ABSTRACT
This chapter argues that the Beijing Consensus represents a philosophical movement towards an ultra-pragmatic view of conducting policy deliberation. The Beijing Consensus inherently recognizes that each scenario has a potential set of challenges that may require unique and experimental solutions factoring in the current social and economic environment. The Beijing Consensus lacks moral appeal because it is guided entirely by ultra-pragmatism, which by definition is behaviour disciplined by neither a set of values nor established principles. As John Williamson, one of the main architects of the Washington Consensus suggests, the Beijing Consensus has not been codified in a series of propositions akin to the Washington Consensus. It does not provide a prescription for development. John Williamson assumes that the Beijing Consensus basically refers to the Chinese way of doing things, with the relevant critiques following suit, with analysts conflating critiques of China's development experience and the Beijing Consensus as one and the same.
