ABSTRACT
In a separate lecture, Stiglitz (1998b, p. 1) went on to claim that: ‘Curiously many of the factors identified as contributors to East Asian economies’ current problems are strikingly similar to the explanations previously put forward for their success.’ These statements reflect the complex relationship between the process of development in East Asia and the nascent views on development policy that have been critical of the so-called Washington consensus. Stiglitz’s statements also highlight an essential feature of the emerging rival doctrine, dubbed the post-Washington consensus: its analytical reliance on market failure. For proponents of the new doctrine, what is problematic with the old doctrine is not its emphasis on the need for ‘wellfunctioning markets’ to achieve economic development but its adoption of ‘incomplete or even misguided instruments’ in achieving this end.
