Russian and World NewsChange of an intellectual fashion in global economic thought it is possible to consider the Peking consensus as the come true fact. “ the market reforms spent in the majority of developing countries since 1980 - h years, have not justified expectation “ - it is told in the annual report of Conference of the United Nations on trade and development (JUNKTAD). The ideology of these reforms limited “ a spectrum of tools of stimulation of the growth, developing countries accessible to the governments “; the last suggest to follow an example China and Vietnam. Under an epoch “ the Washington consensus “ line is brought.
principles “ the Washington consensus “ have been formulated in 1990: it is privatisation, the rigid monetary policy, refusal of budgetary deficiency, trade liberalisation, an openness for foreign investments. This approach became standard “ correct “ The recipe for the decision of problems of developing countries also has laid down in a basis of reforms in Latin America and the Eastern Europe. But market transformations have not solved social problems of Latin America; results of reforms even more often appear failure in Russia; the former group economist VB Joseph Stiglits declared, what exactly a policy “ the Washington consensus “ the Asian financial crisis has been generated also.
last years alternatively “ to the Washington consensus “ even more often name China to which managed to achieve fantastic rates of economic growth, to avoid political instability and to keep the financial system under sovereign control. Those whom the course of reforms has convinced of Russia and Latin America even more often specify in China that economy growth is possible only at participation and under state control. Today on their party has risen and JUNKTAD: The governments need to support innovations, to strengthen the industrial policy, to support an exit of national business on international scene. Also the United Nations in the spring have the same way expressed.
it would be incorrect to think that from such positions those to whom strengthening of a role of the state in economy bears personal material and political benefits act only. Hobby “ a course to Asia “ and “ the Chinese model “ became the international intellectual fashion. In May, 2004 the London centre of a world policy had been published the report under the name “ the Peking consensus “ where it is a question any more only of efficiency “ the Chinese model “. According to authors, “ the Washington consensus “ “ starts with desire to make happy bankers “ and “ the Peking consensus “ - to achieve fair growth in interests of simple people. Its purpose - growth at independence preservation; distinctive features - “ Resolute aspiration to innovations and experiments “ (special economic zones), “ protection of frontiers and interests “ “ accumulation of tools of asymmetric force “ (in the form of hundreds billions dollars of currency reserves). Forecasts of those who predicted to China social explosion or ecological accident, are forgotten; the Chinese model seems the universal answer to present calls.
a fashion on the certain theory of development - the phenomenon not new. In 1950 - 1960 - h years the concept importozameshchenija was popular, rector RESH Sergey Guriev reminds. Was considered that the state should support the national industry while it will not get stronger. Support tools - high tariffs, a manipulation an exchange rate, licensing of import of the equipment, subsidising of credits and the state investment. As a result in 1965 - 1973 in Latin America mid-annual rate of increase of economy reached 7,4 % - almost as in Jugo - East Asia and much more, than in the USA. The concept importozameshchenija became the extremely popular not only in developing countries, but also in the West, its author Argentinean Raul Prebish has headed JUNKTAD.
But to the beginning 1980 - h obvious became also other consequences of this policy. The economy of the Latin American countries has appeared debalanced and inefficient. Attempts to keep afloat leaders of the national industry and razdutye social programs have turned back huge budgetary deficiencies and a hyperinflation (in the middle of 1980 - h in Argentina, Brazil and other countries it exceeded Bolivias 1000 % a year), eaten all that modest growth of well-being which was first brought by a policy importozameshchenija. Political and social instability was an inevitable consequence. By the way, principles also have been developed for struggle against this inheritance of a policy importozameshchenija “ the Washington consensus “. Costs “ the Washington consensus “ today are already clear; costs “ the Peking consensus “ we just should learn.