Such a phenomenon we could see in the time, when founded the World Bank and Monetary Fund – 1944. In that time emerge assumption, that the economic liberalism, which emerge in 1920s. – fully liberalized market system is socially and politically impossible. Self – regulating markets cannot endure. There emerge general agreements (basis already in 1930s), that governments should play a central role in regulating both national and international economical systems. In the result, international economic and even economic environment changed dramatically. But, as time shows, the increasing difficulties, and a final collapse of the Soviet system also shows, that “planning” economy more generally along with political support for non – free market policies faded away. Time after time, economic systems, like all world changes. Banks change its positions too and took form of neoliberalism for purpose to achieve development. Also, with Washington`s ideological shifts of the 1980s, switched toward papers “demonstrating” that government interventions in the market slow economic growth (neoliberal assertion). So Washington Consensus amalgamates long standing IMF macroeconomic stabilization policies, the World`s Bank`s adoption of the market deregulation and supply side economics ideas in vogue in Washington. The consensus has evolved over time, often away from originally extreme positions, but essentials have not changed. A result, we could assumed, that Washington Consensus had left really important mark in international economy and led as with its strategy`s through the countries experiences to establishment of the liberal (neoliberal) creed. …
The conception of “Washington Consensus”, emerge in the international economy in recent years. Williamson John, this term inventor, claimed, that now this term is causing wide confusion, and the meaning isn`t that, which he at the start, invented. Conception original meaning is summary of lowest common denominator of policy advice addressed by the Washington based institutions (for example World Bank) to Latin American countries as of 1989., and the use of the term signify neoliberal or market – fundamentalist policies. Now term is used as a synonym for what is often called “neoliberalism” in Latin America, or what Geeorge Soros has called “market fundamentalism”. The original version of “Washington Consensus” argued, that the set of policy reforms most of official Washington thought would be good for Latin American countries, and those sets, proposition were: fiscal discipline, a redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure, tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base), interest rate liberalization, a competitive exchange rate, trade liberalization, liberalization of FDI inflows, privatization, deregulation (in the sense of abolishing barriers to entry and exit), secure property rights. This was like a keystone for economic reformation. About those propositions – Washington Consensus elements, some were widely accepted, some didn’t show good results. Williamson by his self has some doubts about some of those elements, expressed before in Washington Consensus. The main meaning of Washington Consensus, was, that this conception led to belief- markets can handle everything. Such belief created concern. When Williamson looked back on Washington Consensus, he emphasize, that in his version, Washington Consensus can be seen as an attempt to summarize the policies that were widely viewed as supportive of development at the end of the two decades when economists had become convinced that key to rapid economic development lay not in a country`s natural resources or even in its physical or human capital, but, rather, in the set of economic policies that it pursued. And this consensus is valid for all places and at all time in the practice, but theoretical must be different situation.
