Suchergebnisse

After a prolonged period of macroeconomic adjustment, lasting
at least a decade in most LDCs, much has been learned (and in many cases
re-learned) and a consensus reached about many key policy points, such
as the virtues of budgetary balance, the need for a strong real exchange
rate, and the requirement for microeconomic reforms if markets are to
work properly. To a considerable extent, moreover, there has been
success in closing current account deficits, reducing government
expenditure and moderating rates of inflation. Much of this logic is
reflected in the standard policy models employed by the Bank and the
Fund which I shall discuss today. However, to the extent that
macroeconomic adjustment is intended to lead on to renewed growth (and
eventually poverty alleviation) the debate is far less consensual. Two
main lines of critique have been directed at what can be called the
'Washington Consensus': The first suggests that macroeconomic adjustment
- as theorised and practised - has had negative effects in terms of
employment, income distribution and even the environment, particularly
because of the reduction in real wages and key public expenditures. The
second line of dissent from the standard model stresses the deleterious
effect of orthodox macroeconomic adjustment packages on output growth
itself, both through unnecessarily severe demand reductions on the one
hand, and excessive adjustments (upward) to real interest rates and
(downward) to public investment levels without taking into account the
domestic implications of external debt positions.

Contains an analysis of macroeconomics and inter-sectorial disequilibria in peripheral socialist economies, based on an adaptation of the theories of Kornai and Kalecki to the planned primary-export economy with a large peasant/artisan sector. The origins of excess state accumulation in such economies is identified, and consequences of system reforms for economic management discussed. (Abstract amended)