    10. Redirection of Public Sector Investment
    In my own opinion these policies would help Nigeria develop if they are properly implemented without any form of corruption, religious sentiments, tribalism etc. The problem of Nigeria is that policies are just written on papers without proper implimentation, corruption, tribalism, religious sentiments etc has eaten deep into the system. Political instability also play a major role in the development of Nigeria. Over the years we’ve had policies made by previous governments which are no longer on existence because a new governments come did not continue to implement. Another problem of Nigeria is that we depend solely on the exportation of crude oil for revenue. If the government can invest in other sectors of the economy then Nigeria can be developed.

  96. Avatar Obi prosper uche says:

    Obi prosper uche
    2017/241318
    Economics

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.

    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.
    Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    Competitive exchange rates;
    Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state enterprises;
    Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.

    Implications of Washington Consensus
    Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.

    3. The Chinese approach. An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.

    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)

    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.

    6. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)

    7. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability.
    In defence of the Washington consensus
    The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits.
    It’s always easy to criticise when things go wrong. When South East Asian economies were in great difficulties in the 1990s, it is likely that any policies would be unpopular. When you have a crisis there tends to be no easy way out.
    The problems of the EU are related to difficulties of managing a single currency. A return to competitive exchange rates would help the crisis to be overcome more easily.
    The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for targeted economic diversification; some developing economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries. But, even this depends on how it is implemented. If African countries, tried to use tariffs to develop a motor industry, it would probably lead to government failure because the infrastructure isn’t there to support a new motor industry. However, if there was some support to develop primary product processing within the country, it is more likely to be successful. With privatisation it depends on what you privatise. In the UK, the privatisation of BT was relatively uncontroversial, but the privatisation of British rail was much more controversial. The difference here is that railways are a natural monopoly and have social benefits.
    velopment of property rights.

    Nigeria flawed development
    The story of Nigeria development is one interesting one, and not sufficiently told or understood outside of Nigeria and Africa more generally. In the 1970s its government pursued the conventional import-substitution industrialisation strategy of that time. The exchange policy adopted favoured a high valuation of the Nigerian naira, deliberately to assist local producers to source foreign inputs cheaply. Similarly, the increasing revenue from oil exports also precipitated this over-valuation of the currency. However, these factors affected adversely agricultural production which had previously been the main revenue source for the economy. So, with the oil price crash in early 1980, Nigeria suffered huge shocks: the depletion of its foreign reserves and the emergence of huge trade deficits.
    To alleviate these problems, the IMF and the World Bank proposed neoliberal policies of deregulation and liberalisation. It was argued that subsidisation, which many governments in the developing countries were adopting to boost capital accumulation, was in fact the reason why most of them ran very low surpluses (worsened by low tax revenues), which then in turn generated low government savings to be mobilised by the financial institutions. In similar fashion, it was suggested that the use of ceilings prevented interest rates from playing the role of balancing the supply and demand for money.
    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects. Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).

  97. Avatar Okafor Festus Obinna says:

    Name:Okafor festus Obinna
    Reg No: 2017/249550
    Dept: Economics Major.

    The term “Washington Consensus” was coined by John Williamson in the year 1989, in reference to a set of a 10 market oriented policies that were popular among Washington_based policy. Institutions , as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin American Countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market oriented domestic reforms and openness to trade and investment.
    In African Countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market _reforms prescribed by international financial Institutions (IFI’s) like the world Bank and the International Momentary Fund.(IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989 includes the following policy recommendations.
    1. Low Government Borrowing: Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP.
    2. Redirection Of Pubic Spending Subsidies ( “special Indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad based provision of key pro_growth, pro_poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment.
    3. Tax Reform, Broadening the Tax base and adopting moderate marginal Tax rates.
    4.Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms .
    5. Competitive Exchange Rates.
    6.Trade Liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licencing, etc) any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs.
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment.
    8. Privatization of State enterprises.
    9.Deregulation, abolition of regulations that impede market entry for these justified on safety environment and Consumer protection grounds, and Prudential oversight of financial Institutions.
    10. Legal Security for Rights.
    In summary the Washington Consensus advocates for free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets, and macroeconomic stability.
    There is no need saying that the Washington Consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries because its obviously elaborated above. But the question now is, how has the policy reforms helped Nigeria or what actually is the Problem with Nigeria.
    In an atemtp to answer this question, I Will like to point out here the fact that an economic policy may have sound justification, but it might not be universally applicable. Another problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depens on how and when they are implemented. For e.g, generally free trade is good. Its generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that does not necessary mean there is not room for targeted economic diversification; some deveping economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries . But, even this depends on how it is implemented.
    I therefore conclude by maintaining the fact that the Washington Consensus had good intentions but had poor or lacked poor implementations on the receiving end. So development efforts have been very difficult to accomplish in Nigeria due to a number of closely intertwined factors, namely, the rapaciousness of our leaders, and the lack of active institutional framework.

  98. Avatar OBODO CHISOM JESSICA says:

    NAME: OBODO CHISOM JESSICA
    REG NO: 2017/249538
    EMAIL: chisom.obodo.249538@unn.edu.ng

    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.
    The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson.The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the , and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism).
    When economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was
    referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based
    policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance.These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment.

    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed.  However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects.  Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output (Figure 1), culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).

    In conclusion, the first move that needs to be made to deal with Nigeria’s many contemporary problems of development should be to sweep away these many structural obstacles which decimate the rate of profit accruing to real production.  Recommendations or solutions should focus, above all, on alleviating the problems that inhibit real capital assets from reproducing sufficient returns.  Nigerian policy-makers should create a ‘congenial’ environment that ensures that the rate of profit accruable to real production is maintained at a level whereby the would-be capitalist deems it satisfactory to invest in a real productive process in the country.

  99. Avatar Okpor Martha Ashinedu says:

    NAME: OKPOR MARTHA ASHINEDU
    REG. NO: 2017/241430
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS
    LEVEL: 300L
    ANSWER:
    The Washington Consensus was a term coined by John Williamson. Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline and trade openness, that were introduced by International Financial Institutions(IFI) as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms world correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiences in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literatute finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions. The reduction in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for African farmers to compete in international markets leading to increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over the world.
    Between 2000 and 2019, African economies experienced remarked improvements in economic growth as a result of these market-oriented reforms. With median country real GDP per capita growth rising from 0.2% per year on average in the 1980s and 1990s, when many of the reforms were first implemented, to 1.6% over 2000 to 2019. Inflation rates in the region have also declined from double digits in the 1980s and 1990s to stabilize at around 5% in the past two decades.
    In conclusion, I believe the Washington Consensus to a reasonable extent has helped Nigeria as a country grow.

  100. Avatar AGBO EBUBE EDITH says:

    Name: AGBO EBUBE EDITH

    Reg No: 2017/249475

    Dept: ECONOMICS

    The term “Washington Consensus” identified by Economist John Williamson in 1989, is a simple set of ten recommendations which refers to the level of agreement between the IMF, World Bank and US Department of the Treasury in those policy recommendations. These recommendations served as set of reform policies on how developing countries could became advanced like the developed countries. They include: Fiscal discipline, tax reform, Financial Liberalization, Elimination of barriers to foriegn direct investment, adoption of a single competitive exchange rate, Trade Liberalization, Reducing public expenditure and Deregulation of market entry, competition and secure property right.

    The above policy recommendations could have been a good means of bringing about a great turn around for Nigeria, but the huge flaws and incompetence of the Government has led to her stagnation. The Nigeria Government is amongst others, characterized by Corruption, political instability, and fiscal irresponsibility. Our Government is characterized by self ambitious and greedy leaders who misappropriate and embezzles funds. Fiscal discipline would only be a “dream”, as the Government keeps spending (unnecessarily) above her “revenue ” and end up in debt. Unaccountability has become their identity. We find favouritism and inequality play out explicitly, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

    The Nigeria Government obviously do not have the interest of her citizens at heart, and therefore Could not have fully Implemented these reforms.

  101. Avatar Izuogu Chioma Sylverline says:

    Izuogu Chioma Sylverline
    Education Economics.
    2017/244897
    Email address: Chiomaizuogu30@gmail.com

    The debate on economic policy has developed significantly in the past decade. The so-called Washington Consensus, which dictated most of the solutions proposed by international financial organizations, began to be questioned when a large number of emerging economies reduced their reliance on multilateral debt. The crisis of 2008 and 2009 accelerated the process of reflection on the prescriptive nature of the policy proposals advocated by monetarists, with their insistence on a uniform view as if all situations were alike. This has been termed ideology, and the ideology associated with the Washington Consensus has failed even in its methodological principles, as clearly demonstrated by the internal debate within organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This article reviews the various internal arguments of the international financial organizations, and provides a critique of preconstructed models involving a return to Keynesian economics. It ends with an optimistic view of the broadening and democratization of the debate on economic policies, termed the new post-Washington Consensus.

    • Avatar Izuogu Chioma Sylverline says:

      Izuogu Chioma Sylverline
      Education Economics.
      2017/244897
      Email address: Chiomaizuogu30@gmail.com

      The debate on economic policy has developed significantly in the past decade. The so-called Washington Consensus, which dictated most of the solutions proposed by international financial organizations, began to be questioned when a large number of emerging economies reduced their reliance on multilateral debt. The crisis of 2008 and 2009 accelerated the process of reflection on the prescriptive nature of the policy proposals advocated by monetarists, with their insistence on a uniform view as if all situations were alike. This has been termed ideology, and the ideology associated with the Washington Consensus has failed even in its methodological principles, as clearly demonstrated by the internal debate within organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This reviews the various internal arguments of the international financial organizations, and provides a critique of preconstructed models involving a return to Keynesian economics. It ends with an optimistic view of the broadening and democratization of the debate on economic policies, termed the new post-Washington Consensus.
      The prefix “post” has now become a common currency spreading from philosophy to the political scene of globalization. It signals the overthrow of West-originated certainties that have long been used to explain and govern the world.
      In this text, the term wealthy countries refers essentially to G7 members and the European Union. O (…)
      2With the devastating crisis that hit most of the wealthy countries and the failure of the financial systems, we entered a new era, characterized by both conjunctural and structural changes. It entails a profound transformation that affects the perception and the distribution of power. Could this mean the end of the so-called Washington Consensus.

  102. Avatar OHANADO SHEPHERD IFEANYI 2017/249547 says:

    You can say the policy has an adverse effect on Nigeria because The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP. Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure and it can be seen that the sectors which the consensus expected public funds to be diverted to are not been diverted to in Nigeria and when the main sectors are been neglected a call for reform in policies is needed in order for Nigeria to develop

  103. Avatar Odu David Oluchukwu says:

    Odu David Oluchukwu
    2017/241432
    Economics

    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    The following were the agreements that was reached :
    1. Tax reforms to broaden the tax base with moderate marginal tax rates.
    2. Reordering public expenditure priorities to target the poor
    3. Liberalising interest rates in the context of a broader financial liberalization.
    4. A competitive exchange rate
    5. Trade liberalization
    6. Privatization of state owned activities.

    Coming to answer the question asked, whether the Washington consensus has really helped Nigeria or not… In my own perspective, The Washington consensus has not really helped Nigeria as a developing nation.
    The targeted impacts of the policies would have been achieved if Nigeria had a good political leaders that would have utilise the opportunity that was thrown to us by the initiator of this program.
    Poor governance and lack of competent leadership is what is killing us in this nation.

  104. Avatar AGBO EBUBE EDITH says:

    NAME: AGBO EBUBE EDITH
    REG NO: 2017/249475
    DEPT: ECONOMICS

    The term “Washington Consensus” identified by Economist John Williamson in 1989, is a simple set of ten recommendations which refers to the level of agreement between the IMF, World Bank and US Department of the Treasury in those policy recommendations. These recommendations served as set of reform policies on how developing countries could became advanced like the developed countries. They include: Fiscal discipline, tax reform, Financial Liberalization, Elimination of barriers to foriegn direct investment, adoption of a single competitive exchange rate, Trade Liberalization, Reducing public expenditure and Deregulation of market entry, competition and secure property right.

    The above policy recommendations could have been a good means of bringing about a great turn around for Nigeria, but the huge flaws and incompetence of the Government has led to her stagnation. The Nigeria Government is amongst others, characterized by Corruption, political instability, and fiscal irresponsibility.
    Our Government is characterized by self ambitious and greedy leaders who misappropriate and embezzles funds. Fiscal discipline would only be a “dream”, as the Government keeps spending (unnecessarily) above her “revenue ” and end up in debt. Unaccountability has become their identity.
    We find favouritism and inequality play out explicitly, as the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.
    The Nigeria Government obviously do not have the interest of her citizens at heart, and therefore Could not have fully Implemented these reforms.

  105. Avatar AKOMA CHIOMA ONYINYE (2017/241339) says:

    Developmental failure in Nigeria like many other developing nations of the world is attributable to plunderers who have taken over the nation’s administrative mechanism. Although Nigeria is richly blessed with substantial petroleum deposit and other natural resources, yet the nation is grossly underdeveloped. Nigeria’s leaders are the number one plunderers, the Heads of State and Government, the Politicians and the Executives. Others are the Bureaucrats, the Bankers, the Insurance Brokers, the Lawyers and those in the areas of justice administration, the Press, the Religious Leaders and the Federal Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). Some of the anti-corruption agencies that have been put in place to checkmate the scourge of the economic and financial crimes in Nigeria at one time or the other include – Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Code of Conduct Bureau, Code of Conduct Tribunal, and Public Complaints Commission. Others are the National Food and Drug Administration (NAFDAC); Standard Organization of Nigeria (SON), the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit; the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The consequences of economic and financial crimes on Nigerians and Nigeria are – increase in the cost of governance, increase in taxes and special levies on the citizens, borrowing and rising debt status of the nation. Corruption brings about inefficiency and negligence of essential services; injustice; poverty and citizens’ low quality of lives; income inequality; poor health services delivery; poor infrastructural facilities and welfare services and poor quality of education. Until proactive measure is taking against the plunderers no meaningful development will be achieved in Nigeria. Lastly, it was emphasised that public sector investment should be redirected towards education, health and infrastructure only and also leave these and other fields open to private sector operation.

  106. Avatar Afube Blossom Chibuzor says:

    Afube Blossom Chibuzor
    2017/249473
    Economics department
    blossomafube16@gmail.com

    The Washington Consensus which includes the avoidance of large fiscal deficits, tax reforms, deregulation amongst others in my opinion has been of help to Nigeria but only in a very mild way. The privatization of state-owned enterprises such as the privatization of electricity supply in Nigeria has helped in increasing supply of power –albeit not as much as would have been expected- and creating competitiveness that improves efficiency.
    The major reason why the policy has not impacted positively in Nigeria -except for little tidbits here and there- is the fact that implementation is absent. It is one thing to bring out policies that would aid development and it is another thing to actually put them into practice for them to fulfill the aim for which they have been created.
    However, the reforms can and have also caused some issues in its application. For example, in Nigeria, while free trade can increase the diversification and variety of goods available for sale and consumption, it also cripples the local economy which is not even being prioritized in the first place. Privatization as mentioned earlier while improving efficiency has brought about a transfer of objective from welfare to profit, to the detriment of the citizens and the country as a whole.
    The Washington consensus reforms are applicably good but in Nigeria, such reforms do more harm than good.

  107. Avatar Obi prosper uche says:

    Obi prosper uche
    2017/241318
    The Wbashington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.

    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.
    Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    Competitive exchange rates;
    Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state enterprises;
    Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.

    Implications of Washington Consensus
    Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.

    3. The Chinese approach. An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.

    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)

    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.

    6. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)

    7. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability.
    In defence of the Washington consensus
    The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits.
    It’s always easy to criticise when things go wrong. When South East Asian economies were in great difficulties in the 1990s, it is likely that any policies would be unpopular. When you have a crisis there tends to be no easy way out.
    The problems of the EU are related to difficulties of managing a single currency. A return to competitive exchange rates would help the crisis to be overcome more easily.
    The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for targeted economic diversification; some developing economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries. But, even this depends on how it is implemented. If African countries, tried to use tariffs to develop a motor industry, it would probably lead to government failure because the infrastructure isn’t there to support a new motor industry. However, if there was some support to develop primary product processing within the country, it is more likely to be successful. With privatisation it depends on what you privatise. In the UK, the privatisation of BT was relatively uncontroversial, but the privatisation of British rail was much more controversial. The difference here is that railways are a natural monopoly and have social benefits.
    velopment of property rights.

    Nigeria flawed development
    The story of Nigeria development is one interesting one, and not sufficiently told or understood outside of Nigeria and Africa more generally. In the 1970s its government pursued the conventional import-substitution industrialisation strategy of that time. The exchange policy adopted favoured a high valuation of the Nigerian naira, deliberately to assist local producers to source foreign inputs cheaply. Similarly, the increasing revenue from oil exports also precipitated this over-valuation of the currency. However, these factors affected adversely agricultural production which had previously been the main revenue source for the economy. So, with the oil price crash in early 1980, Nigeria suffered huge shocks: the depletion of its foreign reserves and the emergence of huge trade deficits.
    To alleviate these problems, the IMF and the World Bank proposed neoliberal policies of deregulation and liberalisation. It was argued that subsidisation, which many governments in the developing countries were adopting to boost capital accumulation, was in fact the reason why most of them ran very low surpluses (worsened by low tax revenues), which then in turn generated low government savings to be mobilised by the financial institutions. In similar fashion, it was suggested that the use of ceilings prevented interest rates from playing the role of balancing the supply and demand for money.
    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects. Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).

  108. Avatar Ani kenechukwu joseph says:

    Ani kenechukwu Joseph
    2017/242423
    Economics

    Economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The question is has it helped Nigeria?
    The answer is no
    Firstly, There is poor implementation problem due to fact that we suffer from political instability. Our government today could bring up a policy and then tomorrow’s government can come and scrap off that existing policy.
    Secondly, Nigeria is not tagged one of the most corrupt nation on earth for nothing the instutions that would have helped to implement the policies are all deeply soaked in corruption cases.

  109. Avatar ANTHONY OLUCHI PRECIOUS says:

    Name: Anthony oluchi precious
    Reg no:2017/249486
    Department: Economics
    Email: Anthonyprecious36@gmail.com

    Washington Consensus
    The term Washington Consensus is a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and U.S Department of Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global south.
    With the onset of a debt crisis in the developing world during the early 1980s, the major Western powers, and the United States in particular, decided that both the World Bank and the IMF should play a significant role in the management of that debt and in global development policy more broadly. When the British economist John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America.
    The World Bank and IMF were able to promote that view throughout the developing world by attaching policy conditions, known as stabilization and structural adjustment programs, to the loans they made. In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.
    By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that the results of the Washington Consensus were far from optimal. Increasing criticism led to a change in approach that shifted the focus away from a view of development as simply economic growth and toward poverty reduction and the need for participation by both developing-country governments and civil society. That change of direction came to be known as the post-Washington Consensus.

    The impact of the policy reforms on the Nigerian economy:
    From the time the policy reforms we’re adopted in Nigeria, it is revealed that the policies obtained an average economic growth with macroeconomic instability, unemployment and an increase in the rate of poverty in Nigeria. Also, it is seen that the anti-graft agencies in Nigeria are weak, and inefficient. Corruption, and the embezzlement of the country’s fund is the order of the day, making it difficult for the Nigerian economy to develop. Therefore, Nigeria is her own problem.

  110. Name: Ewa Princess
    Reg no: 2017/249501
    Department: Economics
    Email: ewaprincess79@gmail.com
    Website: blogwithprincess.wordpress.com

    Washington Consensus:

    “Washington Consensus”, a term coined by the Economist John Williamson in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms and opennes to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US.
    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.

    1. Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    5. Competitive exchange rates;
    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8. Privatization of state enterprises;
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10. Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.
    Implications of Washington Consensus
    1. Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    2. IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    3. Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.

    Washington Consensus and it’s impact on the Nigerian economy.

    In Nigeria, the economic reforms and policies adopted from the administration of President Shehu Shagari in the second Republic to the present administration led by President Muhammadu Buhari were a blend of institutional plans, market mechanism and reforms. The major policies practiced in the period include: government control, privatization, liberalization, anti-corruption, public sector reforms, governance and institutional reforms among others. These policies achieved a moderate economic growth with macroeconomic instability, unemployment and high poverty incidence in Nigeria. This shows that the prescribed policy reforms have really not been of help to the Nigerian economy. The problem, therefore, lies with Nigeria. The anti-graft agencies in Nigeria are weak and corruption has eaten deep into the fabrics of many Nigerians. Also, the privatizations of the power and downstream petroleum sectors have not yielded the much desired results. Therefore, a proper implementation of fiscal responsibility laws to ensure greater fiscal discipline, transparency, accountability and good governance in Nigeria is best.

  111. Avatar Uwode Joy Ogheneyonle says:

    NAME: Uwode Joy Ogheneyonle
    DEPARTMENT: Economics
    REG NO: 2017/241452

    THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    The Washington consensus which includes tax reforms, privatisation of state owned enterprises, trade liberalization, deregulation, and the rest has been helpful policies to some developing countries but has not been helpful in Nigeria not because there are not bad policies but because few of them are implemented and even those few implemented are not sustained, some of them are later not implemented as a result of different governments in power.
    A government today can implement some of the Washington consensus while another government tomorrow may remove or abandon them which brings instability in the country’s economy thus bringing consistent backwardness in Nigeria.
    Therefore, the Washington consensus is not the problem because there are great policies if properly implemented but the political leaders not implementing such beneficial policies or not consistent with implementing them at least, making Nigeria’s problem to be sustained over a long period of time

  112. Avatar Nwobodo Ifeanyichukwu Victor says:

    NWOBODO IFEANYICHUKWU VICTOR
    2017/249535
    ECONOMICS
    Eco 362
    When economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin-American countries. The ten policies included:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.
    Nigeria embarked on macroeconomic reforms under then finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala aimed at stabilizing the macroeconomic environment and improving social in-dicators and general economic performance. The focus of the reforms was on privatization, budget monitoring and, crucially, investment in education and health under the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). As part of the NEEDS pol-icy and to reduce volatility in public finances, Nigeria adopted an oil price-based fiscal rule (OPFT) that used the long-run (10 year) average oil price to set government budgets and targets for spending. Based on the rule, the government would set aside some excess revenues from oil in the form of a savings account called the Excess Crude Oil Account (ECA) headquartered at the central bank. The fiscal rule, which was institutionalized in national law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act signed in 2007, linked savings to fiscal discipline around government spending, aiming for a fiscal deficit of 3 percent of GDP. The policy was successful both in building fiscal discipline and helping Nigeria weather shocks like the financial crisis of 2008-2010 when oil prices fell from over $140 to $40 per barrel.
    Reforms also targeted sectors that were large drains on public finances for privatization in the telecommunications sector, the downstream petroleum sector and the power sector, to name a few, with varying degrees of success. So, the Washington Consensus applicable in Nigeria if executed properly.

  113. Okere Success chigoziem
    2017/243145
    Education economics

    Introduction
    Consensus refers to a set of free-market economic policies supported by prominent financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury. A British economist named John Williamson coined the term Washington Consensus in 1989.
    The ideas were intended to help developing countries that faced economic crises. In summary, The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade.
    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    The Original Principles of The Washington Consensus
    These are the ten specific principles originally set out by John Williamson in 1989:
    1. Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2. Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.
    3. Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.
    4. Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5. Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.
    6. Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7. Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.
    8. The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.
    9. The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10. Development of property rights.
    Nigeria flawed development
    The story of Nigeria development is one interesting one, and not sufficiently told or understood outside of Nigeria and Africa more generally. In the 1970s its government pursued the conventional import-substitution industrialisation strategy of that time. The exchange policy adopted favoured a high valuation of the Nigerian naira, deliberately to assist local producers to source foreign inputs cheaply. Similarly, the increasing revenue from oil exports also precipitated this over-valuation of the currency. However, these factors affected adversely agricultural production which had previously been the main revenue source for the economy. So, with the oil price crash in early 1980, Nigeria suffered huge shocks: the depletion of its foreign reserves and the emergence of huge trade deficits.
    To alleviate these problems, the IMF and the World Bank proposed neoliberal policies of deregulation and liberalisation. It was argued that subsidisation, which many governments in the developing countries were adopting to boost capital accumulation, was in fact the reason why most of them ran very low surpluses (worsened by low tax revenues), which then in turn generated low government savings to be mobilised by the financial institutions. In similar fashion, it was suggested that the use of ceilings prevented interest rates from playing the role of balancing the supply and demand for money.
    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects. Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).

    Manufacturing output (% of GDP)
    The bane of this persistent underdevelopment in Nigeria can be attributed to the low and unattractive rate of profit accruing to real production in the country. The arguments of The Wealth of Nations, as articulated by Adam Smith, lend sanctity to the pursuit of profit. Famously, according to Smith, it’s not as a result of the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but rather from their regard for their own self-interest. This salient factor – personal gain/profit – determines how much capital is committed to a particular productive process, and has often been low and unattractive in Nigeria.
    J. M. Keynes was also keen to point out that the consideration of the entrepreneur’s own profit is the sole factor that determines how much he employs his capital in any productive process. In essence, when discussing issues that might be inhibiting the growth of real capital accumulation, it is thus logical that this central motivator should at least be considered, especially to assess if it’s sufficient to induce accumulation in a particular process in a given country at a particular time.
    This is an absolutely key point. The truth is that the probability of making sufficient profit in a real production process in Nigeria, after compensating for the various associated risks, is on average negative (assuming here that all the required capital is borrowed).
    As a principle, Smith asserted that, if an entrepreneur borrows money and uses it as capital, he expects both to restore the capital and pay the interest without alienating or encroaching upon any other source of revenue. As such, when the profits which can be made by the use of capital are diminished, the price which can be paid for the use of it (the interest rate) must necessarily be diminished with them. Keynes too remarked that the rate of interest on capital should be below the rate of profit accruing from that capital. However, as Table 1 above shows, this has often not been the case for Nigeria. Interest rates have generally been high, with the result that the sober entrepreneur, who will give for the use of money no more than a part of what he or she is likely to make by the use of it, has mostly ventured not to bother borrowing and investing in the country.
    Further drawing on Smith’s view that capitalists tend to employ their capitals in countries where the profits of trade are higher, it should therefore come as no surprise that the level of real investment in Nigeria has stagnated over the years (Figure 2). For many factors conspire to affect, and undermine, the rate of profit attributable to real production in Nigeria. Chief among them are: the uneven competition between Nigerian capital and capital coming from core and semi-peripheral economies; the high internalised external costs, particularly for electricity generation and transportation; ineffective demand for domestic products, exacerbated by the increasing costs of medical care incurred by poor people who have no succour from the government; and, finally, the increasing actual cost of capital, often precipitated by the rising influx of liquid capital and weak enforcement of contracts.

    Investment ratio (% of GDP)
    In conclusion, the first move that needs to be made to deal with Nigeria’s many contemporary problems of development should be to sweep away these many structural obstacles which decimate the rate of profit accruing to real production. Recommendations or solutions should focus, above all, on alleviating the problems that inhibit real capital assets from reproducing sufficient returns. Nigerian policy-makers should create a ‘congenial’ environment that ensures that the rate of profit accruable to real production is maintained at a level whereby the would-be capitalist deems it satisfactory to invest in a real productive process in the country. Such an environment definitely does not include completely unfettered capital and trade mobility

  114. Avatar Ugorji Ijeoma Judith says:

    The major problem with Nigeria is poor or no implementation of policies. This negative trend has eaten deep into the politics and economic fabrics of this country, and a major way to tame this monster is through structural reforms especially in the political domain.
    Nigeria since the mid 1980s gradually embraced most of the policies stipulated in the “Washington Consensus”. This is seen in the aspect of financial market liberalisation which has helped removed certain strict laws impeding the free operation of the financial market, more public enterprises have been privatised and in the aspect of trade also, where certain restrictions have been removed or controlled. Aside the Washington reform policies, Nigerian government at different times have also come up with several other policies and strategic programs with the sole aim of fostering Economic growth and development through poverty eradication, decrease in the unemployment level and inequality in income distribution, standard educated, quality health care services and the likes.
    Despite all the efforts, although it would be worthy to note that certain policies of the Washington consensus may not directly apply in attempting to solve the problem of development in Africa and particularly in Nigeria, the country is still faced with a slow-paced economic development in general. Some key aspect of its economy suffers deterioration. All these are attribute to poor implementation of the many programs and policies both internal and external, developed to aid the economy.
    The Nigerian economy is structured in a way that allows heavy political involvement and interference. Different government regimes come up with different growth plans and strategies ignoring the ones put in place by preceding regimes either as a result of non alliance with the previous regime or perception of the policy as substandard or obsolete. Either way, the underlying fact is that each government comes to power with the intention of achieving its self interest which often times are selfish political interest.
    There is need for structural reforms in Nigeria. Too much political involvement cause many of this policies to be disregarded or implemented with sentiments. The policy of fiscal discipline is negated because of flawed processes of policy implementation in terms of non transparency and poor accountability

  115. The Washington Consensus brought up by John Williamson was a set of reform policies on how developing countries could advance or become or grow to be like the developed countries. Some of which include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    As regards the issue whether these reform policies have helped Nigeria or not, the reform policies have actually not be helpful or even working today the least in Nigeria.
    This is mainly due to the fact that first, there is poor implementation of these policies. Like obviously, we have all these excellent, mouthwatering polices that are very much making a lot of sense, but the issue with this country is the poor implementation of these policies.

    Success Tonics Blog
    Eco. 362– 9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 2 on the Washington Consensus)
    Tony Orji by Tony Orji April 9, 2021Reading Time: 1min read

    The Washington Consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries. In your opinion, do you think the prescribed policy reforms have really helped Nigeria or what is actually the problem with Nigeria?

    Tags: AssignmentDevelopment EconomicsQuiz
    Previous Post
    Eco. 324 —9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 2—Commercial Banks and the Economy)
    Next Post
    Eco. 521–—- 9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 1 on Monetary Theory and Practice)
    Tony Orji
    Tony Orji
    Dr. Tony Orji is the founder and owner of Success Tonics Blog. He is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

    Related Posts
    Eco. 521–—- 9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 1 on Monetary Theory and Practice)
    Eco. 521–—- 9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 1 on Monetary Theory and Practice)
    APRIL 9, 2021
    Eco. 324 —9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 2—Commercial Banks and the Economy)
    Eco. 324 —9-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 2—Commercial Banks and the Economy)
    APRIL 9, 2021
    ECN 002—6-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 2—-Taxation 1)
    ECN 002—6-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 2—-Taxation 1)
    APRIL 7, 2021
    ECN 002—1-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 1—-Understanding the Dynamics of Public Finance)
    ECN 002—1-4-2021 (Online Discussion Quiz 1—-Understanding the Dynamics of Public Finance)
    APRIL 1, 2021
    Eco. 324 —1-4-2021 (Discussion Quiz 2—-Controversial practices by financial institutions, loss of public confidence and their impact on the economy)
    Eco. 324 —1-4-2021 (Discussion Quiz 2—-Controversial practices by financial institutions, loss of public confidence and their impact on the economy)
    APRIL 1, 2021
    Eco. 362–Development Economics II (Discussion Quiz 1 on the World Bank and Programme Lending–29-3-2021)
    Eco. 362–Development Economics II (Discussion Quiz 1 on the World Bank and Programme Lending–29-3-2021)
    MARCH 29, 2021
    Comments 32
    Odo Chinedu Ogugua 2017/251641 Ododougi@gmail.com 3 days ago
    Over three decades after market-oriented structural reforms, termed “Washington consensus” policies, were first implemented, we revisit the evidence on policy adoption and the effects of these policies on socio-economic performance using Nigeria as a case Study. We focus on three key ubiquitous reform policies around privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness and document significant improvements in economic performance for reformers over the past two decades. Following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, reform adopters experienced
    notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post 2000 period. Notably, the ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance.

    What is the Washington Consensus?
    When economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin-American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus
    inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP). These reforms were often prerequisites for financial assistance to indebted African countries during the global recession and debt crisis of the 1980s, when the external debt rose sharply to unsustainable levels.

    The story of how African countries got into a debt crisis that led to the introduction of structural adjustment programs is often told as follows: first, expansionary fiscal spending aimed at economic development spearheaded by newly independent African governments, struggling to recover from the ravages of European colonialism, increased government spending in the 1960s and 1970s. Governments also borrowed significantly to finance development expenditures over this time. Oil price shocks that significantly decreased the price of oil in 1980s led to declines in export revenue for many governments. This decline in export revenue, along with a collapse in world prices of primary agricultural commodities, which made up 88 percent of Africa’s exports, resulted in a shortfall in revenue that put enormous pressure on governments’ finances. Additionally, government featured largely in domestic financial institutions like the banking sector, with many African governments nationalizing foreign banks or creating new state-owned financial institutions.

    Washington Consensus Policies and Structural Adjustment Programs.
    A first step to understand the economic effects of Washington Consensus policy adoption is to examine the proposed reforms and the drivers of policy adoption across African countries. Washington Consensus reforms, as outlined in Serra and Stiglitz (2008), included the following 10 policy recommendations:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to
    avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased
    expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax
    rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and
    achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.

    The Washington Consensus Effect in Nigeria.
    Of the three key reforms described in Section 3, Nigeria scored highly on two: domestic market oriented reforms around privatization and fiscal reforms aimed at improving the fiscal balance over the 1980 to 1999 period. Previous work has described the Nigerian economic experience post policy adoption in the 1980s as dismal by citing decreases in GDP growth rates from 6.9 percent pre-adjustment to -1.7 percent in the post-period. In Nigeria, the main determinant of adoption of World Bank-funded reforms was the pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling.

    The second main determinant was the nature of leadership in power at the time and its commitment to the reform process. Nigeria has been a heavily oil commodity dependent country since the 1970s, with over 70 percent of government revenue from petroleum and petroleum exports as a share of total exports growing to over 90 percent in the 2000s. The heavy dependence on oil exports has made the country very vulnerable to external price shocks, with deleterious implications for the ability to finance public spending and debt. Following a drop in oil prices to between $8 and $10 per barrel in 1985-1987, and subsequent steep increases in the country’s debt to GDP ratio, Nigeria implemented policy reform in the form of structural adjustment programs with the support of the IMF and World Bank under then military president General Ibrahim Babangida.

    A key driver of reform adoption was pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling as mentioned earlier. The reform focused on fiscal tightening and privatization but also induced severe cuts in social spending on education and health which reduced the wellbeing of Nigerian citizens and increased hostility for the reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, contrary to the
    Washington Consensus which emphasized reorientation of spending toward pro-poor programs. The reforms were subsequently abandoned by the Babangida regime and the country continued to be beset by poor macroeconomic policy over the following decades of military rule. As an illustration, Nigeria continued to borrow and accumulated up to $30 billion in debt to the Paris Club of Creditors even though the country earned more than $300 billion in crude oil revenues
    over the 1970s-2001 period. The debt became incredibly difficult to service during periods of low oil prices in the mid-1980s. And while some of the oil revenue and borrowed money was invested in needed infrastructure, education and health, lack of monitoring of spending and opaque ad-hoc budgets meant there was a significant amount of spending on “white elephant” projects like unproductive steel mills.

    Following the transition to democracy in 1999 and under the helm of then President Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria was faced with an unstable macroeconomic environment characterized by volatile exchange rates, double digit inflation (23 percent per year in 2003), a relatively high fiscal deficit (3.5 percent of GDP in 2003) and low GDP growth (2.3 percent on average for the previous decade). Nigeria embarked on macroeconomic reforms under then finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
    aimed at stabilizing the macroeconomic environment and improving social indicators and general economic performance. The focus of the reforms was on privatization, budget monitoring and, crucially, investment in education and health under the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). As part of the NEEDS pol-icy and to reduce volatility in public finances, Nigeria adopted an oil price-based fiscal rule (OPFT) that used the long-run (10 year) average oil price to set government budgets and targets for spending. Based on the rule, the government would set aside some excess revenues from oil in the form of a savings account called the Excess Crude Oil Account (ECA) headquartered at the central bank. The fiscal rule, which was institutionalized in national law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act signed in 2007, linked savings to fiscal discipline around government spending, aiming for a fiscal deficit of 3 percent of GDP. The policy was successful both in building fiscal discipline and helping Nigeria weather shocks like the financial crisis of 2008-2010
    when oil prices fell from over $140 to $40 per barrel.

    Over this period, Nigeria was able to draw on savings from the ECA to implement a fiscal stimulus of around 0.5 percent of GDP and maintain public spending. Increased public savings between 2004 and 2006 as a result of policy reform had real positive effects on macroeconomic performance- leading to fiscal surpluses of 7.7 percent of GDP in 2004 and 10 percent of GDP in 2005. The increased public spending enabled Nigeria to pay off its external debt arrears of about $6 billion, increase its foreign reserves from $7 billion in 2003 to $46 billion by the end of 2006, and implement tighter monetary policy to reduce inflation from 21.8 percent in 2003 to 10 percent in 2004. The $6 billion in arrears was paid as part of debt relief of a $30 billion debt, of which $18 billion was completely written off by the Paris Club. This also helped to spur private sector investment. Growth averaged 8.1 percent a year from 2003 to 2006 and the share of spending on health and education rose to 5 percent and almost 10 percent, for health and education in 2007, respectively.

    Reforms also targeted sectors that were large drains on public finances for privatization in the telecommunications sector, the downstream petroleum sector and the power sector, to name a few, with varying degrees of success. Nigeria also benefited from the increase in oil prices in the post 2000 period, and both the reforms and increases in prices combined to create an attractive environment for private investors in the country.

    Reply
    Okonkwo Chidinma Alisa 3 days ago
    Okonkwo Chidinma Alisa

    2017/243086

    Economics Major

    300 Level

    The Washington Consensus brought up by John Williamson was a set of reform policies on how developing countries could advance or become or grow to be like the developed countries. Some of which include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    As regards the issue whether these reform policies have helped Nigeria or not, the reform policies have actually not be helpful or even working today the least in Nigeria.
    This is mainly due to the fact that first, there is poor implementation of these policies. Like obviously, we have all these excellent, mouthwatering polices that are very much making a lot of sense, but the issue with this country is the poor implementation of these policies. The body with which would be saddled with the responsible of discharging these duties could be either not discharging them at all or not effectively and efficiently carrying them out as stated.
    Second, I would say that the poor implementation problem could be due to fact that we suffer from political instability. Our government today could bring up a policy and then tomorrow’s government can come and scrap off that existing policy and which may sometimes have not even started started it’s work in the economy thereby causing us to suffer for it as such reform polices like the Washington Consensus would not even work in our economy.

    Reply
    Okagbue chisom 3 days ago
    Okagbue chisom
    2017/249552
    chisom.okagbue.249552@unn.edu.ng
    In my own opinion,I believe that the Washington consensus has really helped developing countries especially Nigeria but incompetency, inability to properly manage the country’s revenue directing to the development of the country, corruption and unaccountable actions to mention but few are problems of Nigeria that is why it seems like development is far from us.

    Reply
    UDUMA IKECHUKWU OBASI 2 days ago
    UDUMA IKECHUKWU OBASI
    2017/241441
    Economics
    ikechukwuuduma9@gmail.com

    THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS

    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.
    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.
    The widespread adoption by governments of the Washington Consensus was to a large degree a reaction to the macroeconomic crisis that hit much of Latin America, and some other developing regions, during the 1980s. The crisis had multiple origins: the drastic rise in the price of imported oil following the emergence of OPEC, mounting levels of external debt, the rise in US (and hence international) interest rates, and—consequent to the foregoing problems—loss of access to additional foreign credit. The import-substitution policies that had been pursued by many developing country governments in Latin America and elsewhere for several decades had left their economies ill-equipped to expand exports at all quickly to pay for the additional cost of imported oil (by contrast, many countries in East Asia, which had followed more export-oriented strategies, found it comparatively easy to expand exports still further, and as such managed to accommodate the external shocks with much less economic and social disruption). Unable either to expand external borrowing further or to ramp up export earnings easily, many Latin American countries faced no obvious sustainable alternatives to reducing overall domestic demand via greater fiscal discipline, while in parallel adopting policies to reduce protectionism and increase their economies’ export orientation.
    CRITICISM:
    As of the 2000s, several Latin American countries were led by socialist or other left wing governments, some of which—including Argentina and Venezuela—have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus policies. Other Latin American countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, in practice adopted the bulk of the policies included in Williamson’s list, even though they criticized the market fundamentalism that these are often associated with.

    General criticism of the economics of the consensus is now more widely established, such as that outlined by US scholar Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, in his paper Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion?
    As Williamson has pointed out, the term has come to be used in a broader sense to its original intention, as a synonym for market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism. In this broader sense, Williamson states, it has been criticized by people such as George Soros and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz. The Washington Consensus is also criticized by others such as some Latin American politicians and heterodox economists such as Erik Reinert. The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and the influence of the United States, and globalization more broadly, on countries’ national sovereignty. Some US economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, have challenged what are sometimes described as the ‘fundamentalist’ policies of the IMF and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a ‘one size fits all’ treatment of individual economies. According to Stiglitz the treatment suggested by the IMF is too simple: one dose, and fast—stabilize, liberalize and privatize, without prioritizing or watching for side effects.Besides the excessive belief in market fundamentalism and international economic institutions in attributing the failure of the Washington consensus, Stiglitz provided a further explanation about why it failed. In his article “The Post Washington Consensus Consensus”, he claims that the Washington consensus policies failed to efficiently handle the economic structures within developing countries. The cases of East Asian countries such as Korea and Taiwan are known as a success story in which their remarkable economic growth was attributed to a larger role of the government by undertaking industrial policies and increasing domestic savings within their territory. From the cases, the role for government was proven to be critical at the beginning stage of the dynamic process of development, at least until the markets by themselves can produce efficient outcomes

  116. Avatar ArinZe miracle ozioma says:

    Arinze miracle Ozioma
    2017/241428
    Economics dept
    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank. The term was coined by john williamson. These reforms include: a competitive exchange rate, liberalization of inward foreign direct investment, tax reform, privatization of state owned entities and so on.
    The problem we have as Nigeria is that these reforms are just on paper. They are not properly implemented. Because if these reforms have been implemented in Nigeria properly, it will have a positive effect on the economy. For instance when we talk of privatization of state owned entities, some institutions like Nepa has been privatized but you still find out that the government are in one way or the other still in control of the affairs of these so to be privatized entities. Because our major problem in this country is corruption, implemented of these reforms under corruption might have little or no effect on the economy.

  117. Avatar Ufomadu Oscar Onyekachi 2017/249579 Eco 362 Development Economics II Discussion on Washington consensus says:

    NAME-UFOMADU OSCAR ONYEKACHI
    DEPARTMENT- ECONOMICS
    REG NO-2017/249579
    COURSE CODE-ECO 362(DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS II
    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    With the onset of a debt crisis in the developing world during the early 1980s, the major Western powers, and the United States in particular, decided that both the World Bank and the IMF should play a significant role in the management of that debt and in global development policy more broadly. When the British economist John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America. However, much to his dismay, the term later became widely used in a pejorative way to describe the increasing harmonization of the policies recommended by those institutions. It often refers to a dogmatic belief that developing countries should adopt market-led development strategies that will result in economic growth that will “trickle down” to the benefit of all.

    The World Bank and IMF were able to promote that view throughout the developing world by attaching policy conditions, known as stabilization and structural adjustment programs, to the loans they made. In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.

    By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that the results of the Washington Consensus were far from optimal. Increasing criticism led to a change in approach that shifted the focus away from a view of development as simply economic growth and toward poverty reduction and the need for participation by both developing-country governments and civil society. That change of direction came to be known as the post-Washington Consensus.

  118. Avatar OKORORIE EMMANUEL KELECHI says:

    OKORORIE EMMANUEL KELECHI
    2017/242947
    ECONOMICS
    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    With the onset of a debt crisis in the developing world during the early 1980s, the major Western powers, and the United States in particular, decided that both the World Bank and the IMF should play a significant role in the management of that debt and in global development policy more broadly. When the British economist John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America. However, much to his dismay, the term later became widely used in a pejorative way to describe the increasing harmonization of the policies recommended by those institutions. It often refers to a dogmatic belief that developing countries should adopt market-led development strategies that will result in economic growth that will “trickle down” to the benefit of all.

    The World Bank and IMF were able to promote that view throughout the developing world by attaching policy conditions, known as stabilization and structural adjustment programs, to the loans they made. In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.

    By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that the results of the Washington Consensus were far from optimal. Increasing criticism led to a change in approach that shifted the focus away from a view of development as simply economic growth and toward poverty reduction and the need for participation by both developing-country governments and civil society. That change of direction came to be known as the post-Washington Consensus.

  119. Avatar IWUALA CHIOMA FAVOUR says:

    IWUALA CHIOMA FAVOUR
    2017/249520
    ECONOMICS
    iwualafavour573@gmail.com
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society. The ten principles originally stated by John in 1989 is more applicable in developed countries. Since Nigeria is a developing country, she might not benefit from it if applied for example, free trade. Free trade can tend to give greater benefit to developed economies than developing. But, at the same time, developing countries would benefit if the developed world (EU and US) actually cut tariffs.

  120. Avatar IWUALA CHIOMA FAVOUR says:

    IWUALA CHIOMA FAVOUR
    2017/249520
    ECONOMICS
    iwualafavour573@gmail.com
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society. The ten principles originally stated by John in 1989 is more applicable in developed countries. Since Nigeria is a developing country, she might not benefit from it if applied for example, free trade. Free trade can tend to give greater benefit to developed economies than developing. But, at the same time, developing countries would benefit if the developed world (EU and US) actually cut agricultural tariffs.

  121. Avatar Udeh Amarachi M. says:

    Udeh Amarachi M.
    2017/249576
    Maryamarachi2010@gmail.com
    Maryudeh.blogspot.com
    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.[1] The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson.[2] The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.

    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued (see § Origins of policy agenda and § Broad sense below) that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.

    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.
    The consensus as originally stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:[1]

    Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    Competitive exchange rates;
    Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state enterprises;
    Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.
    The above prescription, even though it might have been applied in Nigeria but it has no physical effect because the government is something else. One may have legal security for property right but will begging to be allowed to use his own property. This particular region known as the fulanis have terrorized the country in so many ways but the government act blind and dump in this matter. Moreover, when this happens the washington prescription will not work in the country because individual at not enjoying their rights.

  122. Avatar Ogbodo peace chinenyenwa says:

    Ogbodo peace chinenyenwa
    2017/249543
    nenyepeace2010@gmail.com
    Peacenenye.blogspot.com
    The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C. Williamson used the term to summarize commonly shared themes among policy advice by Washington-based institutions at the time, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury Department, which were believed to be necessary for the recovery of countries in Latin America from the economic and financial crises of the 1980s
    The consensus as stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP; Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment; Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates; Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms; Competitive exchange rates; Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs; Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment; Privatization of state enterprises; Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions; Legal security for property rights.
    Although Williamson’s label of the Washington Consensus draws attention to the role of the Washington-based agencies in promoting the above agenda, a number of authors have stressed that Latin American policy-makers arrived at their own packages of policy reforms primarily based on their own analysis of their countries’ situations. Thus, according to Joseph Stanislaw and Daniel Yergin, authors of The Commanding Heights, the policy prescriptions described in the Washington Consensus were “developed in Latin America, by Latin Americans, in response to what was happening both within and outside the region.”Joseph Stiglitz has written that “the Washington Consensus policies were designed to respond to the very real problems in Latin America and made considerable sense” (though Stiglitz has at times been an outspoken critic of IMF policies as applied to developing nations). In view of the implication conveyed by the term Washington Consensus that the policies were largely external in origin, Stanislaw and Yergin report that the term’s creator, John Williamson, has “regretted the term ever since”, stating “it is difficult to think of a less diplomatic label. In the case of Nigeria the reforms have not made any physical impact because our government is so self centered.
    Subsequently, Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used in a broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argue that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead. For Nigeria, in the case of privatization of state enterprize it is only but a mere assumption since the government of Nigeria has focused their attention only on a particular region.

  123. Avatar Ugwoke Paul C. says:

    Name: Ugwoke Paul Chukwuebuka
    Red no: 2017/241059
    Unit:Edu/Economics

    The Washington consensus is an approach to development that involves various economic policy prescriptions that are designed to move an economy towards economic growth and development when implemented. They include ten basic polices that create a liberal market and economy. According to Williamson who coined the term and the originator of the list, they include:
    1. Macroeconomic stability (restoring fiscal discipline by controlling budget deficit)
    2. Redirecting expenditure (reduction of government spending)
    3. Tax Reform (involved increasing tax and value added tax.)
    4. Financial liberalization
    5. Unified Exchange rate (to encourage and ease trade)
    6. ‘Replacement of quantitative trade restrictions by Tariffs’ (trade liberalization)
    7. Abolishment of Barriers to entry of foreign direct investments (Liberalizes FDI)
    8. ‘Privatization of state owned enterprises’ (reduce government spending)
    9. Deregulation (reduce state interference)
    10. ‘Legal system should provide secure property rights’ (Williamson 2005: 35-42)
    The policies under the Washington consensus are designed to liberalize various sectors of an economy. They are also directed towards increasing market efficiency, productivity and growth. Not all the policies under the consensus are implemented at the same time and in most cases, there is a lot of mixing and matching done by the governments implementing these policies with a few policies being more popular than others. Williamson (2005: 43) notes that ‘(i)n terms of which reform(s) [policies] were most widely implemented, there have been widespread attempts to tighten fiscal policy, introduce extensive financial and trade liberalization, eliminate restrictions on foreign direct investment, and promote privatization and deregulation’. These policies have earned the Washington consensus a bad reputation of increasing poverty because ‘adjustment and stabilization policies tend to depress real wages, as control over money wages is combined with devaluation’ (Stewart 1991:1849), unemployment coupled with other various adverse effects from such policies on the poor in a country lead to social decay. The failures of such policies are evident in various developing countries like Bolivia, Nigeria, and Zambia (discussed in Adefulu, 1991) whose economies after adopting stabilization and adjustment policies experienced stagnant or slow growth. These countries experienced worse situations than they were in before the implementation of the structural adjustment programme under the Washington consensus policies prescribed by the World Bank and the International monetary fund in the 1980s. The failure of this approach to development gave rise to creation of a new development approach know as the Post Washington consensus which also included some of the policies listed above in relation to its market reform component.

  124. Avatar Ugwoke Paul C. says:

    The Washington consensus is an approach to development that involves various economic policy prescriptions that are designed to move an economy towards economic growth and development when implemented. They include ten basic polices that create a liberal market and economy. According to Williamson who coined the term and the originator of the list, they include:
    1. Macroeconomic stability (restoring fiscal discipline by controlling budget deficit)
    2. Redirecting expenditure (reduction of government spending)
    3. Tax Reform (involved increasing tax and value added tax.)
    4. Financial liberalization
    5. Unified Exchange rate (to encourage and ease trade)
    6. ‘Replacement of quantitative trade restrictions by Tariffs’ (trade liberalization)
    7. Abolishment of Barriers to entry of foreign direct investments (Liberalizes FDI)
    8. ‘Privatization of state owned enterprises’ (reduce government spending)
    9. Deregulation (reduce state interference)
    10. ‘Legal system should provide secure property rights’ (Williamson 2005: 35-42)
    The policies under the Washington consensus are designed to liberalize various sectors of an economy. They are also directed towards increasing market efficiency, productivity and growth. Not all the policies under the consensus are implemented at the same time and in most cases, there is a lot of mixing and matching done by the governments implementing these policies with a few policies being more popular than others. Williamson (2005: 43) notes that ‘(i)n terms of which reform(s) [policies] were most widely implemented, there have been widespread attempts to tighten fiscal policy, introduce extensive financial and trade liberalization, eliminate restrictions on foreign direct investment, and promote privatization and deregulation’. These policies have earned the Washington consensus a bad reputation of increasing poverty because ‘adjustment and stabilization policies tend to depress real wages, as control over money wages is combined with devaluation’ (Stewart 1991:1849), unemployment coupled with other various adverse effects from such policies on the poor in a country lead to social decay. The failures of such policies are evident in various developing countries like Bolivia, Nigeria, and Zambia (discussed in Adefulu, 1991) whose economies after adopting stabilization and adjustment policies experienced stagnant or slow growth. These countries experienced worse situations than they were in before the implementation of the structural adjustment programme under the Washington consensus policies prescribed by the World Bank and the International monetary fund in the 1980s. The failure of this approach to development gave rise to creation of a new development approach know as the Post Washington consensus which also included some of the policies listed above in relation to its market reform component.

  125. Avatar Idoko Patience Uchenna. Reg. No. 2017/241111 says:

    IDOKO PATIENCE UCHENNA
    Reg. No. 2017/241111
    Education Economics
    Email: uchennapatience50@gmail.com

    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.

    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.
    1: Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    Competitive exchange rates;
    2: Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state enterprises;
    3: Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.

    IMPLICATIONS OF WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.
    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.
    3. The Chinese approach. An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.
    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)
    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.
    6. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)j
    7. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability.

    In defence of the Washington consensus
    The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits.
    It’s always easy to criticise when things go wrong. When South East Asian economies were in great difficulties in the 1990s, it is likely that any policies would be unpopular. When you have a crisis there tends to be no easy way out.
    The problems of the EU are related to difficulties of managing a single currency. A return to competitive exchange rates would help the crisis to be overcome more easily.
    The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for targeted economic diversification; some developing economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries. But, even this depends on how it is implemented. If African countries, tried to use tariffs to develop a motor industry, it would probably lead to government failure because the infrastructure isn’t there to support a new motor industry. However, if there was some support to develop primary product processing within the country, it is more likely to be successful. With privatisation it depends on what you privatise. In the UK, the privatisation of BT was relatively uncontroversial, but the privatisation of British rail was much more controversial. The difference here is that railways are a natural monopoly and have social benefits.
    An important point is that an economic policy may have sound justification, but it might not be universally applicable, e.g. free trade. Free trade can tend to give greater benefit to developed economies than developing. But, at the same time, developing countries would benefit if the developed world (EU and US) actually cut agricultural tariffs.

    Conclusion
    The Washington consensus has diverged somewhat from the original intention of John Williamson. Despite the failings of the free market, there is still merit in considering each of the 10 principles. However, there needs to be greater discrimination and less blanket implementation. The privatisation of state owned car industry may be good, but water supplies may not. Perhaps the most interesting development is the rise of the Chinese and Indian economies. In particular, Chinese investment is playing a considerable role in enabling economic development within developing economies. The Washington consensus is partly tied to the strength of the US economy. But, the US economy is likely to decline in relative terms. Perhaps in a few decades, we will be talking about the ‘Chinese consensus’ – whatever that may turn out to be.

  126. Avatar Okoro Daniel Chidera 2017/241444 says:

    My Take On the Washington Consensus
    The Washington consensus birthed many positive reforms that would aid developing countries. That being said I do not believe that these reforms have made a significant impact in Nigeria’s economy. I believe that the reforms however enticing they are would probably work for other developing countries but not for Nigeria. I believe this is due to the saying that “another man’s food is another man’s poison”. In this case I believe that the best way to help Nigeria would be to come up with a reform or set of reforms with Nigeria as its primary if not only point of work.

  127. NAME: OKEKE JUDE CHIMOBI

    REG NO: 2017/249556

    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS

    EMAIL: chimobiokeke@gmail.com

    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations. Low government borrowing.The Washington Consensus has also resulted in structural reforms, with the goal of making developing countries more competitive. The three main thrusts of these reforms have been the deregulation of domestic markets, the privatization of public firms, and the liberalization of trade and financial flows.

    Nigeria’s story of development is an interesting one, and not sufficiently told or understood outside of Nigeria and Africa more generally. In the 1970s its government pursued the conventional import-substitution industrialisation strategy of that time. The exchange policy adopted favoured a high valuation of the Nigerian naira, deliberately to assist local producers to source foreign inputs cheaply. Similarly, the increasing revenue from oil exports also precipitated this over-valuation of the currency. However, these factors affected adversely agricultural production which had previously been the main revenue source for the economy. So, with the oil price crash in early 1980, Nigeria suffered huge shocks: the depletion of its foreign reserves and the emergence of huge trade deficits.

    To alleviate these problems, the IMF and the World Bank proposed neoliberal policies of deregulation and liberalisation. It was argued that subsidisation, which many governments in the developing countries were adopting to boost capital accumulation, was in fact the reason why most of them ran very low surpluses (worsened by low tax revenues), which then in turn generated low government savings to be mobilised by the financial institutions. In similar fashion, it was suggested that the use of ceilings prevented interest rates from playing the role of balancing the supply and demand for money.

    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects. Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output (Figure 1), culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).

    The bane of this persistent underdevelopment in Nigeria can be attributed to the low and unattractive rate of profit accruing to real production in the country. The arguments of The Wealth of Nations, as articulated by Adam Smith, lend sanctity to the pursuit of profit. Famously, according to Smith, it’s not as a result of the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but rather from their regard for their own self-interest. This salient factor – personal gain/profit – determines how much capital is committed to a particular productive process, and has often been low and unattractive in Nigeria.

  128. Avatar Ugwu Sandra Ogechukwu says:

    Name: Ugwu Sandra Ogechukwu
    Reg no: 2017/241433
    Email: sandra.ugwu.241433@unn.edu.ng
    Answer:
    The Washington consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescription considered to constitute the ‘standard’ reform package promoted for crisis wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C based institutions such as the international monetary fund (IMF), World Bank and United States department of the Treasury. The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Nigeria over the years has adopted some of the prescriptions of the Washington consensus in order to boost economic growth and development eventually. Some of the prescription adopted by Nigeria includes privatization of the state enterprise, promotion of foreign direct investment and legal security for property right. However, despite these measures taken by the Nigerian government there is still a slow pace of development in the country. This slow development can be attributed to lack of fiscal discipline which is the most important prescription of the Washington consensus.
    Fiscal discipline means being discipline in spending. This is to say government should be careful on how they regulate (increase or decrease) fiscal policy variables (tax and government expenditure) to avoid disrupting economic activities by the private sector. This is not the case in Nigeria where the government always manipulate the fiscal variables without considering the private sector and its effects and also spend without caution. Spending without caution such as unnecessary donations and grants has in several ways disrupted the market system by either causing more demand over supply or the other way round.
    Manipulation of fiscal policy variables cannot be less regarded. This is because a change (either increase or decrease) in any fiscal variable if not properly managed can lead to unfavourable environment for private sector and also a disruption in market force or demand and supply.
    Hence, to ensure economic growth and development Nigerian government should avoid unnecessary spending and ensure appropriate management of fiscal policy variables in order not to disturb the forces of demand and supply.

  129. Avatar Elendu Esther Ogechi 2017/243875 says:

    The Washington Consensus
    This is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.[1] The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson.[2] The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued (see § Origins of policy agenda and § Broad sense below) that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.

    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.
    The consensus as originally stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    1.Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2.Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3.Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4.Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    5.Competitive exchange rates;
    6.Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7.Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8.Privatization of state enterprises;
    9.Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10.Legal security for property rights.

  130. Name: Ikechukwu Chizoba Peace
    Reg no: 2017/249517
    Dept: Economics

    Washington consensus was coined by John Williamson, and it was based on three orthodox; the macroeconomic discipline, a market economy and openness to the world in the context of trade and foreign direct investment. The main aim of this consensus was to combat or fight against global inequality, that is distantiation or discrimination. For the quest to fight this global apartheid the consensus came up with so many reforms for the aim of harmonizing the developing countries and the developed countries. And this reforms are; fiscal discipline, reordering public expenditure, tax reforms, interest rate liberalization, competitive exchange rate, trade liberalization (free entrance and exit), privatization of state owned entities, deregulation of the economy, property rights and liberalization of inward foreign direct investment.
    In my own opinion I think this Washington consensus have helped Nigeria but to some extent. To some extent I mean is that some factors have bridged it functioning in Nigeria. And this factors are corruption, some personal interest group, political agenda and others. Due to all this barrier factors it seems as if Nigeria economy do not fully welcomed the ideas of Washington consensus and this made her lag behind.

  131. Avatar Ezeorah chukwuebuka Emmanuel says:

    Ezeorah chukwuebuka Emmanuel
    2017/249508
    Economics
    emmanuellescot32@gmail.com

    The washington consensus helped Nigeria in certain areas but nigeria’s problem from onset is corruption and ethnic crisis, the so called leaders of Nigeria don’t even care about the interest of their citizens, they only care about looting and embezzlement of public funds

  132. Avatar KINGSLEY GIFT EBUBECHUKWU says:

    Name: Kingsley Gift Ebubechukwu
    Reg number: 2017/241438
    Dept: Economics

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organizations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US.
    The Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    The Washington Consensus insisted on the importance of stabilizing exchange rates in times of crisis through public budget cuts, higher taxes and interest rates and other recessive measures

    The ten principles of The Washington consensus originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    1) Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2) Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3) Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4) Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    5) Competitive exchange rates;
    6) Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7) Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8) Privatization of state enterprises;
    9) Deregulation: abolition of regulations that restricts market entry or restrict competition.
    10) Legal protection for property rights.

    The Washington Consensus has no doubt received a lot of setbacks with regards to the success of its implementation in Nigeria.

    Nigeria’s over-reliance on a single commodity export (oil) partly reflects inadequate external incentives to diversify production. Consequently, the Washington Consensus tenet of broadening the tax base and lowering marginal tax rates would continue to be extremely difficult to achieve in Nigeria due to the massive dependence on a single source of tax revenue.

    Also, the country is also faced with the problem of political instability. Implementation of policies and reforms are affected by political instability. The present government can kick start the implementation of a policy reforms and be abandoned by the next government when it’s effect has not started it’s work in the economy thereby making the Economy miss out from such reform polices like the Washington Consensus.

    Furthermore, poor policy implementation is another problem facing the success of the Washington Consensus. When policies take off in Nigeria, they are hindered by poor funding and adequate body implementation. The bodies charged with it’s implementation or discharging these duties could either not be discharging them effectively or efficiently as a result of adequate funding or they are just there to fill in the books.

    One major problem of all problem in Nigeria is the effect of corruption in Nigeria. These policies can not work in Nigeria, because of corrupt systems, political actors, public personnel’s, because it requires a transparent, accountable system for these policies to be properly implemented. In Nigeria, corruption helps the government to steal more public funds than allow this policies to work. Thus public theft have made the Economy instead of having enough fund to be self sufficient, it rather borrow more from the outside world.

    Among many other problems, to solve the problems of poor policy implementation and the problems of Nigeria as a whole, there should be a presence of a stable, transparent, accountable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies was an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms.

  133. Avatar Okorie Judith Onyinye says:

    Name: Okorie Judith Onyinye
    Reg number: 2017/241450
    Dept: Economics

    The word “Washington Consensus” was coined by John Williamson in 1989. The Washington Consensus is a set of 10 economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.
    These 10 Economics policies include:
    -Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    – Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    – Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    – Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    – Competitive exchange rates;
    – Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    – Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    – Privatization of state enterprises;
    – Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    – Legal security for property rights.

    However, with regards to whether the prescribed policy reforms have been of help to the Nigerian Economy. I would strongly disagree with it.

    Although the Consensus advocated for Privatization of state enterprises, it is of no doubt that it has increase efficiency and improve the quantity and quality of the product/service. With regards to key public sector industries, privatization may mean companies ignoring a wider social objectives. For example, this can be seen in the telecommunications industry, where the rural areas are left out, facing issued with poor networks and internet services problem even though the privatization of the telecommunications industry has helped improve the Economy.

    For a country like Nigeria with poor technical expertise and strategic capabilities, the policy of the Washington consensus was regarded as a failure. A structurally unequal donor–recipient relationship was established, in part due to the weakening of the public Sector induced by the drastic reduction of the administrative machine infiltrated by deep corrupt practices.

    The Social impact of these reforms was devastating in Nigeria. Many strategists and economists recognized that the difficulties associated with the economic stability promotion and liberalization had an unequal and unfair impact on the poor, leading to greater poverty and unequal income distribution among the country.

    Also many other problems affected the success possibility of the Washington consensus policies such as deep cancerous corruption practices in all sectors and form of governance, idiotic and brain dead political government rulers, tribalism and favouritism, laisser-faire attitude in the public Sectors and misuse of public fund. Poor inadequate Infrastructure with lacks adequate maintenance and brain drain which drove away expertise to where they will be valued.

    All these problems and many others has to be tackled with aggression before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually be of significant impacts in the Nigerian Economy and in Nigeria as a whole.

  134. Name: IKE GODSWILL CHINEDU
    REGNO:2017/249515
    DEPT: ECONOMICS
    ANSWERS:
    The washington consensus were intended to assist developing countries that faced economic issues. It suggested structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. For example, free-floating exchange rate and free trade.
    Now to my own opinion this policy reforms prescribed have helped Nigeria some ways , though it is not fully effective in Nigeria due to some reasons such as;
    * Government inefficiencies: the inabilities of the different parts of Nigerian government to play its role effectively.
    * Corruption: from the onset of our independence, had leadership had caused the counrry more. And this had caused Nigeria to constantly run deficit relative to our gdp over the years.
    * Lack of effective bureaucracy.
    Some economists argued also that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies, as some infant industries needs protection to ensure long-term growth. The free market has its own faults and instabilities. As we saw with the Great Recession in 2008-2009, increased deregulation can lead to financial volatility that can infect the entire economy.
    Privatization could also increase productivity and enhance the quality of the product or service. Moreover, privatization could often lead to companies neglecting some low-income markets or the social needs of a developing economy.
    These were the faults faced by the washington consensus and why they failed to an extent in Nigeria.

  135. Avatar Esokawu Jonathan Chukwudi says:

    Esokawu Jonathan Chukwudi
    2017/249500
    Eco 362

    The Washington Consensus is a set of Ten economic prescription considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington D.C. – based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. (Williamson J., 1989)

    Although, this ten principles have been very effective in developed nations. Nigeria seem to lag behind. This is as a result of high level of corruption and inconsistency in government policies. Albeit, Nigeria is akin to this principle, she has little fruits to show, due to a gross lack of Fiscal discipline, favouritism, and nepotism that has plagued her tax, trade and property rights system.

    As to wether this principles have helped Nigeria, In my own opinion, I think it has to an extent. Reason being that the Financial market in Nigeria has been bubbling (i.e the Nigerian Stock Market). This can only be attributed to some of the Washington Consensus policies, such as the trade liberalisation and financial reforms.

    Nevertheless, the extent of this effect is cut short when we look at development in Nigeria as a whole. This have been rightly attributed to corruption, which has continued to increase the gap between the rich and the poor through increased barriers to participate in the Nigerian Stock Market etc.

  136. Ijiga Christian Adakole
    2017/241255
    Education/ Economics.
    The Washington Consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries. In your opinion, do you think the prescribed policy reforms have really helped Nigeria or what is actually the problem with Nigeria?
    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    With the onset of a debt crisis in the developing world during the early 1980s, the major Western powers, and the United States in particular, decided that both the World Bank and the IMF should play a significant role in the management of that debt and in global development policy more broadly. When the British economist John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America. However, much to his dismay, the term later became widely used in a pejorative way to describe the increasing harmonization of the policies recommended by those institutions. It often refers to a dogmatic belief that developing countries should adopt market-led development strategies that will result in economic growth that will “trickle down” to the benefit of all.
    The World Bank and IMF were able to promote that view throughout the developing world by attaching policy conditions, known as stabilization and structural adjustment programs, to the loans they made. In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.
    By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that the results of the Washington Consensus were far from optimal. Increasing criticism led to a change in approach that shifted the focus away from a view of development as simply economic growth and toward poverty reduction and the need for participation by both developing-country governments and civil society. That change of direction came to be known as the post-Washington Consensus.
    The Washington Consensus Effect in Nigeria.
    Of the three key reforms described in Section 3, Nigeria scored highly on two: domestic market oriented reforms around privatization and fiscal reforms aimed at improving the fiscal balance over the 1980 to 1999 period. Previous work has described the Nigerian economic experience post policy adoption in the 1980s as dismal by citing decreases in GDP growth rates from 6.9 percent pre-adjustment to -1.7 percent in the post-period. In Nigeria, the main determinant of adoption of World Bank-funded reforms was the pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling.
    The second main determinant was the nature of leadership in power at the time and its commitment to the reform process. Nigeria has been a heavily oil commodity dependent country since the 1970s, with over 70 percent of government revenue from petroleum and petroleum exports as a share of total exports growing to over 90 percent in the 2000s. The heavy dependence on oil exports has made the country very vulnerable to external price shocks, with deleterious implications for the ability to finance public spending and debt. Following a drop in oil prices to between $8 and $10 per barrel in 1985-1987, and subsequent steep increases in the country’s debt to GDP ratio, Nigeria implemented policy reform in the form of structural adjustment programs with the support of the IMF and World Bank under then military president General Ibrahim Babangida.
    A key driver of reform adoption was pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling as mentioned earlier. The reform focused on fiscal tightening and privatization but also induced severe cuts in social spending on education and health which reduced the wellbeing of Nigerian citizens and increased hostility for the reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, contrary to the
    Washington Consensus which emphasized reorientation of spending toward pro-poor programs. The reforms were subsequently abandoned by the Babangida regime and the country continued to be beset by poor macroeconomic policy over the following decades of military rule. As an illustration, Nigeria continued to borrow and accumulated up to $30 billion in debt to the Paris Club of Creditors even though the country earned more than $300 billion in crude oil revenues
    over the 1970s-2001 period. The debt became incredibly difficult to service during periods of low oil prices in the mid-1980s. And while some of the oil revenue and borrowed money was invested in needed infrastructure, education and health, lack of monitoring of spending and opaque ad-hoc budgets meant there was a significant amount of spending on “white elephant” projects like unproductive steel mills.
    Following the transition to democracy in 1999 and under the helm of then President Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria was faced with an unstable macroeconomic environment characterized by volatile exchange rates, double digit inflation (23 percent per year in 2003), a relatively high fiscal deficit (3.5 percent of GDP in 2003) and low GDP growth (2.3 percent on average for the previous decade). Nigeria embarked on macroeconomic reforms under then finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
    aimed at stabilizing the macroeconomic environment and improving social indicators and general economic performance. The focus of the reforms was on privatization, budget monitoring and, crucially, investment in education and health under the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). As part of the NEEDS pol-icy and to reduce volatility in public finances, Nigeria adopted an oil price-based fiscal rule (OPFT) that used the long-run (10 year) average oil price to set government budgets and targets for spending. Based on the rule, the government would set aside some excess revenues from oil in the form of a savings account called the Excess Crude Oil Account (ECA) headquartered at the central bank. The fiscal rule, which was institutionalized in national law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act signed in 2007, linked savings to fiscal discipline around government spending, aiming for a fiscal deficit of 3 percent of GDP. The policy was successful both in building fiscal discipline and helping Nigeria weather shocks like the financial crisis of 2008-2010
    when oil prices fell from over $140 to $40 per barrel.
    Over this period, Nigeria was able to draw on savings from the ECA to implement a fiscal stimulus of around 0.5 percent of GDP and maintain public spending. Increased public savings between 2004 and 2006 as a result of policy reform had real positive effects on macroeconomic performance- leading to fiscal surpluses of 7.7 percent of GDP in 2004 and 10 percent of GDP in 2005. The increased public spending enabled Nigeria to pay off its external debt arrears of about $6 billion, increase its foreign reserves from $7 billion in 2003 to $46 billion by the end of 2006, and implement tighter monetary policy to reduce inflation from 21.8 percent in 2003 to 10 percent in 2004. The $6 billion in arrears was paid as part of debt relief of a $30 billion debt, of which $18 billion was completely written off by the Paris Club. This also helped to spur private sector investment. Growth averaged 8.1 percent a year from 2003 to 2006 and the share of spending on health and education rose to 5 percent and almost 10 percent, for health and education in 2007, respectively.
    Reforms also targeted sectors that were large drains on public finances for privatization in the telecommunications sector, the downstream petroleum sector and the power sector, to name a few, with varying degrees of success. Nigeria also benefited from the increase in oil prices in the post 2000 period, and both the reforms and increases in prices combined to create an attractive environment for private investors in the country.

  137. Avatar Onah Hope Nnenna says:

    Name: Onah Hope Nnenna
    Reg no: 2017/249565
    Dept: Economics
    Email: onahnnenna123@gmail. com

    Economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The consensus also resulted in structural reforms and the three main thrusts of these reforms have been the deregulation of domestic markets, the privatization of public firms and the liberalization of trade and financial flows. The goal of that structural reforms is to make the developing countries more competitive . Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates free markets, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    Having mentioned all the reforms by the Washington consensus, I will say that the prescribed policy helped Nigeria but to some extent. Reasons being that in Nigeria, there is no impediment to market entry( ie, there is free entry and free exit in the market). But where Nigeria is lagging behind due to the bad government is in the issue of not getting full protection from our legal system on our property rights and other limitations that I am unable to mention
    In summary, Nigeria as a country has refused to adopt the reforms by the Washington consensus that would have helped our country to move forward rather they choose to be selfish and corrupt at the same thereby keeping the country at a stagnant stage. So this shows that Nigeria has a problem and that problem is Corruption.

  138. Anopueme Franklin Ifeanyi
    2017/249485
    http://www.franklin.anopueme.249485@unn.edu.ng
    http://www.franksempire.wordpress.com
    NigeriaThe Washington consensus was coined by John Williamsom. The set of policies focus on how developing and underdeveloped countries will become developed. Some of these policies include: interest rate flexibility, trade liberalization, fiscal discipline, interest rate flexibility, tax reform .etc. obviously these are good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries.
    But in the case of Nigeria this policies have not worked well or at all this is due to the poor implementation and application of these policies as a result of poor leadership and incompetence in the part of the body responsible for discharging or implementing these policies.
    Furthermore, political instability also contribute to the inability of the policies to be properly implemented because a new government can come into power and change the policies of the previous government.
    These are many more reasons is why policies like the Washington consensus won’t work in Nigeria.

  139. Avatar Onah Hope Nnenna says:

    Name: Onah Hope Nnenna
    Reg no: 2017/249565
    Dept: Economics
    Email: onahnnenna123@gmail. com
    Course: Eco 362
    Economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The consensus also resulted in structural reforms and the three main thrusts of these reforms have been the deregulation of domestic markets, the privatization of public firms and the liberalization of trade and financial flows. The goal of that structural reforms is to make the developing countries more competitive.Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates free markets, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    Having mentioned all the reforms by the Washington consensus, I will say that the prescribed policy helped Nigeria but to some extent. Reasons being that in Nigeria, there is no impediment to market entry( ie, there is free entry and free exit in the market). But where Nigeria is lagging behind due to the bad government is in the issue of not getting full protection from our legal system on our property rights and other limitations that I am unable to mention
    In summary, Nigeria as a country has refused to adopt the reforms by the Washington consensus that would have helped our country to move forward rather they choose to be selfish and corrupt at the same thereby keeping the country at a stagnant stage. So this shows that Nigeria has a problem and that problem is Corruption.

  140. Avatar Christopher David Ebuka says:

    The Washington Consensus initiated by J.Williamson was a compound of transformation policies on how developing countries could move forward Economically in similitude of developed countries. Some of which include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.

    HOW HAS THE POLICIES HELP NIGERIA ECONOMY?
    In relating how these policies have helped Nigeria or not, the reform policies have actually not be helpful or even working today the least in Nigeria.
    Firstly, This is basically because of the fact that there is weak executive method of these policies. obviously, we have all these good polices that are very much making a lot of sense, but the issue with this country is the poor implementation of these policies. The body with which would be saddled with the responsible of discharging these duties could be either not discharging them at all or not effectively and efficiently carrying them out as stated.
    Secondly, poor implementation problem could be due to fact that we suffer from political inconsistency, Our government may can have a policy to work with and the successive government decide to have a divergent policy to work with, which may end up retarding the Growth of the Economy. Morever, Washington consensus may not work in Nigerian scenario.

  141. Ayogu Uchechi Euphemia
    2017/244738
    Economics Education
    Uchechi.Ayogu.2244738@unn.edu.ng.
    The term “Washington Consensus” comes from a simple set of ten recommendations identified by economist John Williamson in 1989, which are: 1) fiscal discipline; 2) redirecting public expenditure; 3) tax reform; 4) financial liberalization; 5) adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate; 6) trade liberalization; 7) privatisation 8) deregulation 9) FDI Liberalization 10) property rights for the informal sector.
    Under this consensus because the state is seen as an important factor for growth and development, it provides for the reform of the state itself. The post Washington consensus recognises the fact that most developing countries like Nigeria are faced with government inefficiency, corruption and bureaucracy. It is seen that subsidisation, which many governments in the developing countries were adopting to boost capital accumulation, was in fact the reason why most of them ran very low surpluses (worsened by low tax revenues), which then in turn generated low government savings to be mobilised by the financial institutions. Our great country welcomed this reforms but it’s difficult to fully implement it as a result of corruption and many other vices.

  142. Avatar Oforka Blessing Oluchi (2017/243365) says:

    Name: Oforka Blessing Oluchi
    Reg no: 2017/243365
    Email: blesscolls@gmail.com
    Answer:

    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    This consensus developed by British economist named John Williamson that became popular in the 1980s was a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries. It reflected a free-market approach to development followed by IMF, World Bank and U.S Department of the Treasury.
    John Williamson originally stated ten specific principles in 1989. The consensus recommended that governments should reform their policies and, in particular pursue macroeconomic stability by controlling inflation and reducing fiscal deficits; open their economies to the rest of the world through free-trade and capital account liberalization; and liberalize domestic product and factor markets through privatization and deregulation.
    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the Washington specific principles. Financial markets have been liberalized, public entities privatized and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the Nigerian economy and well-being of the population have deteriorated in some key aspects.
    The IMF has advised African countries to find a way of methodically achieving a single digit inflation rate various economies. However, Nigeria has not been able to achieve this, as a result of the frequent increase in the prices of petroleum products and its adverse multiplier effects on all other sectors of the nation’s economy. Nigeria galloping inflation rate is second to none with about 800 per cent yearly growth rate of inflation for about 20 years. IMF observed that Nigeria is the only country in the world that allows its inflationary trend to gallop that way.
    Agriculture that should have been the mainstay of the economy has not been attended to, the same thing goes for the development of solid minerals, but since the discovery of oil; the Nigerian nation has depended too heavily on the capital-intensive oil sector.

  143. Avatar Okaome Esther Chioma says:

    Okaome Esther Chioma
    2017/249554
    Economics Department
    estherokaome@gmail.com

    Good day Mr President and honourable members of the house.
    The washington consensus tis a free mark
    Economic ideas that is supported by prominent economists and international organization like the international monetary fund, (IMF) the world bank, the European union and the United States (US).
    Furthermore the washington concesus also advocate free trade, floating exchange rate, free marks and macroeconomic stability and so on.
    This principle was originally stated by John Williamson in the year 1988 he was an English Economist, this principle inlcides ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations. The washington concesus was also very important for determining policy towards Economic development in latin country like Greece, America, south east Asia and other countries.
    From my stand point of view, strongly believe that the washington concesus has really been if great hell to develoing counties like Nigeria, in so many ways like in the issue of free trade, exchange rate s and so on, But the ineptitude that is the incompetency of our Nigerian leaders to manage and utilize the country’s revenue directing it to the Development of the country instead they do otherwise and this is one of the ofproblems Nigeria today, that is why it’s seems that Development is a long way from us .

  144. Name: chukwu mmesoma faith
    Reg no: 2017/243807
    Department: education and economics
    Eco 362

    The term “Washington Consensus” comes from a simple set of ten recommendations identified by economist John Williamson in 1989:
    1) fiscal discipline;
    2) redirecting public expenditure;
    3) tax reform;
    4) financial liberalization;
    5) adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate;
    6) trade liberalization;
    7) elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment; 8) privatization of state owned enterprises;
    9) deregulation of market entry and competition; and
    10) secure property rights.
    The reference to “consensus” meant that this list was premised on the ideas shared at the time by power circles in Washington, including the US Congress and Administration, on the one hand, and international institutions such as the Washington-based IMF and the World Bank, on the other, supported by a range of think tanks and influential economists.
    It is important to note here that the theoretical foundations underlying these policy recommendations were nothing else but neoclassical economics espousing a firm belief in the market’s “invisible hand,” the rationality of economic actors’ choice, and a minimalistic vision of the states’ regulation of economies. The advent of this new paradigm has also marked the retreat of development economics as a distinct field, which had been long dominated by the “Dependency School” and other theories (Naim, 1999), often in sharp contrast with neoclassical economics and methodological individualism. It was development economics that had often guided policies experimented with in developing countries before the Washington Consensus era. Most independent African governments, for example, sought to promote industrialization, in an effort to develop local production and reduce imports, promote employment, raise the standard of living, and break out of the vicious circle of trade patterns epitomized in the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis (unfavorable terms of trade for commodity-exporting and manufacturer-importing countries). The Washington Consensus’ recipes, by contrast, were presented as universal, similarly applicable in the context of developed and developing countries, even if they ended up being implemented in a discriminatory and uneven fashion.
    Consensus policies were applied for more than two decades in such diverse contexts as Africa, Latin America and Asia, as well as in countries emerging from real socialism in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. There were usually two major stages of intervention: the first focused on macroeconomic stability and structural adjustment programs, and the second included such objectives as improving institutions, reducing corruption or dealing with infrastructure inefficiency (Naim, 1999). The conditionality exercised by the Bretton Woods institutions and wealthy countries played a crucial role in indebted countries’ decisions to push through macroeconomic stabilization reforms and structural adjustment programs. The debt crisis that first affected a number of Latin American countries and then African and Asian countries, in the 1970s and 1980s, further increased their dependence on external loans, leaving them no other option than to follow the prescriptions that enabled them to access financing.

    The Washington Consensus dictated most of the solutions proposed by international financial organizations, began to be questioned when a large number of emerging economies reduced their reliance on multilateral debt. The crisis of 2008 and 2009 accelerated the process of reflection on the prescriptive nature of the policy proposals advocated by monetarists, with their insistence on a uniform view as if all situations were alike. This has been termed ideology, and the ideology associated with the Washington Consensus has failed even in its methodological principles, as clearly demonstrated by the internal debate within organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This article reviews the various internal arguments of the international financial organizations, and provides a critique of preconstructed models involving a return to Keynesian economics. It ends with an optimistic view of the broadening and democratization of the debate on economic policies, termed the new post-Washington Consensus.

  145. OGUMBA JOY CHIDINMA
    REG NO: 2017/242028
    EDUCATION ECONOMICS
    ECO 362 DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS II
    exclusivejoy1.blogspot.com
    williamsjoy77@gmail.com

    John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, in reference to a set of 10 markets-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions as prescriptions for the improvement of economic performance in Latin American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    Most early literature found the policies failed to improve socioeconomic conditions in African countries due to the failure to consider political economy within countries; they also failed to emphasize the importance of the local ownership of the domestic economic policy.

    Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for African farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments.
    Nigeria is a good case study to the effects especially the demerits of these reforms as the demerit is very visible and felt amongst the citizens instead of the merit being on the obvious. In as much as the reforms is geared towards development, only thiose willing and sincere can enjoy that development. The level of corruption in the Nigeria is enough to slow down development in the country.

  146. Avatar Okaome Esther Chioma says:

    Good day Mr President and honourable members of the house.
    The washington consensus tis a free mark Economic ideas that is supported by prominent economists and international organization like the international monetary fund, (IMF) the world bank, the European union and the United States (US).
    Furthermore the washington concesus also advocate free trade, floating exchange rate, free marks and macroeconomic stability and so on.
    This principle was originally stated by John Williamson in the year 1988 he was an English Economist, this principle inlcides ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations. The washington concesus was also very important for determining policy towards Economic development in latin country like Greece, America, south east Asia and other countries.
    From my stand point of view, strongly believe that the washington concesus has really been if great hell to develoing counties like Nigeria, in so many ways like in the issue of free trade, exchange rate s and so on, But the ineptitude that is the incompetency of our Nigerian leaders to manage and utilize the country’s revenue directing it to the Development of the country instead they do otherwise and this is one of the ofproblems Nigeria today, that is why it’s seems that Development is a long way from us .

  147. Izuogu Chiamaka Goodluck
    2017/242101
    Economics Education
    Chiamaka..Izuogu.242101@unn.edu.ng
    Unncareerinfo
    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C. – based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. These prescriptions or reforms are
    1) Fiscal discipline in order to combat deficits that led to balance of payment crises and high inflation.
    2) Reordering of public expenditure priorities to target the poor.
    3) Tax reforms to broaden the tax base with moderate marginal tax rates.
    4) Liberalizing interest rates in the context of a broader financial liberalization.
    5) A competitive exchange rate.
    6) Trade liberalization.
    7) Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment.
    8) Privatization of state -owned entities.
    9) Deregulation of the economy to ease barriers to entry and exit.
    10) Property rights for the informal sector.
    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects. Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).
    The bane of this persistent underdevelopment in Nigeria can be attributed to the low and unattractive rate of profit accruing to real production in the country. Insincerity of Nigeria leaders including their corrupt practices have been a problem to the accomplishment of Washington Consensus. This study reveals that the anti -graft agencies are weak and that corruption has eaten deep into the fabrics of many Nigerians. Also, the privatizations of the power and downstream petroleum sectors have not yielded the much desired results. I advocate for proper implementation of fiscal responsibility laws to ensure greater fiscal discipline, transparency, accountability and good governance in Nigeria.

  148. Avatar Ngene Michael C. says:

    Name: Ngene Michael C.
    Reg no: 2017/246022
    Dept: Economics
    michaelchinecherem1997@gmail.com
    The term “Washington Consensus” was coined in 1989 by the famous Economist, John Williamson. The concept was in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Africa, Asia and Latin American countries. Generally, these policies centered around fiscal discipline that combat deficits that led to balance of payment crisis and high inflation, redirecting public expenditure, tax reform, financial liberalization, adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate, trade liberalization, elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of market entry and competition and securing property rights. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.

    In Nigerian as a case study, these policy reforms remained on paper and in the head of educated elite. Perhaps, the country will become heaven on earth the day the key leaders begin to appreciate and embraced these policy reform. The country is far from fiscal discipline and majority of the reform measures, although privatization of state-owned enterprises has gone a long way. Funds are allocated to irrelevant sectors – with the president’s library books amounting to millions and a senator’s salary amounting to 13.5 million naira monthly what a waste.

    The truth is, Nigeria’s problems are beyond the implementation of these policies. The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside markets oriented reforms plays a central role in successful policy performance. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies is an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. However, this is not the case with Nigeria. Most institutions are weak. Corruption exist even at the lowest level of governance and at different sectors. Tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the average Nigerian. All these problems, and innumerable others, have to be tackled before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually make significant impacts in Nigeria.

  149. It is important to note here that the theoretical foundations underlying these policy recommendations were nothing else but neoclassical economics espousing a firm belief in the market’s “invisible hand,” the rationality of economic actors’ choice, and a minimalistic vision of the states’ regulation of economies. The advent of this new paradigm has also marked the retreat of development economics as a distinct field, which had been long dominated by the “Dependency School” and other theories, often in sharp contrast with neoclassical economics and methodological individualism. It was development economics that had often guided policies experimented with in developing countries before the Washington Consensus era. Most independent African governments, for example, sought to promote industrialization, in an effort to develop local production and reduce imports, promote employment, raise the standard of living, and break out of the vicious circle of trade patterns epitomized in the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis (unfavorable terms of trade for commodity-exporting and manufacturer-importing countries). The Washington Consensus’ recipes, by contrast, were presented as universal, similarly applicable in the context of developed and developing countries, even if they ended up being implemented in a discriminatory and uneven fashion..
    The unlocking of economic theory and the questioning of disciplinary divisions represent a window of opportunity for reinvigorating an integrated and ambitious sustainable development agenda In Nigeria. The concept of development should be reconsidered through a holistic approach, encapsulating intrinsically linked economic, social and environmental dimensions, instead of breaking them up into separate compartments. A stronger and more democratic state, supported by efficient governance mechanisms, should assume this role. This is particularly important if public policies are to provide better social protection.
    In Nigeria knowledge should become public in order to promote collective and global creation. The potential of emerging urban centers could also be used for fostering integrated regional development and planning, as well as endogenous participatory decision-making processes .
    The first practical steps for the actual replacement of the Washington Consensus should focus on recovering the regulatory capacity of the state, aligning national accounting systems to value intangibles, including the incorporation of externalities and the introduction of innovative indicators, guaranteeing basic income, rationalizing financial systems of intermediation, redesigning tax systems, adopting budgets that aim at improving the redistribution of resources according to economic, social and environmental results, and taxing and registering speculative transactions.

  150. Avatar Ugwu Chidimma Joy says:

    UGWU CHIDIMMA JOY
    2017/249584
    ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT.
    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations. Low government borrowing.
    The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations.
    The Washington Consensus has also resulted in structural reforms, with the goal of making developing countries more competitive. The three main thrusts of these reforms have been the deregulation of domestic markets, the privatization of public firms, and the liberalization of trade and financial flows.

    The Problem With Nigerian…
    In my own opinion, the Washington consensus was actually a policy or recommendations that where enacted to help the developing or less developed countries in the area of free trade or trade liberalization, exchange rate etc. These recommendations or policy helped or was of much help to developing countries that implemented them.
    The problem with Nigeria is their inability to implement the washington consensus that is allowing the policy to end on paper without implementation.
    Secondly, Another problem with Nigeria is corrupt government. Nigeria has corrupt government who are just after their own self interest and desire rather than the interest or good of the people. These selfish government will only work for what is favorable to them rather than what is in the best interest of the masses, thereby pushing the Washington consensus policies and recommendations by the side and not looking into the implementation of these recommendations.
    The problem of Nigeria is: inability to implement policy, bad governance, over dependent on other countries, poor administration etc.

  151. Avatar Ogba Ifeanyi favour says:

    Ogba ifeanyi favour
    Economics
    2017/243369

    Washington consesus
    The ten principles of Washington conses was highlighted in 1989 by John Williamson
    Washington Consensus which is known for it’s regulation of set of free flowing market economic ideas, backed by world leading economists and international organisations, such as IMF, World Bank, European Union with the United States .
    the Washington consensus support free trade, floating exchange rates, market without restrictions and stability in macro economics
    Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and setting moderate tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    A well balance Competitive exchange rates;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state owned enterprises
    Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was useful in setting policy in economic development in country like Latin America, South East Asia and many countries.
    Liberalization in trading activities : liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;

  152. Avatar Anachuna Cynthia Chisom says:

    NAME: Anachuna Cynthia Chisom
    REG NO: 2017/249481
    EMAIL:chisomcynthia4247@gmail.com
    No, The Washington Concensus did not really help Nigeria, because it failed to account for the political economy and also the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for Nigerian Farmers to be able to complete in the global business sector or international markets, due to lack of Funds.
    The major problem with Nigeria is Corruption. When the political bodies who are meant to implement these policies are corrupt and greedy. How do you think the policies will be of help.

  153. Avatar Anachunam Daberechi MaryJane says:

    NAME: ANACHUNAM DABERECHI MARYJANE
    REG NO: 2017/241448
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS
    EMAIL: daberechi.anachunam.241448@unn.edu.ng

    THE EFFECTS OF THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS ON THE NIGERIAN ECONOMY

    At the basic level, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.

    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations.

    Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    Competitive exchange rates;
    Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    Privatization of state enterprises;
    Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    Legal security for property rights.

    Since the mid-1980s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalised, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some important aspects. Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output, culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day)

    The International Monetary Fund has advised developing countries to find a way of methodically achieving a single digit inflation rate for various economies. However, Nigeria has not been able to achieve this , as a result of the frequent increase in the prices of petroleum products and its adverse multiplier or ripple effects on all other sectors of the national economy, as made manifest in spiral inflationary trends as well as quantum increases in the prices of good and services in the country. Hence, with about 800 per cent yearly growth rate of inflation for about 20years, Nigeria’s galloping inflation is second to none in the world. It is in fact, to this end that, IMF observed that Nigeria is the only country in the world that allows its inflationary trend to gallop this way. Though the volume of economic activities in the nation signifies a growth in the Gross Domestic Product, but the level of inflation shows that it is possible for GDP to rise without raising the people’s standard of living

    In conclusion, the principles of the Washington consensus didn’t have any substantial effect on Nigeria’s economy is because Nigeria is dependent, capitalist economy in permanent crisis of various sorts. The economy is overly linked to the international oil pricing which can and do create domestic economic shocks and instability. The country’s reserve is estimated at over 32 billion barrels and the sixth largest producer in OPEC. In spite of these resource endowment and investment in development efforts, the nation is still disappointingly characterized by poor micro-economic instability, inflationary pressures and high cost of doing business in the country. And, in the area of Foreign Direct Investment, there has been no remarkable achievement due to macro-economic instability, high inflation rate, high interest rate and exchange rate volatility arising from fiscal dominance, poor infrastructural facilities, inadequate and costly telecommunication services, frequent disruption on power supply and poor road network.

  154. Avatar Emegbue Benjamin says:

    EMEGBUE BENJAMIN
    Economics Dept.
    2017/241452

    In Nigeria, the Washington consensus inspired market based reforms, prescribed by international financial institutions like the world bank and the IMF under the SAP program (Structural Adjustment Programs). Although on the long run these policies that were inspired by the “Washington consensus” failed to improve the socioeconomic conditions in Nigeria because of the kind of political economy within our country(Nigeria), politics and neglect of the role of local ownership in domestic economic policy.

    Some of the major policy reforms of the Washington consensus included privatization, fiscal discipline and trade openness and these market-oriented reforms has helped us experience some improvements in economic growth, although the truth remains that for a successful implementation of the reforms brought by the Washington consensus, there ought to be an already established stable government, and sociopolitical environment poised on pro-poor policies concurrent efforts to minimize the potential negative welfare impacts of macro economic reforms on domestic population but unfortunately Nigeria lacks these necessary requirements, causing the impact of the Washington consensus reforms to be quite insignificant.

  155. ANENE VICTORIA CHIOMA
    2017/242435
    ECONOMICS
    victoria.anene.242435@unn.edu.ng
    toria20@simplesite.com

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    developing countries like Nigeria, free trade isn’t always the best option. Some strategic and infant industries have to be protected initially to provide long-term growth. These industries may also require protection in the form of subsidies or tariffs against imports.. furthermore, Privatization can increase productivity and enhance the quality of the product or service. However, privatization can often lead to companies ignoring certain low-income markets or the social needs of a developing economy. The free market has its own faults and instabilities. As we saw with the Great Recession in 2008-2009, increased deregulation can lead to financial volatility that can infect the entire economy.
    In addition, the population of Nigeria has exceeded the 100 million mark. Demographic growth is considered a crucial element in the shift of power from North to East and South, and the fast growing middle classes both in other developing countries. Nigeria seems to account for a significant part of global demand. Recent analyses indicate that the lower middle class in Nigeria represents a huge, fast growing new market, which will determine different products and services from those until now supplied to the middle classes of wealthy countries. It is also believed that the development of agribusiness provides an opportunity for improving the standard of living of poor populations. Currently, Nigeria’s agriculture has a low rate of capitalization, mechanization and added value. The value of agribusiness production in the rural region of Nigeria is four times lower than Output of developed countries and the agricultural share of GDP in Nigeria exceeds that of agribusiness by 10%. As a result, less than 30% of agricultural produce is processed in Nigeria as compared with 98% in high-income countries.

  156. Name ; Okaforukwu chizaram sandra

    Dept; Economics

    Reg no;2017/249551

    WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    The Washington Consensus consists of a number of ten economic policy requirements that are considered to be the “standard” reform package promoted in the emerging economies of crisis. It was first used by John Williamson, an English economist, in 1989. The provisions included policies in areas such as macroeconomic stabilization , trade and investment economic openness. The Policy framework refers to a range of broad-based economic market ideas supported by leading economists and international organizations, including the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the USA.
    In the 1980s, the US and other Western powers decided to play an important role in managing the debt crisis, the World Bank and IMF. In order to explain the policies recommended by those organizations the Washington Consensus was used extensively. It also refers to the dogmatic conviction that developed countries should follow development policies that direct the market. In the developing world, the IMF and the World Bank were able to foster this view by applying policy conditions to the loans they have made. “Washington Consensus” is a common term for a series of policies which have become the traditional loan advice kit. By the end of the 1990s the outcome of the Washington Consensus has become apparent. Rising criticism resulted in a shift from development to economic growth, to poverty reduction and the need for both developed governments and civic societies to participate.. This shift was known as the post-Washington consensus.
    John Williamson states 10 principles, including ten relatively specific recommendations on policy.
    I. Borrowing from the low government. Avoiding significant GDP fiscal deficits.
    II. Redirect public spend on the provision of key pro-crew, pro-poor services such as primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment from the subsidies (‘such as non-discriminatory grants’).
    III. Tax reform, expansion of the tax base, moderate tax margins.
    IV. Market determined and positively (but moderately) determined interest rates in real terms.
    V. Competitive currency.
    VI. Trade liberalization: import deregulation with particular emphasis on removing economic sanctions (licensing, etc.), any commercial protection to be provided through low and relatively uniform tariffs.
    VII. Foreign inland direct investment liberalization.
    VIII. Privatization of state-owned companies.
    IX. Deregulation: the abolition, except as justified on safety grounds, environmental and consumer protection grounds and prudential oversight by financial institutions of regulation that hinder market entry or restrict competition.
    X. Property laws legal protection.

    THE EFFECT OF THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    a. Free trade support via the WTO and NAFTA – reducing tariff obstacles.
    b. IMF rescue programs tended as a scenario of received money to involve free market reforms.
    c. Free trade confidence suggests that countries, where they offer a comparative benefit, should specialize in goods/services. This may require developing economies to stick to primary product manufacturing.

    CRITICISM OF THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    Washington Consensus policies have been criticized since the 1990s by a significant number of leading economists. Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist at the World Bank from 1997 to 2000, criticized the policies prescribed by the IMF in response to the financial crises in Russia and Asia. It is now commonplace to say that structural adjustment (SAP) and macroeconomic stabilization programs had a disastrous impact on social policies and poverty levels in many countries. UNICEF published the report Adjustment with a Human Face (1987), which called for “meso-policies” to be redirected towards protecting social and economic sectors that were essential to the survival of the poor. Some critics pointed out that liberalization policies, and such policies as the elimination of subsidies for fertilizers, had a negative impact on agricultural productivity and output. The period of structural adjustment programs in sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s was characterized by poor economic performance. One of the major drawbacks of the policies imposed by the IMF and the World Bank was the lack of technical expertise and strategic capability on the part of the implementing countries. The social impact of these reforms was devastating for Sub-Saharan Africa. Many economists recognized that the difficulties associated with the promotion of economic stability had a disproportionate impact on the poor. The 1997 Asian crisis raised some important questions about the consequences of the deregulation of financial markets.

    CONCLUSION
    Washington and the Post-Washington consensus policies for growth and their impact on the economy of Nigeria. It followed on from the administration of President Shagari of the Second Republic to President Muhammadu Buhari’s present administration in Nigeria’s major economical reforms. Policies adopted during the entire period included a mixture of institutional plans, market mechanisms and reforms. The main policies implemented over the time are:
    1. control over government
    2. privatization
    3. liberalization
    4. anti-corruption
    5. reforms to the public sector
    6. governance and
    7. institutional reform, etc.
    Research showed that Nigeria’s policies have achieved moderate economic growth through macroeconomic instability, unemployment and high levels of poverty. The research has also shown that the anti-graft agencies are slight and corruption has deeply influenced the textiles of many Nigerians. The privatization of the oil and electricity sectors downstream did not yield the desired results. In order to achieve greater fiscal discipline, transparency, accountability and good governances in Nigeria, this research calls for the proper implementation of tax liability law.

  157. Avatar Chikeleze Chigozie Noel (2017/243815) says:

    The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    These policies centered around fiscal discipline, financial liberalization, redirecting public expenditure, competitive exchange rate, trade liberalization, elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises, tax reform, deregulation of market entry and competition and securing property rights.
    In Nigeria these policy reforms were not actualized due to the bad governances and the waek institutions. The manner with which Nigeria spends money is a far cry from fiscal discipline, Nigeria’s exchange rate keeps falling, even though privatization of state owned enterprises has been implemented in some sectors like power, efficiency is still yet to be achieved.

    Before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually make significant impacts in Nigeria, some key areas and issues need to be visited. There exists a high level of corruption in Nigeria in all levels of governance, there is lack of unity amon the different tribes in the country, Bad governance which give way for the embezzlement of borrowed funds from other counties to mention but a few. When these issues have been tackled, then the Washington consensus prescriptions will be able make significant impact in Nigeria.

  158. Avatar Irueforum joseph emeka says:

    Name : Irueforum joseph emeka
    Reg no : 2017/249519
    Email : Josephirueforum@gmail.com

    Washington concensus is a term coined by John Williamson Washington Consensus, is a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s.
    The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.

    1. Fiscal discipline : Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;

    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment.

    3.  Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates.

    4.  Liberalization of Interest rates that are market determined and positive in real terms.

    5.  Competitive exchange rates.

    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;

    7 Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;

    8 Privatization of state enterprises;

    9 Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental anu consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions

    10 Legal security for property rights

    In relation to Nigeria the Washington concensus policy has helped Nigeria to develope at some point as a developing nation, but the policies are not fully implemented, Nigeria lack fiscal discipline as funds are used for unnecessary means, as her debts increases, funds are not being allocated to some strategic areas or sectors to improve development,
    Poor exchange rate as we rely mostly on foreign currency to facilitate trade. It is when these consensus policies are fully implemented that Nigeria can be regarded as a developed country.

  159. IGWILO VINCENT EBUKA
    2017/241434
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS
    ebuka.igwilo.241434@unn.edu.ng
    vingist.blogspot.com

    The Washington Consensus has resulted in structural reforms, with the goal of making developing countries more competitive. The three main thrusts of these reforms have been the deregulation of domestic markets, the privatization of public firms, and the liberalization of trade and financial. Looling af the ten guidelines, Nigeria have done 30% or more if I’m not mistaken but still slow pace of development. The major problem is bribery and corruption, greed and illetracy. The government is so corrupt that when these policies are implemented there is zero effects in the economy rather the revenue that is suppose to be used is siphoned or the capital meant for expenses are siphoned also.
    For The illiteracy: due to the poor, half-baked, uneducated senators and Persons in the government, there is no proper usage of these policies, sometimes they are misinterpreted and misused and the government show non chalant attitude about it and as a result, nothing moves forward rather backwards. Even if there are two steps forward there would be five backwards resulting to stagnant economy or degrading economy

  160. Name: Okeke Mercy Adaugo
    Reg. No.: 2017/241449
    Department: Economics
    Level: 300

    The Washington Consensus Reforms
    Introduction
    The Washington consensus is a set of prescriptions formulated in the 1989 mainly for the betterment and enhancement of the developing countries like Nigeria. It is a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations already clearly stated by Mr. President.
    Has the Prescribed Policy Reforms really helped Nigeria?
    Mr. President, in my own opinion, I believe the reform in itself is capable of serving it’s main purpose of pulling a poor or developing nation out of poverty and stagnation. The Nigerian economy did not really respond to these prescriptions.
    Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output.
    Many authors have argued that these reforms has, among others, failed to account for political economy within countries, and the politics of conditionality and reforms that did not adequately emphasize the role of local ownership in domestic economic policy. Though the country has witnessed huge rise in per capital real GDP prior to the embracement of the reform during the 1990s. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for Nigerian farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment, reduced export, unfavorable balance of trade and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments.

    What is really the problem of Nigeria?
    BAD GOVERNANCE and poor educational system.
    Nigeria cannot develop if they do not equip and provide an enabling environment for development. Imagine a basic student in China already knowing how to make a good working phone. While education down here in Nigeria only entails the study of historical events, models and theories that are not even relevant to the present situation of the economy. So these reforms could only slightly enhance economic growth and set a pace that would have gone a long way if the foundation of the economy was in a better shape.
    As the inductive economists, the German historical school, has earlier suggested, it is more rational to look into the historical background of Nigeria, before prescribing reforms that would best suit it and most likely fit in well, rather than just imposing policies that would not blend well with the Nigerian economy

  161. Avatar Ugwoke kasiemobi Roseline reg no: 2016/231449 economics major says:

    Name: Ugwoke Kasiemobi Roseline
    Reg No: 2016/231449
    Economics Major

    Term “Washington Consensus” comes from a simple set of ten recommendations identified by economist John Williamson in 1989: 1) fiscal discipline; 2) redirecting public expenditure; 3) tax reform; 4) financial liberalization; 5) adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate; 6) trade liberalization; 7) elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment; 8) privatization of state owned enterprises; 9) deregulation of market entry and competition; and 10) secure property rights.

    The prescriptions on Washington consensus towards the development of Africa country have not really helped Nigeria.

    Nigeria is the African most populous country largest economy, yet Nigerians are faced with enormous challenges which might have prevented the Washington consensus from being effective in the country.
    this are major problems I feel that causes problem to Nigeria development.

    This challenges includes disunity, conflict, greed, lack of implementation of research results, and the last but not the least is selfishness.

    Of all the problems, selfishness of our leaders is an obstacle behind every development in Nigeria. Our leaders are selfish to the extent that when they are been given a contract on construction of a public place like hospital, school, road, pipe born-water electricity they will collide it to become their personal contract. If the federal Minister of Works offers a contract on pipe born-water construction, the politicians in charge of the contract will channel it to their place of residence for their personal benefit without considering other citizens which would benefit from it.
    So I think the main problem surpassing other issues in Nigeria is selfishness. It is selfishness that results in conflict, bribery and corruption.
    Most of our leaders are interested in their personal pockets. This is what the Igbos call (fon fonju akpa), which means being interested in ones personal pocket.
    It’s high time we tackled the issue of selfishness as it is the root cause of various problems of Nigeria. Selfishness brings about disunity, conflict tribalism and so on.

  162. Isaac Blessing chiyantirimam
    2017/242942
    Economics
    Eco 362
    Over three decades after market-oriented structural reforms, termed “Washington consensus” policies, were first implemented, we revisit the evidence on policy adoption and the effects of these policies on socioeconomic performance in sub-Saharan African countries. We focus on three key ubiquitous reform policies around privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness and document significant improvements in economic performance for reformers over the past two decades. Following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, reform adopters experienced notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post 2000 period. The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury. The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy. Concerning if the Washington consensus policy could work in Nigeria, it is no because of the poor implementation of policies we already know . And also this could be due to fact that we suffer from political instability. Our government today could bring up a policy and then tomorrow’s government can come and scrap off that existing policy and which may sometimes have not even started it’s implementation in the economy thereby causing us to suffer for it as such reform polices thereby making the Washington consensus impossible in our country.

    • Name: Ike Godswill Chinedu
      Reg no: 2017/249515
      Dept Economics
      Answer
      The washington consensus were intended to assist developing countries that faced economic issues. It suggested structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. For example, free-floating exchange rate and free trade.
      Now to my own opinion this policy reforms prescribed have helped Nigeria some ways , though it is not fully effective in Nigeria due to some reasons such as;
      * Government inefficiencies: the inabilities of the different parts of Nigerian government to play its role effectively.
      * Corruption: from the onset of our independence, had leadership had caused the counrry more. And this had caused Nigeria to constantly run deficit relative to our gdp over the years.
      * Lack of effective bureaucracy.
      Some economists argued also that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies, as some infant industries needs protection to ensure long-term growth. The free market has its own faults and instabilities. As we saw with the Great Recession in 2008-2009, increased deregulation can lead to financial volatility that can infect the entire economy.
      Privatization can increase productivity and enhance the quality of the product or service. However, privatization can often lead to companies ignoring certain low-income markets or the social needs of a developing economy. These were the faults faced by the washington consensus and why they failed to an extent in Nigeria.

  163. Avatar Okoronkwo Uchechukwu David says:

    NAME: Okoronkwo Uchechukwu David
    REG NO: 2017/241455
    DEPARTMENT: Economics
    EMAIL: uchechukwu.okoronkwo.241455@unn.edu.ng

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists to help boost developing countries
    Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and basically macroeconomic stability.
    Low government borrowing, liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive exchange rates, deregulation, that is abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition etc.
    However, in the view of whether the Washington consensus reform policies have helped Nigeria, the answer is NO.
    because, the setting up of policies and its implementation are two different things, the inability to properly manage the country’s abundant resources, the instability of the country’s politicies, corruption and continuous unaccountability in various fields and tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the nation and unless discipline and total reform is embraced, no meaningful reform policy will pass paper level to reality in this country.

  164. Avatar Okoroji Arinze Emmanuel says:

    Okoroji Arinze Emmanuel
    Economics (Major)
    2017/241443

    The washington concensus may have been said to be working for Nigeria but in my opinion the Nigerian leadership have suffered a lot of set back. And the issue of tribalism and nepotism has played a dangerous role in the economic development of the Nigerian economy. It has always been about who gulped out more for the region he is from and not to better the nation at large.
    Nevertheless, most African states have made strong progress with many of the reforms, which helps explain, in part, the continent’s improved economic performance in recent years. Economic growth in Africa is expected to average 3.1 percent this year and 4.2 percent next year, more than twice the average in 1984–93 and marginally higher than the average for all developing countries. Macro-economic stability is being consolidated, with average consumer price inflation at 9.7 percent in 2002, down from 13.2 percent in 2001 and 54.6 percent in 1994. Underpinning the better inflation picture are lower fiscal deficits, which have declined from an average 5.2 percent of GDP in 1994 to 2.1 percent in 2001.
    Part of Africa’s growth problem is due to the incentives and disincentives embedded in the global environment. All African economies, even those of South Africa, Nigeria, and Egypt, are small. Thus, the whole global environment—trade, international finance, and development aid needs to be supportive of growth and to provide the right incentives for small African states to pursue reform.

  165. Avatar NNANYELUGO CHIDERA MICHAEl says:

    Name: NNANYELUGO CHIDERA MICHAEl
    Reg no: 2017/245023
    Dept: Economics

    Meaning
    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    The Washington consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries like Nigeria so I think it has really helped Nigeria.
    With the onset of a debt crisis in the developing world during the early 1980s, the major Western powers, and the United States in particular, decided that both the World Bank and the IMF should play a significant role in the management of that debt and in global development policy more broadly. When the British economist John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America. However, much to his dismay, the term later became widely used in a pejorative way to describe the increasing harmonization of the policies recommended by those institutions. It often refers to a dogmatic belief that developing countries should adopt market-led development strategies that will result in economic growth that will “trickle down” to the benefit of all.
    The World Bank and IMF were able to promote that view throughout the developing world by attaching policy conditions, known as stabilization and structural adjustment programs, to the loans they made. In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.

    By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that the results of the Washington Consensus were far from optimal. Increasing criticism led to a change in approach that shifted the focus away from a view of development as simply economic growth and toward poverty reduction and the need for participation by both developing-country governments and civil society. That change of direction came to be known as the post-Washington Consensus.

    Criticisms of The Washington Consensus
    Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. Some strategic and infant industries have to be protected initially to provide long-term growth. These industries may also require protection in the form of subsidies or tariffs against imports.
    Chinese firms, aided by the government, have been investing large sums in developing economies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These firms typically invest in infrastructure, creating opportunities for long-term trade and growth.
    Privatization can increase productivity and enhance the quality of the product or service. However, privatization can often lead to companies ignoring certain low-income markets or the social needs of a developing economy.
    The free market has its own faults and instabilities. As we saw with the Great Recession in 2008-2009, increased deregulation can lead to financial volatility that can infect the entire economy.

    Conclusion
    The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade.
    Critics have pointed out that the policies were unhelpful and imposed harsh conditions on the developing countries, others have defended the long-term positive impact of these ideas.

  166. Avatar IROEGBU BLESSING ONYINYECHI says:

    IROEGBU BLESSING O.
    2017/249518
    ECONOMICS

    The Washington Consensus which was coined by John Williamson was a set of reform policies on how developing countries could advance or become or grow to be like the developed countries. Some of which include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for Africa farmers to compete on international markets.
    Here in Nigeria, these policy reforms remained on paper. Perhaps, the country would have become a better place, had its key figures embraced these policy reforms. The country is far from fiscal discipline and majority of the reform measures, although privatization of state-owned enterprises has gone a long way and funds are allocated to irrelevant sectors.
    Finally, I believe that Nigeria would have really been helped this consensus but Nigeria’s problems are beyond the implementation of all these policies. Her inability to properly manage the country’s revenue directing to the development of the country, corruption and unaccountable actions to mention but few are problems of Nigeria that is why it seems like development is far fetched.

  167. Avatar Ugwu Amaechi Jude says:

    Ugwu Amaechi Jude
    2017/242434
    Economics Department

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas proposed to help the developing countries and supported by international organisations like International Monetary Fund, The United Nations, The World Bank etc.
    The tenets of the Washington Consensus are listed below
    1. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits.
    2. Redirection of public spending.
    3. Tax reform
    4. Market regulated interest rates
    5. Competitive exchange rate.
    6. Privatisation of state enterprises.
    7. Deregulation
    8. Trade liberation
    9. Promotions of foreign direct investment
    10. Legal security of property rights
    The Washington Consensus would work to the economic growth of Nigeria but the main problem with the Nigerian economy is the visible unwillingness on the part of the government to implement the economic ideas of the consensus by their actions and inactions.
    Actions of the government that hinders economic growth and development in Nigeria includes acquisition of large debts, dubious public spending, trade restrictions, over controlled exchange rates and so on.
    Their inactions are evident in the refusal to deregulate the down stream sector, refusal to privatise public enterprise, refusal to provide adequate security of life and properties that would attract foreign direct investments, etc.
    In conclusion, the Washington Consensus would work in Nigeria if and when the government implements the economic tenets of the consensus by their actions and inactions.

  168. Washington Consensus
    Washington consensus refers to a set of economic policies recommendation for developing countries, and Latin America that became popular during the 1980’s. The term Washington consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the international monetary fund, the world bank, the us department of the treasury on those policies recommendation.
    The world bank and the international monetary fund was able to promote the view throughout the developing world by attaching policy conditions, known as stabilization and structural adjustment programs to the loans they made. In very broad terms, the Washington consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficit.
    Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980’s. Therefore the monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spendings will be reduced and interest rates will be raised to reduce the money supply.
    The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange rate policy so the country could be integrated into the global economy.
    The ten elements of the Washington consensus are: Fiscal adjustments, tax reforms, deregulation, trade liberalization, competitive exchange rate, privatization, removal of barrier to foreign investment, and financial reforms.
    In my conclusion Washington consensus has helped Nigeria, but corruption is always a hindrance towards economic development.

  169. Idu Ifeanyi Peculiar
    2017/249511
    Economics Major
    ifeanyipeculiaridu@gmail.com

    The Washington consensus was brought up by John Williamson. It is a set of policies that focus on how developing and underdeveloped countries will become developed. Some of these policies include: interest rate flexibility, trade liberalization, fiscal discipline, interest rate flexibility, tax reform .etc. obviously these are good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries.
    But in the case of Nigeria this policies have not worked for Nigeria well or at all this is due to the poor implementation and application of these policies as a result of poor leadership and incompetence in the part of the body responsible for discharging or implementing these policies.
    Furthermore, political instability also contribute to the inability of the policies to be properly implemented because a new government can come into power and change the policies of the previous government.
    These are many more reasons is why policies like the Washington consensus won’t work in Nigeria.

  170. Ndem Nneka Grace
    2017/249529
    Economics
    Nnekagrace.blogspot.com

    The Washington Consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries. In your opinion, do you think the prescribed policy reforms have really helped Nigeria, or what is actually the problem with Nigeria?

    Washington Consensus which was championed by John Williamson in 1989 is a set of rigid, almost unalterable set of theoretical propositions about which the powerful and the knowledgeable had no doubt was widespread. Moreover, the often implicit corollary espoused by the more politically motivated consensus proponents was that dissent with its policies was often inspired by anti-Americanism and other forms of the modern-day equivalents of obscurantism.
    One of the undoubted historical contributions of the Washington consensus is that it marked the end of decoupling between developing economies and mainstream economies that had gather steam since the 1970s.
    Therefore one of the Washington consensus prescriptions that the government-imposed barriers to import and export to foreign investment and to foreign currency transactions had to be lifted was sharply at odds with the long-held conviction that developing countries had to protect their economy from an unfair and exploitative international system rigged against them. It also nurtured implicit but very important changes in attitudes about the extent to which countries economic destiny could be shaped by national policymakers. For years, external factors, foreign conspiracies, foreign aid, the externally determined price of the main export commodity, or an impenetrable international economy we’re seen as the main drivers of a developing countries poor economic performance. This postulates that domestic policies had far less impact than decisions taken abroad.

    Frankly speaking the prescribed policies by the Washington consensus would have been a channel for the development of Nigeria, but main looking at Nigeria we can vividly see that our problem is beyond our control how? Before these reforms can be an aid to the development of Nigeria, Nigeria on it’s own have some issues to settle like government instability, corruption, over dependency on other countries, infrastructural development etc. In our country today, it’s obvious that there is government instability even if the current government should implement the policy reforms, another government might come up tomorrow and scrape it off to bring his own policy, and the policy will end up not yielding anything to the economy. There is high rate of corruption which need to be handled first before the implementation of some of the policies. In my opinion I am saying that the prescribed policy reforms can be effective in Nigeria but it can’t be effective without Nigeria handling it’s own personal problems in the country.

  171. Avatar Enyum Joseph Ikechukwu says:

    Name: Enyum Joseph Ikechukwu
    Reg No: 2017/249498
    Dept: Economics

    Washington Consensus?
    When economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin-American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus
    inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP). These reforms were often prerequisites for financial assistance to indebted African countries during the global recession and debt crisis of the 1980s, when the external debt rose sharply to unsustainable levels.

    The story of how African countries got into a debt crisis that led to the introduction of structural adjustment programs is often told as follows: first, expansionary fiscal spending aimed at economic development spearheaded by newly independent African governments, struggling to recover from the ravages of European colonialism, increased government spending in the 1960s and 1970s. Governments also borrowed significantly to finance development expenditures over this time. Oil price shocks that significantly decreased the price of oil in 1980s led to declines in export revenue for many governments. This decline in export revenue, along with a collapse in world prices of primary agricultural commodities, which made up 88 percent of Africa’s exports, resulted in a shortfall in revenue that put enormous pressure on governments’ finances. Additionally, government featured largely in domestic financial institutions like the banking sector, with many African governments nationalizing foreign banks or creating new state-owned financial institutions.

    Washington Consensus Policies and Structural Adjustment Programs.
    A first step to understand the economic effects of Washington Consensus policy adoption is to examine the proposed reforms and the drivers of policy adoption across African countries. Washington Consensus reforms, as outlined in Serra and Stiglitz (2008), included the following 10 policy recommendations:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to
    avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased
    expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax
    rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and
    achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.

    The Washington Consensus Effect in Nigeria.
    Of the three key reforms described in Section 3, Nigeria scored highly on two: domestic market oriented reforms around privatization and fiscal reforms aimed at improving the fiscal balance over the 1980 to 1999 period. Previous work has described the Nigerian economic experience post policy adoption in the 1980s as dismal by citing decreases in GDP growth rates from 6.9 percent pre-adjustment to -1.7 percent in the post-period. In Nigeria, the main determinant of adoption of World Bank-funded reforms was the pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling.

    The second main determinant was the nature of leadership in power at the time and its commitment to the reform process. Nigeria has been a heavily oil commodity dependent country since the 1970s, with over 70 percent of government revenue from petroleum and petroleum exports as a share of total exports growing to over 90 percent in the 2000s. The heavy dependence on oil exports has made the country very vulnerable to external price shocks, with deleterious implications for the ability to finance public spending and debt. Following a drop in oil prices to between $8 and $10 per barrel in 1985-1987, and subsequent steep increases in the country’s debt to GDP ratio, Nigeria implemented policy reform in the form of structural adjustment programs with the support of the IMF and World Bank under then military president General Ibrahim Babangida.

    A key driver of reform adoption was pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling as mentioned earlier. The reform focused on fiscal tightening and privatization but also induced severe cuts in social spending on education and health which reduced the wellbeing of Nigerian citizens and increased hostility for the reforms in the 1980s and 1990s, contrary to the
    Washington Consensus which emphasized reorientation of spending toward pro-poor programs. The reforms were subsequently abandoned by the Babangida regime and the country continued to be beset by poor macroeconomic policy over the following decades of military rule. As an illustration, Nigeria continued to borrow and accumulated up to $30 billion in debt to the Paris Club of Creditors even though the country earned more than $300 billion in crude oil revenues
    over the 1970s-2001 period. The debt became incredibly difficult to service during periods of low oil prices in the mid-1980s. And while some of the oil revenue and borrowed money was invested in needed infrastructure, education and health, lack of monitoring of spending and opaque ad-hoc budgets meant there was a significant amount of spending on “white elephant” projects like unproductive steel mills.
    The failure of the Washington Consensus has provided many lessons that can be learned by new government leaders in developing and less-developed countries to concern on their policies and international financial institutions to do a reform and create a new economic package or policies to boost global growth and development. The neo-liberalist people have to believe that the Washington Consensus has failed to give a solution for global development. However, it has given a bad experience for countries adopting the policy package from this consensus. As many interpretations of the Washington Consensus exist as there are regions in the world. For Africa, the panoply of reforms subsumed under the term has been useful as a guide to economic policymaking—with the main focus on fiscal discipline and privatization—even though it has proved difficult for most African countries to pursue all of them. Few countries anywhere have applied the reforms of the Washington Consensus completely, not least because some of them are culturally and historically sensitive. A larger difficulty, however, is that the reform agenda only partially addresses the growth constraints faced by many developing countries. Macroeconomic stabilization is critical for growth, but it is not clear that privatization is. Moreover, privatization and deregulation simply do not apply to African countries in the same way that they may in Latin American countries.

  172. Avatar Agbo Jennifer Amarachi says:

    Agbo Jennifer Amarachi
    2017/249476
    jenniferamarachi.agbo@gmail.com
    Economics

    John Williamson, a famous Economist coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989. He referenced it to policies that centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investments.

    Specifically, these reforms or Williamson’s 10 commandments as some will call it include: Fiscal discipline, Tax reforms, Trade liberalization, privatization, deregulation, Secure property rights, Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment, Reordering public expenditure, A competitive exchange rate.

    These reforms have been applied in some countries for example, Argentina, Indonesia, Korea and Thailand but then the results were short lived, negative and caused these countries to suffer deeper output looses more than countries that did not apply the Washington Consensus.

    This implies that the Washington Consensus suffers from fundamental inadequacies, and that a more comprehensive framework of the economic policies is needed to guide the formulation of country-specific development strategy. Thus, failure of Washington Consensus in Nigeria is entirely not Nigeria’s fault although most of Nigeria’s activities resulted to its non-actualization.

    The Nigerian Story

    Since the mid-1980’s Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the Washington Consensus. Major economic reforms were adopted in Nigeria from the Administration of president Shehu Shagari in the Second Republic to the present administration led by President Muhammadu Buhari. The policies adopted were a blend of institutional plans, market mechanism and reforms. Specifically, the major policies practiced in the period include: Government Control, Privatization, Liberalization, Anti-Corruption, public sector reforms, Governance and institutional reforms among others.

    However, the Nigerian economy, after fifty years of political Independence and Economic governance and management, had suffered from fundamental structural defects and has remained in persistent stagnation. The Washington Consensus’ implementation in Nigeria failed because the productive and technological base in Nigeria is weak and outdated, narrow, inflexible and externally dependent. The infrastructure is poor, inadequate and lacks maintenance. Nigeria depends so much on a single product that is, Crude oil and failed to diversify its economy through the promotion of other sectors.

    Although the financial markets in Nigeria have been Liberalized, public entities privatised and most trade restrictions removed, it has been evident that the overall development of the Economy and well-being of the citizens have deteriorated extremely. The Manufacturing sector’s contribution to the National Output has greatly reduced as a result of reduced productivity and this has led to an increase in the unemployment rate and indeed inevitably, poverty.

    Other reasons why Washington Consensus has failed to be effective in Nigeria are misuse of resources, corruption, bad governance, political instability, lack of proper implementation of these policies, low industrialization and infrastructure among others.

    Moreover, the truth is that the Washington Consensus is really an economic programme that is focused myopically on short and medium-term stabilization of output, prices, and balance of payments, and not on long-run sustained growth, particularly in a poor country like Nigeria.

    In conclusion, it needs to be emphasized that the causes of underdevelopment are many. The reality is that countries differ in structure and international economic constraints they face, therefore countries should adopt reforms related to the features inherent in their structure. For Nigeria, she should first of all solve all the problems as mentioned above, inherent in its economy before trying out these policies in the future.

  173. Avatar Nwankpa Lilian Ugomma says:

    NWANKPA LILIAN UGOMMA
    2017/244743
    ECONOMICS EDUCATION
    THE WASHIGNTON CONSENSUS
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.

    THE TEN PRINCIPLES ORIGINALLY STATED BY JOHN WILLIAMSON IN 1989, INCLUDES TEN SETS OF RELATIVELY SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.

    1. Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    5. Competitive exchange rates;
    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8. Privatization of state enterprises;
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10. Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. Some implications of the Washington consensus.
    IMPLICATIONS OF WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    Support of free trade through WTO and NAFTA – reduce tariff barriers.
    IMF bailouts tended to involve free market reforms as a condition of receiving money.
    Belief in free trade suggests countries, should specialise in goods/services where they have a comparative advantage. This may mean developing economies need to stick with producing primary products.
    CRITICISMS OF THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.
    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.
    3. The Chinese approach. An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.
    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)
    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.
    6. The macro-economic crisis of Latin America in the 1980s and South East Asian crisis in 1990s made these free market policies unpopular in the countries where they were implemented. (see: Criticisms of IMF)
    7. Credit crisis and instability of free markets. The credit crisis beginning in 2007 has illustrated the potential for free markets to create instability and high unemployment. Financial deregulation has created the potential for financial instability
    WAS THE PRESCRIBED POLICIES HELPFUL TO NIGERIA ?
    These Policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, Nigeria as case study, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.
    The socioeconomic effect of these policies remains widely debated to this day. Most early literature found that they failed to improve socioeconomic conditions in African countries for several reasons due to, among others, the failure to account for political economy within countries, and the politics of conditionality and reforms that did not adequately emphasize the role of local ownership in domestic economic policy. Over three decades after the initial reforms, in a new paper, we revisit the evidence of the links between the adoption of these Washington Consensus policies and economic performance in sub-Saharan Africa.
    We find that following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, the countries that adopted the reforms experienced notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post-2000 period. We complement the aggregate analysis with four country case studies that highlight important lessons for effective reform. Notably, the ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance.
    WHAT THEN IS THE PROBLEM OF NIGERIA?
    The truth is, Nigeria’s problems are beyond the implementation of these policies. The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms plays a central role in successful policy performance. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies is an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. However, this is not the case with Nigeria. Most institutions are weak. Corruption exist even at the lowest level of governance. Tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the average Nigerian. All these problems, and innumerable others, have to be tackled before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually make significant impacts in Nigeria
    Conclusion
    The Washington consensus has diverged somewhat from the original intention of John Williamson. Despite the failings of the free market, there is still merit in considering each of the 10 principles. However, there needs to be greater discrimination and less blanket implementation. The privatisation of state owned car industry may be good, but water supplies may not. Perhaps the most interesting development is the rise of the Chinese and Indian economies. In particular, Chinese investment is playing a considerable role in enabling economic development within developing economies. The Washington consensus is partly tied to the strength of the US economy. But, the US economy is likely to decline in relative terms. Perhaps in a few decades, we will be talking about the ‘Chinese consensus’ – whatever that may turn out to be.

  174. Avatar Mbaukwu Nkiruka Precious says:

    Mbaukwu Nkiruka Precious
    2017/242425
    Economics
    Mbaukwuprecious86@gmail.com

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    Washington Consensus Policies and Structural Adjustment Programs.
    A first step to understand the economic effects of Washington Consensus policy adoption is to examine the proposed reforms and the drivers of policy adoption across African countries. Washington Consensus reforms, as outlined in Serra and Stiglitz (2008), included the following 10 policy recommendations:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to
    avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased
    expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax
    rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and
    achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.
    Most independent African governments, Nigeria,for example, sought to promote industrialization, in an effort to develop local production and reduce imports, promote employment, raise the standard of living, and break out of the vicious circle of trade patterns epitomized in the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis (unfavorable terms of trade for commodity-exporting and manufacturer-importing countries). The Washington Consensus’ recipes, by contrast, were presented as universal, similarly applicable in the context of developed and developing countries, even if they ended up being implemented in a discriminatory and uneven fashion.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.

    3. The Chinese approach: An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.
    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)
    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.
    In defence of the Washington consensus
    * The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare  Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits.
    * It’s always easy to criticise when things go wrong. When South East Asian economies were in great difficulties in the 1990s, it is likely that any policies would be unpopular. When you have a crisis there tends to be no easy way out.
    * The problems of the EU are related to difficulties of managing a single currency. A return to competitive exchange rates would help the crisis to be overcome more easily.
    * The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for targeted economic diversification; some developing economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries. But, even this depends on how it is implemented. If African countries, tried to use tariffs to develop a motor industry, it would probably lead to government failure because the infrastructure isn’t there to support a new motor industry. However, if there was some support to develop primary product processing within the country, it is more likely to be successful. With privatisation it depends on what you privatise. In the UK, the privatisation of BT was relatively uncontroversial, but the privatisation of British rail was much more controversial. The difference here is that railways are a natural monopoly and have social benefits.
    Despite the many criticisms of The Washington Consensus program, I believe that why it hasn’t yielded much fruits in Nigeria is due to the incompetence of our leaders. Their lack of interests at directing the revenue of the country towards development.

  175. Avatar Mbaukwu Nkiruka Precious says:

    Mbaukwu Nkiruka Precious
    2017/242425
    Economics
    Mbaukwuprecious86@gmail.com

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.
    Washington Consensus Policies and Structural Adjustment Programs.
    A first step to understand the economic effects of Washington Consensus policy adoption is to examine the proposed reforms and the drivers of policy adoption across African countries. Washington Consensus reforms, as outlined in Serra and Stiglitz (2008), included the following 10 policy recommendations:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to
    avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased
    expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax
    rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and
    achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.
    Most independent African governments, Nigeria,for example, sought to promote industrialization, in an effort to develop local production and reduce imports, promote employment, raise the standard of living, and break out of the vicious circle of trade patterns epitomized in the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis (unfavorable terms of trade for commodity-exporting and manufacturer-importing countries). The Washington Consensus’ recipes, by contrast, were presented as universal, similarly applicable in the context of developed and developing countries, even if they ended up being implemented in a discriminatory and uneven fashion.
    Criticisms of the Washington Consensus
    1. Strategic trade theory. Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. A strict adoption of free trade and comparative advantage can leave developing economies producing low-income growth and volatile priced primary products. If countries promoted new industries, it might require both selective tariffs on cheap imports and also government subsidies. For example, the Brazilian government’s support and development of Embraer, helped Brazil become successful in airline manufacturing.

    2. Low government borrowing is not always appropriate. Implementing fiscal rules can cause unnecessary economic hardship if the government cuts spending at an inappropriate time. For example, fiscal consolidation during the great recession has caused low growth rates, and a failure to reduce debt to GDP ratios. If governments are pressured to cut spending it can also cause welfare support programmes to be hit, increasing poverty. However, in the long term, most economists would suggest it is prudent to reduce structural borrowing to manageable levels.

    3. The Chinese approach: An interesting development in recent years is that Chinese firms have invested substantial sums in developing economies, such as Africa and Latin America. An FT report, suggests China has lent $110 bn to developing countries in past two years – more than the World Bank. The interesting thing about the Chinese approach is that it involves substantial investment in infrastructure and public sector investment – showing that for economic development, an interventionist approach can have a bigger return than leaving it to free markets.
    4. Problems of privatisation. Privatisation can increase efficiency and improve the quality of the product/service. However, for key public sector industries, privatisation may mean companies ignore wider social objectives. For example, in the 1990s, under World Bank pressure, Bolivia privatised its water industry. But, this led to water supplies being cut off from the poorest members of society. (politics of water in Bolivia at the Nation)
    5. Mis-interpretation. The second point about redirecting of public spending towards public sector initiatives like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment, has often been ignored. Instead the ‘Washington Consensus’ has come to refer to more market oriented policies, which have focused on less government intervention.
    In defence of the Washington consensus
    * The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare  Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits.
    * It’s always easy to criticise when things go wrong. When South East Asian economies were in great difficulties in the 1990s, it is likely that any policies would be unpopular. When you have a crisis there tends to be no easy way out.
    * The problems of the EU are related to difficulties of managing a single currency. A return to competitive exchange rates would help the crisis to be overcome more easily.
    * The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t room for targeted economic diversification; some developing economies may benefit from limited trade protectionism to develop new industries. But, even this depends on how it is implemented. If African countries, tried to use tariffs to develop a motor industry, it would probably lead to government failure because the infrastructure isn’t there to support a new motor industry. However, if there was some support to develop primary product processing within the country, it is more likely to be successful. With privatisation it depends on what you privatise. In the UK, the privatisation of BT was relatively uncontroversial, but the privatisation of British rail was much more controversial. The difference here is that railways are a natural monopoly and have social benefits.

  176. Avatar ONAH GEORGE CHIEDOZIE says:

    Name: ONAH GEORGE CHIEDOZIE.
    REG. NO: 2017/241453.
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS

    The Washington consensus was ushered in by J. Williamson, his major interest was to make the developing countries better nations. A set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, e.t.c. John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America, Africa e.t.c.
    These policy reforms includes, issues centered on fiscal discipline, redirecting public expenditure, tax reformation, financial liberalization, competitive exchange rate, trade liberalization, elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of market entry and competition and securing property rights. The 10 principles of the Washington consensus all have considerable economic validity. Broadening the tax base, investment in education, sustainable government borrowing, flexible exchange rates e.t.c can all help improve economic welfare Under certain situations, privatisation and increased competition can have potential benefits. Most economists would support the notion that free trade has potential benefits. The problem with any broad set of economic principles is that it always depends on how and when they are implemented. For example, generally free trade is good. It’s generally desirable to have lower tariffs and encourage international trade
    Putting Nigeria and these reforms into considerations, one will get to understand lots of difficulties surrounding its implementation. Nigeria in other words, has weak institutions, corruption at it’s peak, even at the lowest levels of governance cum other setbacks associated with policy implementations. In conclusions the Washington consensus remains irrelevant in existence of these setbacks stipulated

  177. NAME: Emmanuel Treasure Adanne
    Department: Economics
    Reg No: 2017/242436
    Email address: http://www.treasureadaemmanuel@gmail.com
    Website: treshvinaemman54.blogspot.com
    Answer:
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US.
    The ten principles originally stated by John Williamson in 1989, includes ten sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:
    1. Low government borrowing. Avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
    2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
    3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
    4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
    5. Competitive exchange rates;
    6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
    7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
    8. Privatization of state enterprises;
    9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
    10. Legal security for property rights.
    The Washington Consensus implicitly assumed that there was nothing wrong with the development assistance relationship, but certainly, from the Nigeria economys’ perspective, development assistance has tended to undermine growth prospects, even if it has helped fill the investment-savings gap. From a domestic perspective, the Consensus does not address three aspects of Nigeria’s economic development that I believe are critical to making sustained growth a reality. Nigeria exhibit dual economy and has severe economic and social imbalances, particularly between the urban formal and the rural informal sectors. Unemployment and poverty levels are normally much higher in the rural sector, exacerbated by insecure or nonexistent land ownership. This results in rural dependence on fiscal transfers and employed workers in urban areas. Household income is shared among family members, raising relative poverty levels and creating disincentives to finding a job.
    Critical to spreading economic activity is not to choose between developing formal or informal sectors but to ensure that the regulatory environment is supportive of economic activity in both sectors. A trickle-down development strategy is insufficient, particularly where there are large poor populations reliant on the informal sector and few low-cost, effective public services. Human capital creation, through informal or formal employment and rapid advances in public services, needs to be a key plank of Nigeria’s development strategies. The problem in Nigeria is that most states are weak and limited, not that states try to do everything and account for 50 percent or so of national income, as in other regions. This means that, while there have often been problems with privatization, they normally have more to do with flawed processes (nontransparent, discretionary) than with the extent of privatization. Nigerian states need to expand, not contract, their public sector—and dramatically improve its efficiency in delivering quality public services. This demands institutional capacity, especially in areas of regulation, service delivery, and social spending.
    Conclusion:
    The Washington Consensus did impart new, if not always unfailing, direction to reform efforts throughout the developed and developing world. This in itself provided guidance to those seeking more rapid growth, economic development, and poverty reduction. Perhaps most usefully, the Consensus emphasized the importance of maintaining prudent macroeconomic policies and balances—a lesson taken to heart by most of the developing world but neglected by the developed.

  178. Avatar NNANYELUGO CHIDERA MICHAEl says:

    Name: NNANYELUGO CHIDERA MICHAEl
    Reg no: 2017/245023
    Dept: Economics

    Meaning
    Washington Consensus, a set of economic policy recommendations for developing countries, and Latin America in particular, that became popular during the 1980s. The term Washington Consensus usually refers to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and U.S. Department of the Treasury on those policy recommendations. All shared the view, typically labelled neoliberal, that the operation of the free market and the reduction of state involvement were crucial to development in the global South.
    The Washington consensus made a lot of interesting prescriptions for developing countries like Nigeria so I think it has really helped Nigeria.
    With the onset of a debt crisis in the developing world during the early 1980s, the major Western powers, and the United States in particular, decided that both the World Bank and the IMF should play a significant role in the management of that debt and in global development policy more broadly. When the British economist John Williamson, who later worked for the World Bank, first used the term Washington Consensus in 1989, he claimed that he was actually referring to a list of reforms that he felt key players in Washington could all agree were needed in Latin America. However, much to his dismay, the term later became widely used in a pejorative way to describe the increasing harmonization of the policies recommended by those institutions. It often refers to a dogmatic belief that developing countries should adopt market-led development strategies that will result in economic growth that will “trickle down” to the benefit of all.
    The World Bank and IMF were able to promote that view throughout the developing world by attaching policy conditions, known as stabilization and structural adjustment programs, to the loans they made. In very broad terms, the Washington Consensus reflected the set of policies that became their standard package of advice attached to loans. The first element was a set of policies designed to create economic stability by controlling inflation and reducing government budget deficits. Many developing countries, especially in Latin America, had suffered hyperinflation during the 1980s. Therefore, a monetarist approach was recommended, whereby government spending would be reduced and interest rates would be raised to reduce the money supply. The second stage was the reform of trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. That involved the lifting of state restrictions on imports and exports and often included the devaluation of the currency. The final stage was to allow market forces to operate freely by removing subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization.

    By the late 1990s it was becoming clear that the results of the Washington Consensus were far from optimal. Increasing criticism led to a change in approach that shifted the focus away from a view of development as simply economic growth and toward poverty reduction and the need for participation by both developing-country governments and civil society. That change of direction came to be known as the post-Washington Consensus.
    Criticisms of The Washington Consensus
    Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. Some strategic and infant industries have to be protected initially to provide long-term growth. These industries may also require protection in the form of subsidies or tariffs against imports.
    Chinese firms, aided by the government, have been investing large sums in developing economies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These firms typically invest in infrastructure, creating opportunities for long-term trade and growth.
    Privatization can increase productivity and enhance the quality of the product or service. However, privatization can often lead to companies ignoring certain low-income markets or the social needs of a developing economy.
    The free market has its own faults and instabilities. As we saw with the Great Recession in 2008-2009, increased deregulation can lead to financial volatility that can infect the entire economy.
    Conclusion
    The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade.

    Critics have pointed out that the policies were unhelpful and imposed harsh conditions on the developing countries, others have defended the long-term positive impact of these ideas.

  179. Avatar Ezeh Martha Kelechi, reg no:2017/244943, Education Economics says:

    The main aim of Washington consensus policy on developing countries was to help developing countries improve on their economic growth and development of their nation. This so far has helped some of the developing countries that tried to put it in practice in their nation unlike Nigeria that doesn’t work in line with it. In our country is just a mere policy that is on paper since government can’t foster a proper way of implementing the policy to be efficient and effective in the country.
    In my own opinion if our country should follow those Washington consensus policies properly without any kind of bias mind, bribery and corruption, it will go along way to help this nation to improve in the economic growth and development which will lead to the good standard living of it’s citizens.

  180. Avatar Ogbonnaya Victor Nnanna says:

    NAME: OGBONNAYA VICTOR NNANNA
    REG NO: 2017/249544
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS
    E MAIL: nnanna.ogbonnaya.249544@unn.edu.ng

    The washington concensus was coined by John Williamson and is a set of reform policies on how developing countries could advance or grow to the developed countries. The Washington consensus constituted policies in areas like macroeconomic stabilization, Economic opening with respect to both trade and investment and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy. The Washington consensus policies were: Fiscal discipline, tax reform, financial liberalization, trade liberalization, competitive exchange rate, deregulation of market entry, adoption of a single competitive exchange rate and competition and securing property rights.
    The aim of the Washington consensus was to ensure market – oriented reforms would correct domestic policy induced distortions in prices such as the overvalued exchange rates, subsidies, high wage rate, low interest rates which characterized the less developed countries. But to their dismay, most early economists found out that these policies failed to improve the economic conditions in the less developed countries, and the removal of agricultural subsidies mad it difficult for Nigerian farmers to compete favourably in the international markets and unemployment and sociopolitical unrest were vivid in these less developed countries.
    Now, the major problem with Nigeria is the poor implementation of policies. The bodies which are entrusted with these policies prefer to satisfy themselves or fill their pockets first and would not perform their duties effectively and efficiently. The Nigerian bodies would prefer leaving the said policies on their desks unattended to for a long while before the policies are even carried out. There is also mismanagement of funds and corruption, tribalism and nepotism is adverse in Nigeria which hinders proper discharge of these policies.

  181. Avatar OZUEM DEBORAH OGHENEKEVWE says:

    NAME: OZUEM DEBORAH OGHENEKEVWE
    REG NO: 2017/249572
    EMAIL: deborah.ozuem.249572@unn.edu.ng

    Even though the Washington Consensus came up with very realistic and interesting prescriptions which worked for some developing countries, Nigeria is still seen as lagging behind in development issues. This would prompt one to ask, are the prescriptions of the consensus not enough to bring about development in Nigeria or could Nigeria’s development problem be beyond the Washington prescriptions?
    I feel the Washington Consensus prescriptions couldn’t help Nigerian develop for a number of reasons. They include but not limited to:
    1) Large size of Nigeria as a country: The large size of the country made it difficult for effective management and control. Ensuring that these prescriptions were adhered to at both at the Federal, State and local government levels was a difficult task. All of these policies existed in black and white in Nigeria but never in practical. The ease of assessment and accountability in the states was the problem.
    2) Poor policy implementation: After so many years and still counting, we’ve had numerous policies with the same aim and end product as the Washington Consensus but due to poor implementation, the results has always been futile.
    3) Corruption: Policies like fiscal discipline for instance have suffered due to corruption. Those at the hem of affairs are so corrupt that all they think about are personal gains and interests. The interest of the masses mean nothing to them. Due to this, fiscal discipline has continued to worsen over the years.

  182. Avatar FERDINAND DANIEL NWEKE says:

    NAME : FERDINAND DANIEL NWEKE
    Reg : 2017/245020
    Department : Economic

    Washington consensus was introduced in 1989 by an economist name John Williamson . which was for the purpose of increasing development in Africa,Latin American and Asian country who were under develop . This set of policy centered around fiscal discipline, trade liberalization, tax reform, financial liberalization, privatization of state owned enterprises , competitive exchange rate , interest rate liberalization which are some of the policy.
    Now the Washington consensus policy were good policy which will have help Nigeria if implemented well which will lead to development but in the case of Nigeria will see an opposite case due to some factor like
    •High rate of corruption were the policy maker implement policy that is in they favor.
    •High level of debt Nigerian as a country cannot implement some of those policy due to the high level of debt since some of the policy required funding.
    •There is an inability in the implementation of the policy due to the constant political change were by in process of changing personal in office, incompetence and inefficient personal may be appointed. There is a week institution in Nigeria who would have been responsible for the checking of government activity and punishing offended of the rule .

  183. Name: Ngwu Osita Enoch
    Reg no: 2017/242022
    Email: Ositangwu95@gmail.com
    Website: Enochonline.blogspot.com
    Dept: Education Economics.

    It is difficult even for the creator of the term to deny that the phrase “Washington Consensus” is a damaged brand name (Naím 2002). Audiences over the world seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on helpless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth. There is a renewed interest in the idea of the developmental state in Africa. This is partly a reaction to the failure of the pro-market reforms under the Washington Consensus to deliver socio-economic progress. Nonetheless, in Nigerian There is a renewed interest in the idea of the developmental state in Africa. This is partly a reaction to the failure of the pro-market reforms under the Washington Consensus to deliver socio-economic progress. The Nigerian economy, after fifty years of political independence and economic governance and management, has suffered from fundamental structural defects and has remained in persistent stagnation. Many features in Nigeria’s economy combined with other non-economic factors have produced a weak private sector that is largely oriented towards distributive activities. The productive and technological base is weak, outdated, narrow, inflexible and externally dependent. Furthermore, infrastructure is poor, inadequate and lacks maintenance. Thus, the effectiveness of incentives has been generally low, giving rise to inadequate utilization of the factors of production. We should definitely blame the country’s overdependence on single product export-crude oil-without profound efforts to diversify the economy as a key weakness. Questions that should be addressed are; is Nigeria at present, making enough efforts to move towards the identified features of a developmental state? Does it require a sound re-thinking into the development agenda with regards to the various key issues relevant to developing countries? How can we break out of this vicious cycle? Correcting this scenario forms the crux of the subject matter. I am suggesting different solution scenarios to many of the problems on the platform of the developmental state paradigm. As such, the country should develop a class of entrepreneurs that possess the tacit knowledge required for rapid industrialization and development of the manufacturing sector. This proactive stance with capable institutions would move Nigerian economy to the desired direction.

  184. Avatar NWAFOR CLARA DABELECHI says:

    NWAFOR CLARA DABELECHI
    2017/249534
    ECONOMICS

    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US. The Washington consensus which advocates for free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability especially in developing countries was supposed to help improve the Nigeria economy like it has done in other countries but other political and economic problems in Nigeria haulted the effects of these policies in Nigeria Such as political instability and execution of policies. One thing is to make policies and another is to make sure the policies are functioning. Since the policies in Nigeria are not usually functioning, the Washington concensus would not help the Nigerian economy grow since it’s not been executed. Also, the lack of consistency and the politicians’ greed are among the causes of the hemorrhage in the economy. Every administration, which comes on board, sets up a new policy initiative instead of working on the previous one. Consequently, Nigeria has a series of inefficient and poorly executed policies.

  185. Avatar Okoronkwo Emmanuel Ositadinma (2017/242433) (Economics) (level 300) says:

    To my comprehension the question is question asked is whether the prescribed policy reforms (Washington consensus) have really helped Nigeria and secondly what the problem of Nigeria really is with respect to the case study (Washington consensus)?

    The prescriptions of Washington consensus are as follows:

    1. Fiscal Adjustment:

    This means that developing countries should take steps to reduce fiscal deficit through curtailing Government expenditure by drastically explicit and implicit subsidies provided by the Government of developing countries.

    2. Tax Reforms:

    It was suggested that tax rates should be cut substantially to promote saving and private investment. This will promote investment and ensure a higher rate of economic growth. This was in line with supply-side economics. In fact, Jagdish Bhagwati and T.N. Srinivasan invoked Laffer Curve Concept of supply-side economics to argue that reduction in rates of taxes would cause not only greater private saving and investment but will lead to greater revenue of the government. Besides, it was suggested to broaden the tax base by withdrawing exemptions and plugging the loopholes in taxes.

    3. Deregulation:

    This was most significant policy measure under which it was recommended that industrial licensing controls be abolished but also such measures as Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) and FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act) be done away with so that private sector should grow without any obstructions.

    4. Trade Liberalization:

    Under this it was suggested that tariffs on imports should be drastically reduced to promote free trade. Besides, all quantitative restrictions on imports were also to be eliminated to permit free trade.

    5. Competitive Exchange Rate:

    Under this it was recommended that developing countries like India should devalue their over-valued currencies and ultimately adopt flexible exchange rate system. Besides, it was suggested to make the currency convertible so that obstacles to growth of free trade and capital mobility are removed.

    6. Privatization:

    This is another significant measure of development policy under which it was proposed that there should be disinvestment of public sector enterprises and accordingly either they should be sold out-rightly to the private sector or Government stake should be reduced and its shares sold or transferred to private enterprises.

    7. Removal of Barriers to Foreign Investment:

    It was stressed that economic growth in developing countries could be accelerated through larger foreign direct investment (FDI). Therefore, all barriers put up by developing countries should be eliminated to attract foreign investment in their countries. To facilitate foreign investment it was also suggested to adopt Convertibility of currency on Current account as well as on capital account.

    8. Financial Reforms:

    They involved reforms, in the banking and insurance system and also in capital market.

    9. Protection of Property Rights:

    According to this, suitable legislative measures should be taken to protect property rights. Besides, labour law should be amended so that it becomes easy and it was recommended that private enterprise to enter and exit the industries. In this, freedom to exit was emphasised and labour laws be made flexible so that it should be easy to retrench workers.

    10. Redirection of Public Sector Investment:

    Lastly, it was emphasised that public sector investment should be redirected towards education, health and infrastructure only and also leave these and other fields open to private sector operation.

    My view/position

    All these reforms will be helpful to Nigeria economy if it’s well implemented without the involvement of selfish interest by the body implementing it. In essence, the Washington consensus was meant to promote the interest of developing country which Nigeria is not an exemption. Now what is really the problem of Nigeria, Nigeria problem is actually multi-dimensional. But with regards to the case study (Washington consensus) the problem of Nigeria is majorly corruption and ineffective policies implementation. Many economists and policymakers has risen in Nigeria and has given out policies but the problem lies on the ineffective implementations these policies by the policy-actors, on this note, I can conclude that Washington consensus is not detrimental to our economy but our political-actors corruption and ineffectiveness.

  186. Name:Meteke Joy Orimusue
    Reg.no:2017/242430
    Department:Economics
    Website: metekejoy01.blogspot.com
    Email:joymetex2000@gmai.com

    WASHINGTON CONCENSUS : DOES IT APPLY IN NIGERIA?
    The Washington Consensus refers to a set of broadly free market economic ideas, supported by prominent economists and international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank, the EU and the US.Essentially, the Washington consensus advocates, free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability.The Washington consensus was important for determining policy towards economic development in Latin America, South East Asia and other countries. The Washington Consensus refers to a set of free-market economic policies supported by prominent financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury. A British economist named John Williamson coined the term Washington Consensus in 1989.The ideas were intended to help developing countries that faced economic crises. In summary, The Washington Consensus recommended structural reforms that increased the role of market forces in exchange for immediate financial help. Some examples include free-floating exchange rates and free trade. These are the ten specific principles originally set out by John Williamson in 1989:
    1.Low government borrowing. The idea was to discourage developing economies from having high fiscal deficits relative to their GDP.
    2.Diversion of public spending from subsidies to important long-term growth supporting sectors like primary education, primary healthcare, and infrastructure.
    3.Implementing tax reform policies to broaden the tax base and adopt moderate marginal tax rates.
    4.Selecting interest rates that are determined by the market. These interest rates should be positive after taking inflation into account (real interest rate).
    5.Encouraging competitive exchange rates through freely-floating currency exchange.
    6.Adoption of free trade policies. This would result in the liberalization of imports, removing trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas.
    7.Relaxing rules on foreign direct investment.
    8.The privatization of state enterprises. Typically, in developing countries, these industries include railway, oil, and gas.
    9.The eradication of regulations and policies that restrict competition or add unnecessary barriers to entry.
    10.Development of property rights.

    CRITICISMS OF THE WASHINGTON CONCENCUS
    a.Some economists argue that free trade is not always in the best interest of developing economies. Some strategic and infant industries have to be protected initially to provide long-term growth. These industries may also require protection in the form of subsidies or tariffs against imports.
    b.Chinese firms, aided by the government, have been investing large sums in developing economies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These firms typically invest in infrastructure, creating opportunities for long-term trade and growth.
    c.Privatization can increase productivity and enhance the quality of the product or service. However, privatization can often lead to companies ignoring certain low-income markets or the social needs of a developing economy.
    d.The free market has its own faults and instabilities. As we saw with the Great Recession in 2008-2009, increased deregulation can lead to financial volatility that can infect the entire economy.
    Critics have pointed out that the policies were unhelpful and imposed harsh conditions on the developing countries, others have defended the long-term positive impact of these ideas.Unfortunately, the Washington Consensus is strictly considered as a failed consensus by many major institutions and economists from group of Marxism, Dependency Theory and Structuralist after some economic crisis in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and lastly the global financial crisis in 2008. According to Stiglitz, the adoption of the Washington Consensus agenda in some Latin American and African countries has contributed to the economic crisis. In contrast, India and several East Asian countries like China, Taiwan and South Korea show a great development when they ignored the Washington Consensus and its representative institutions.Many critiques and debates have been addressed towards the Washington Consensus since last two decades which question the effectiveness of this consensus and its original sense.

    The failure of the Washington Consensus has provided many lessons that can be learned by new government leaders in developing and less-developed countries to concern on their policies and international financial institutions to do a reform and create a new economic package or policies to boost global growth and development. The neo-liberalist people have to believe that the Washington Consensus has failed to give a solution for global development. However, it has given a bad experience for countries adopting the policy package from this consensus. As many interpretations of the Washington Consensus exist as there are regions in the world. For Africa, the panoply of reforms subsumed under the term has been useful as a guide to economic policymaking—with the main focus on fiscal discipline and privatization—even though it has proved difficult for most African countries to pursue all of them. Few countries anywhere have applied the reforms of the Washington Consensus completely, not least because some of them are culturally and historically sensitive. A larger difficulty, however, is that the reform agenda only partially addresses the growth constraints faced by many developing countries. Macroeconomic stabilization is critical for growth, but it is not clear that privatization is. Moreover, privatization and deregulation simply do not apply to African countries in the same way that they may in Latin American countries.

    Nevertheless, most African states have made strong progress with many of the reforms, which helps explain, in part, the continent’s improved economic performance in recent years. Economic growth in Africa is expected to average 3.1 percent this year and 4.2 percent next year—more than twice the average in 1984–93 and marginally higher than the average for all developing countries. Macro-economic stability is being consolidated, with average consumer price inflation at 9.7 percent in 2002, down from 13.2 percent in 2001 and 54.6 percent in 1994. Underpinning the better inflation picture are lower fiscal deficits, which have declined from an average 5.2 percent of GDP in 1994 to 2.1 percent in 2001.

  187. Avatar Ideba Tochukwu Emmanuel says:

    Ideba Tochukwu Emmanuel
    2017/241435

    Some of the key policy reforms of the Washington Consensus/SAP period of the 1980s and 1990s included privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness, that were introduced by IFIs as conditions for debt relief to highly indebted, economically constrained African countries. The expectation was that market-oriented reforms would correct domestic policy-induced distortions in prices, such as overvalued exchange rates, subsidies that led to artificially low agricultural commodity prices, high wage rates, low interest rates, and subsidized agricultural input prices, which introduced inefficiencies in resource allocation, worsening shortages and reducing economic output. Several African countries adopted these policies, often under conditionality, in the 1980s and 1990s. Most early literature finds that the policies failed to improve economic conditions in these countries as the politics of IFI conditionality worked to undermine the role of local ownership in shaping domestic economic policy. In addition, reductions in government spending often reduced spending on pro-poor programs, and the removal of agricultural subsidies made it difficult for Africa farmers to compete on international markets. The results were increased unemployment and sociopolitical unrest in several African countries over this period. More recent literature has highlighted that reforms were successful in improving economic growth when policymakers had the state capacity to implement them, and when, crucially, reforms were paired with pro-poor policies, spearheaded by governments.

    According to Belinda A., Brahima S.C., and Ngozi O.I.(2021) four case studies carried out for Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda, and Senegal, which allow for a more granular and nuanced assessment of the effect of the reforms. Overall, the case studies support the aggregate findings and reveal some useful lessons on the correlates of successful reform implementation. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies was an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. Crucially, concurrent efforts to minimize the potential negative welfare impacts of macroeconomic reforms on domestic populations are important to increase needed public support for reforms.

  188. Avatar Onyekanma Chidinma Cynthia says:

    NAME: ONYEKANMA CHIDINMA CYNTHIA
    REG.NO. 2017/249569
    DEPARTMENT: ECONOMICS

    We the people are eventually sitting on our excreta,
    And expect “some saviour” to help us out,
    With it’s interventions, policies, guidelines, aids and grants. (Call them ‘fragrances’)
    We have lazily waited for them to rescue us.
    Well, they came. Buh they had to exchange something for something
    She said ‘capitalist’ or whatever, we just need anyone to aid us
    They wondered why we refused to stand and clean up despite their fragrances
    We loved their fragrances
    Sweet smelling at first
    Funky and ill-scented next
    It has spread to all crevices
    And other expensive fragrances which we can’t pay for
    Arrive the country on a daily.
    We all are leaving the country, right?
    Huh!
    Yeah, to Canada
    Let’s stand together with the excreta on our butts
    We will clean up ourselves
    Some will,
    Trek, leaving the sun to do it’s work
    Swim, let the waters wash
    Painstakingly wash away their excreta
    The Big Guys will be choked by theirs
    Then will all return with new, refined and refilled fragrances for our progress.

    The Washington Consensus insisted on the importance of stabilizing exchange rates in times of crisis through public budget cuts, higher taxes and interest rates and other recessive measures. Their opponents criticized such policies, arguing that they would lead to recession. Sharp increases in interest rates would contribute towards the deepening of the crisis, a case with Nigeria
    It is now commonplace to say that structural adjustment (SAP) and macroeconomic stabilization programs had a disastrous impact on social policies and poverty levels in Nigeria. Following the first wave of reforms undertaken by debt-affected African countries like Nigeria – which included public expenditure cuts, introduction of charges for health and education, and reductions in industrial protection, leading to high unemployment, poverty rise and unequal income distributions.
    Nigeria has gradually embraced most, if not all, of the policies contained in the ‘Washington Consensus’. Financial markets have been liberalized, public entities privatized and most trade restrictions removed. However, despite all these efforts, the overall development of the economy and the well-being of the populace have stagnated or deteriorated in some key aspects.
    Production from manufacturing has declined tremendously as a proportion of the national output culminating in the growing number of unemployed persons (rising from 11.9% in 2005 to over 23% in 2011) and the increasing number of vulnerable poor persons (over 60% of the Nigerian people now live below US$1.25 a day).
    Low production in the country is due to the fact that the government has channeled it’s energy to one sector ( the petroleum sector), leaving every other sector behind. The Washington Consensus had good intentions but had poor or lacked good implementers on the receiving end. And this is the case with all developing countries with Nigeria inclusive. We also suffer the “In Your Help We Are Drained” problem. Something must go for something. It’s also coupled with the fact that the county has corrupt, incompetent, manipulative and untrustworthy leadership. This is majorly the reason why this consensus has pitfalls. Let’s not forget that we must learn to clean our own excreta.

  189. Avatar Nnamani, Great Ogomuegbunam says:

    Nnamani Great Ogomuegbunam
    2017/249532
    Economics

    The term “Washington Consensus” was coined in 1989 by the famous Economist, John Williamson. The concept was in reference to a set of 10 market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Africa, Asia and Latin American countries. Generally, these policies centered around fiscal discipline, redirecting public expenditure, tax reform, financial liberalization, adoption of a single, competitive exchange rate, trade liberalization, elimination of barriers to foreign direct investment, privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of market entry and competition and securing property rights. In African countries, the Washington Consensus inspired market-based reforms prescribed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP), often as prerequisites for financial assistance.

    In the Nigerian case, these policy reforms remained on paper. Perhaps, the country would have become a better place, had its key figures embraced these policy reforms. The country is far from fiscal discipline and majority of the reform measures, although privatization of state-owned enterprises has gone a long way. Funds are allocated to irrelevant sectors – with the president’s library books amounting to millions and a senator’s salary amounting to 13.5 million naira monthly.

    The truth is, Nigeria’s problems are beyond the implementation of these policies. The ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market-oriented reforms plays a central role in successful policy performance. A stable government and sociopolitical environment with a focus on pro-poor policies is an essential ingredient in implementing successful reforms. However, this is not the case with Nigeria. Most institutions are weak. Corruption exist even at the lowest level of governance. Tribalism and nepotism have eaten deep into the fabrics of the average Nigerian. All these problems, and innumerable others, have to be tackled before the Washington Consensus prescriptions will eventually make significant impacts in Nigeria.

  190. Avatar UDUMA IKECHUKWU OBASI says:

    UDUMA IKECHUKWU OBASI
    2017/241441
    Economics
    ikechukwuuduma9@gmail.com

    THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS

    The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson. The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy.
    Subsequent to Williamson’s use of the terminology, and despite his emphatic opposition, the phrase Washington Consensus has come to be used fairly widely in a second, broader sense, to refer to a more general orientation towards a strongly market-based approach (sometimes described as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism). In emphasizing the magnitude of the difference between the two alternative definitions, Williamson has argued that his ten original, narrowly defined prescriptions have largely acquired the status of “motherhood and apple pie” (i.e., are broadly taken for granted), whereas the subsequent broader definition, representing a form of neoliberal manifesto, “never enjoyed a consensus [in Washington] or anywhere much else” and can reasonably be said to be dead.
    Discussion of the Washington Consensus has long been contentious. Partly this reflects a lack of agreement over what is meant by the term, but there are also substantive differences over the merits and consequences of the policy prescriptions involved. Some critics take issue with the original Consensus’s emphasis on the opening of developing countries to global markets, and/or with what they see as an excessive focus on strengthening the influence of domestic market forces, arguably at the expense of key functions of the state. For other commentators, the issue is more what is missing, including such areas as institution-building and targeted efforts to improve opportunities for the weakest in society.
    The widespread adoption by governments of the Washington Consensus was to a large degree a reaction to the macroeconomic crisis that hit much of Latin America, and some other developing regions, during the 1980s. The crisis had multiple origins: the drastic rise in the price of imported oil following the emergence of OPEC, mounting levels of external debt, the rise in US (and hence international) interest rates, and—consequent to the foregoing problems—loss of access to additional foreign credit. The import-substitution policies that had been pursued by many developing country governments in Latin America and elsewhere for several decades had left their economies ill-equipped to expand exports at all quickly to pay for the additional cost of imported oil (by contrast, many countries in East Asia, which had followed more export-oriented strategies, found it comparatively easy to expand exports still further, and as such managed to accommodate the external shocks with much less economic and social disruption). Unable either to expand external borrowing further or to ramp up export earnings easily, many Latin American countries faced no obvious sustainable alternatives to reducing overall domestic demand via greater fiscal discipline, while in parallel adopting policies to reduce protectionism and increase their economies’ export orientation. Many countries have endeavored to implement varying components of the reform packages, with implementation sometimes imposed as a condition for receiving loans from the IMF and World Bank.

    EFFECTS:
    The Washington Consensus would result in socioeconomic exclusion and weakened trade unions in Latin America, resulting with unrest in the region. Countries who followed the consensus initially alleviated high inflation and excessive regulation, though economic growth and poverty relief was insignificant. The consensus resulted with a shrinking middle class in Latin America that prompted dissatisfaction of neoliberalism, a turn to the political left and populist leaders by the late-1990s, with economists saying that the failure of the consensus established support for Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.
    Williamson has summarized the overall results on growth, employment and poverty reduction in many countries as “disappointing, to say the least”. He attributes this limited impact to three factors: (a) the Consensus per se placed no special emphasis on mechanisms for avoiding economic crises, which have proved very damaging; (b) the reforms—both those listed in his article and, a fortiori, those actually implemented—were incomplete; and (c) the reforms cited were insufficiently ambitious with respect to targeting improvements in income distribution, and need to be complemented by stronger efforts in this direction. Rather than an argument for abandoning the original ten prescriptions, though, Williamson concludes that they are “motherhood and apple pie” and “not worth debating”. Both Williamson and other analysts have pointed to longer term improvements in economic performance in a number of countries that have adopted the relevant policy changes consistently, such as Chile
    Speaking at a fundraiser for the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in November 2018, Barack Obama acknowledged that globalization and the policies associated with the Washington Consensus exacerbated economic inequality which helped fuel the rise of the alt-right. According to a 2020 study, the implementation of policies associated with the Washington Consensus significantly raised real GDP per capita over a 5- to 10-year horizon.

    CRITICISM:
    As of the 2000s, several Latin American countries were led by socialist or other left wing governments, some of which—including Argentina and Venezuela—have campaigned for (and to some degree adopted) policies contrary to the Washington Consensus policies. Other Latin American countries with governments of the left, including Brazil, Chile and Peru, in practice adopted the bulk of the policies included in Williamson’s list, even though they criticized the market fundamentalism that these are often associated with.

    General criticism of the economics of the consensus is now more widely established, such as that outlined by US scholar Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, in his paper Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion?
    As Williamson has pointed out, the term has come to be used in a broader sense to its original intention, as a synonym for market fundamentalism or neo-liberalism. In this broader sense, Williamson states, it has been criticized by people such as George Soros and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz. The Washington Consensus is also criticized by others such as some Latin American politicians and heterodox economists such as Erik Reinert. The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and the influence of the United States, and globalization more broadly, on countries’ national sovereignty. Some US economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz and Dani Rodrik, have challenged what are sometimes described as the ‘fundamentalist’ policies of the IMF and the US Treasury for what Stiglitz calls a ‘one size fits all’ treatment of individual economies. According to Stiglitz the treatment suggested by the IMF is too simple: one dose, and fast—stabilize, liberalize and privatize, without prioritizing or watching for side effects.Besides the excessive belief in market fundamentalism and international economic institutions in attributing the failure of the Washington consensus, Stiglitz provided a further explanation about why it failed. In his article “The Post Washington Consensus Consensus”, he claims that the Washington consensus policies failed to efficiently handle the economic structures within developing countries. The cases of East Asian countries such as Korea and Taiwan are known as a success story in which their remarkable economic growth was attributed to a larger role of the government by undertaking industrial policies and increasing domestic savings within their territory. From the cases, the role for government was proven to be critical at the beginning stage of the dynamic process of development, at least until the markets by themselves can produce efficient outcomes

  191. Avatar Okagbue chisom says:

    Okagbue chisom
    2017/249552
    chisom.okagbue.249552@unn.edu.ng
    In my own opinion,I believe that the Washington consensus has really helped developing countries especially Nigeria but incompetency, inability to properly manage the country’s revenue directing to the development of the country, corruption and unaccountable actions to mention but few are problems of Nigeria that is why it seems like development is far from us.

  192. Okonkwo Chidinma Alisa

    2017/243086

    Economics Major

    300 Level

    The Washington Consensus brought up by John Williamson was a set of reform policies on how developing countries could advance or become or grow to be like the developed countries. Some of which include: Trade Liberalization (removal of all trades barriers between and among counties), Tax reforms, Interest Rate Flexibility or Liberalization, Privatization of state-owned properties and enterprises, Competitive Exchange Rate, Fiscal Discipline (dealing with the government revenue and expenditure, etc. All these and others were good reform policies as it worked for some developing countries then.
    As regards the issue whether these reform policies have helped Nigeria or not, the reform policies have actually not be helpful or even working today the least in Nigeria.
    This is mainly due to the fact that first, there is poor implementation of these policies. Like obviously, we have all these excellent, mouthwatering polices that are very much making a lot of sense, but the issue with this country is the poor implementation of these policies. The body with which would be saddled with the responsible of discharging these duties could be either not discharging them at all or not effectively and efficiently carrying them out as stated.
    Second, I would say that the poor implementation problem could be due to fact that we suffer from political instability. Our government today could bring up a policy and then tomorrow’s government can come and scrap off that existing policy and which may sometimes have not even started started it’s work in the economy thereby causing us to suffer for it as such reform polices like the Washington Consensus would not even work in our economy.

  193. Avatar Odo Chinedu Ogugua 2017/251641 Ododougi@gmail.com says:

    Over three decades after market-oriented structural reforms, termed “Washington consensus” policies, were first implemented, we revisit the evidence on policy adoption and the effects of these policies on socio-economic performance using Nigeria as a case Study. We focus on three key ubiquitous reform policies around privatization, fiscal discipline, and trade openness and document significant improvements in economic performance for reformers over the past two decades. Following initial declines in per capita economic growth over the 1980s and 1990s, reform adopters experienced
    notable increases in per capita real GDP growth in the post 2000 period. Notably, the ability to implement pro-poor policies alongside market oriented reforms played a central role in successful policy performance.

    What is the Washington Consensus?
    When economist John Williamson coined the term “Washington Consensus” in 1989, he was referring to a set of ten market-oriented policies that were popular among Washington-based policy institutions, particularly as policy prescriptions for improving economic performance in Latin-American countries. These policies centered around fiscal discipline, market-oriented domestic reforms, and openness to trade and investment. In African countries, the Washington Consensus
    inspired market-based reforms prescribed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), under “structural adjustment programs” (SAP). These reforms were often prerequisites for financial assistance to indebted African countries during the global recession and debt crisis of the 1980s, when the external debt rose sharply to unsustainable levels.

    The story of how African countries got into a debt crisis that led to the introduction of structural adjustment programs is often told as follows: first, expansionary fiscal spending aimed at economic development spearheaded by newly independent African governments, struggling to recover from the ravages of European colonialism, increased government spending in the 1960s and 1970s. Governments also borrowed significantly to finance development expenditures over this time. Oil price shocks that significantly decreased the price of oil in 1980s led to declines in export revenue for many governments. This decline in export revenue, along with a collapse in world prices of primary agricultural commodities, which made up 88 percent of Africa’s exports, resulted in a shortfall in revenue that put enormous pressure on governments’ finances. Additionally, government featured largely in domestic financial institutions like the banking sector, with many African governments nationalizing foreign banks or creating new state-owned financial institutions.

    Washington Consensus Policies and Structural Adjustment Programs.
    A first step to understand the economic effects of Washington Consensus policy adoption is to examine the proposed reforms and the drivers of policy adoption across African countries. Washington Consensus reforms, as outlined in Serra and Stiglitz (2008), included the following 10 policy recommendations:
    • “Fiscal discipline” focused on ensuring countries had relatively low primary fiscal deficits to
    avoid balance of payment crises and high inflation;
    • “Reordering public expenditure priorities” encouraged elimination of subsidies and increased
    expenditure on pro-poor programs, including health care, education and infrastructure;
    • “Tax reforms” emphasized the need for a broad-based tax base with moderate marginal tax
    rates;
    • “Interest rate liberalization” aimed at promoting market-determined interest rates and
    achieving positive real interest rates;
    • “Competitive exchange rates” to correct overvalued exchange rates;
    • “Trade liberalization” to allow more openness to trade with varying views on the pace at which
    to proceed;
    • “Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment” to attract foreign capital but not including
    capital account liberalization;
    • “Privatization” highlighted the potential benefits of privatizing state-owned enter-prises by
    either selling assets into a competitive market or regulating them properly;
    • “Deregulation” aimed at easing barriers to entry and exit, but not abolishing regulations
    designed for safety or environmental reasons or to govern prices in a non-competitive industry;
    • “Legal security for property rights” to facilitate the acquisition of property rights, notably in the
    informal sector.

    The Washington Consensus Effect in Nigeria.
    Of the three key reforms described in Section 3, Nigeria scored highly on two: domestic market oriented reforms around privatization and fiscal reforms aimed at improving the fiscal balance over the 1980 to 1999 period. Previous work has described the Nigerian economic experience post policy adoption in the 1980s as dismal by citing decreases in GDP growth rates from 6.9 percent pre-adjustment to -1.7 percent in the post-period. In Nigeria, the main determinant of adoption of World Bank-funded reforms was the pressure to reach agreements on debt rescheduling.

    The second main determinant was the nature of leadership in power at the time and its commitment to the reform process. Nigeria has been a heavily oil commodity dependent country since the 1970s, with over 70 percent of government revenue from petroleum and petroleum ex