From the Preface to the First Edition

Marx, Adolf Bernhard; Wehrhan, Augustus

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139644631.003

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Historicism implied they were not categorically different; they were simply further behind on the same track. 30 Thus historicism 'made modernity or capitalism look not simply global but rather as something that became global over time, by originating in one place (Europe) and then spreading outside it'. 31 Such an idea supported ideologies of colonialism and completely justified internalist histories of Europe, coupled with historical descriptions of the rest of the world in terms borrowed from European experience.…”

Section: The New Washington Pluralism and The Malaysian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the New Washington Pluralism from the Perspective of the Malaysian Model

Maseland¹,

Peil²

2008

Third World Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses the post-Washington Consensus development paradigm, questioning whether the changes it embodies are sufficient to open up the development debate. We show that the new paradigm, which might be called 'Washington Pluralism', harbours three pluralist principles. It maintains that development is 1) contingent on culture; 2) contingent on history; and 3) requiring a multidisciplinary perspective. We assess these principles on the basis of an analogy with the Malaysian Model, which embodied the same three principles. We show that, in Malaysia, the first two evolved into cultural determinism and historicism, respectively, while the third created a discourse in which institutions, politics and culture were reduced to instruments for development. Consequentially the proliferation of the idea of a Malaysian Model has been associated with increasing authoritarianism in Malaysia rather than with increased openness. On the basis of this analogy we conclude that the three pluralist principles are not sufficient to create an open development debate.The question now is not whether the Washington Consensus is dead or alive; it is what will replace it. Different contexts require different solutions to solving common problems.

show abstract

Section: The New Washington Pluralism and The Malaysian Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%