BRETTON WOODS INSTITUTIONS, NEW YORK CONSENSUS AND POVERTY REDUCTION POLICIES

Yıl 2016, , 93 - 114, 31.03.2016

Hatice Karaçay

https://doi.org/10.17065/huniibf.309285

Öz

According to many social
scientists and academicians, after the emerging of Post-Washington Consensus,
the Bretton Woods institutions have dominantly repositioned their policy on
social issues such as gender equality, human rights and poverty. These
institutions have always been useful tools in advocating economic liberalism
across all countries after Second World War period. On the other hand, while
dealing with the main aims of economic liberalism -growth, efficiency, minimum
market intervention-, they have mostly disregarded the social problems of the
world communities. Especially, during 1970’s and 1980’s, stricktly adhering to
neoliberal policies of Washington consensus, IMF and World Bank have forced
developing countries to obey their stability and structural adjustment
policies. But after the collapse of neoliberal policies in the late of 1990’s,
the liberal world order and its main advocators need to search a new path to
sustain existing hegemonic power. The objective of this article is to analyze
the poverty alleviation strategies of Bretton Woods institutions under
historical perspective, especially in the frame of Comprehensive Development
Approach and to question whether these policies is the fresh instrument of new
liberal order. We also aim to assess whether we can talk about the convergence
between ‘United Nations Paradigm’ and ‘Bretton Woods Paradigm’ in the name of
New York Consensus under this development approach.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bretton Woods Institutions, New York consensus, poverty reduction policies

BRETTON-WOODS KURULUŞLARI, NEW YORK UZLAŞISI VE YOKSULLUKLA MÜCADELE POLİTİKALARI

Öz

Pekçok sosyal bilimci ve
akademisyene göre Post-Washington Uzlaşısı ile birlikte Bretton Woods kuruluşlarının
cinsiyet eşitliği, insan hakları ve yoksulluk gibi toplumsal sorunlara yönelik
politikalarında önemli bir değişim gözlenmiştir. Bu kuruluşlar savaş sonrası
dönemde ekonomik liberalizmin en önemli savunucuları olmuştur. Bu uğurda, dünya
halklarının temel sorunlarını göz ardı ederek, ekonomik büyüme, etkinlik,
minimum piyasa müdahalesi konularında mücadele vermişlerdir. Özellikle 1970’li
ve 1980’li yıllarda, Washington Uzlaşısı çerçevesinde neoliberal politikalara
tam bir sadakatla bağlanan IMF ve Dünya Bankası, gelişmekte olan ülkelere
“istikrar ve yapısal uyum politikaları”nı dikte etmiştir. Ancak 1990’lı
yıllarda neoliberal politikaların tıkanmasıyla birlikte, liberal düzen ve onun
sözcüleri, kendilerini, yeni bir patika bulma ihtiyacında hissetmişlerdir. Bu
çalışmanın amacı tarihsel bir perspektif altında, ancak özellikle Kapsayıcı
Kalkınma Yaklaşımı altında, Bretton Woods kuruluşlarının yoksullukla mücadele
politikalarını incelemek ve bu politikaların yeni liberal düzenin yeni bir
soluğu olup olmadığını araştırmaktır. Çalışmada, ayrıca Kapsayıcı Kalkınma
Yaklaşımı altında, Bretton Woods kuruluşları ile Birleşmiş Milletler
kuruluşlarının yakınsamasını yaratan New York Uzlaşısından söz edilmesinin
gerçekliği de tartışılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bretton Woods kuruluşları, New York Uzlaşısı, yoksullukla mücadele politikaları

Kaynakça

• Aktan, C.C., H. Ozler (2008), “Good Governance: A New Public Managerialism”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, 14(4), 165-187.
• Berktay, F. (2007), “Liberalizm: Tek bir Teorik Pozisyona İndirgenmesi Olanaksız Bir İdeoloji”, içinde B. Örs (der.), Modern Siyasal İdeolojiler, Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları: İstanbul, 47-106.
• Bond, P. (2004), “Should the World Bank and IMF be “Fixed” or “Nixed”?, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(2), 85-105.
• Booth, D. (2003), “PRSPs - Introduction and Overview”, Development Policy Review, 21(2), 131-159.
• Cammack, P. (2004), “What the World Bank Means by Poverty Reduction, and Why it Matters”, New Political Economy, 9(2),189-211.
• Cox, R.W. (1993), “Structural Issues of Global Governance: Implications for Europe”, in S. Gill (ed), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 259-289.
• Craig, D., D. Porter (2005), “The Third Way and The Third World: Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion Strategies in the Rise of ‘Inclusive’ Liberalism”, Review of International Political Economy, 12(2), 226–263.
• Dijkstra, G. (2011), “The PRSP Approach and the Illusion of Improved Aid Effectiveness: Lessons from Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua”, Development Policy Review, 29, 111-133.
• Driscoll, R., A. Evans (2005), “Second-Generation Poverty Reduction Strategies: Opportunities and Emerging Issues”, Development Policy Review, 23(1), 5-25.
• Eberlei, W. (2002), “Poverty Reduction Strategies between Global Governence and National Politics”, Nord-Süd Aktüel, 3, 432- 436.
• Giddens, A. (2000), The Third Way and its Critics, Oxford: Polity Press.
• Harrison, G. (2001), ”Post-Conditionality Politics and Administrative Reform: Reflections on The Cases of Uganda and Tanzania”, Development and Change, 32, 657-679.
• Kacowicz, A. (2005), “Globalization and Poverty: Possible Links, Different Explanations”, The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 6(2), 111-127.
• Koray M. (2011), Kapitalizm Küreselleşirken Dünya Ahvali, Istanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
• Lazarus, J. (2008), “Participation in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Reviewing the Past, Assessing the Present and Predicting the Future”, Third World Quarterly, 29(6), 1205–1221.
• Lyakurwa, W. (2005), “Sub-Saharan African Countries’ Development Strategies: The Role of The Bretton Woods Institutions” in Joost, J., A. Akkerman (eds.), Helping the Poor? The IMF and Low- Income Countries, Fondan Publications: The Hague, 152-180.
• Müller, K., A. Pickel (2001), “Transition, Transformation and the Social Sciences: Towards a New Paradigm”, TIPEC Working Papers, 01/11, http://www.trentu.ca/org/tipec/mullerpickel11.pdf.
• Öniş, Z. F. Şenses (2005), “Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus”, Development and Change, 36 (2), 263-290.
• Rivero, O.D. (2001), The Myth of Development: The Non-Viable Economies of the 21st Century, London: Zed Books.
• Ruckert, A. (2006), “Towards an Inclusive-Neoliberal Regime of Development: From the Washington to the Post-Washington Consensus”, Labour, Capital and Society, 39(1), 35- 67.
• Scholte, J.A. (2010), “The impact of Global Governance on Poverty in the UK”, JRF Programme Paper, http:// www.jrf.org.uk/publications/
• Soederberg, S. (2001), “Grafting Stability onto Globalization? Deconstructing the IMF's Recent Bid for Transparency”, Third World Quarterly, 22(5), 849-867.
• Soederberg, S. (2005), “ Recasting Neoliberal Dominance in the Global South? a Critique of the Monterrey Consensus”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 30, 325-364.
• Stiglitz, J.E. (2002), “Participation and Development: Perspectives from the Comprehensive Development Paradigm”, Review of Development Economics, 6(2), 163-182.
• Thérien, J.P. (2004), “The Politics of International Development: Towards a New Grand Compromise?”, Journal of Trade and Environment Studies, 1, 1- 19.
• UNRISD (2000), Visible Hands: Taking Responsibility for Social Development, Geneva: UNRISD Publications. Wade, R. (2001), Showdown at the World Bank, New Left Review, 7, 124-137.
• Wayenberge, E. (2009), “Washington Mutabakatından Washington Sonrası Mutabakata: Kalkınma Yansımaları”, içinde F. Şenses (der.) Neoliberal Küreselleşme ve Kalkınma,: İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 307-347.
• Wolfensohn, J.D. (1999), A Proposal for a Comprehensive Development Framework, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/CDF/Resources/cdf.pdf.
• World Bank (1992), Poverty Handbook, Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
• World Bank (2000/2001), World Development Report: Attacking Poverty, Washington D.C: The World Bank.
• World Bank (2004a), Supporting Development Programs Effectively- Applying the Comprehensive Development Framework Principles: A Staff Guide, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/STRATEGIES/CDF/0,,contentMDK:20311725~pagePK:139301~pi PK:139306~theSitePK:260799,00.html