Latest news with #WashingtonConsensus
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Nalanda University is in take-off mode, says Vice-Chancellor
Eminent economist Sachin Chaturvedi, who took charge as the Vice-Chancellor of Nalanda University in Bihar on Wednesday (May 21, 2025), told The Hindu that the university expects enrolment of about 900 students in the new academic session. The university is in a 'take-off mode', Prof. Chaturvedi said, noting that 99% of the construction work has been completed. Prof. Chaturvedi said the university, which functions under the External Affairs Ministry, is working to expand international connections by drawing students and faculty from across the globe. 'Nalanda will give the message of peace and promote more rigorous research to connect Indian philosophy with the contemporary world,' he said, adding that the institution will bring together researchers, policy-makers and those in the diplomatic community. Prof. Chaturvedi is also Director General at the think tank Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS). With the collapse of the 'Washington Consensus', the Global South requires a new philosophy of development drawn from a rich legacy of knowledge. 'We need to revisit that knowledge and my priority would be to bring it back for the Global South with a new development philosophy,' he said. To a question on administrative issues that had created hurdles, the Vice-Chancellor said the Bihar government had given almost 500 acres for the university. Of that land, 100 acres have been allocated for water bodies and 300 acres have been kept aside as forest, he stated. 'The connectivity has improved now. The admission has already touched 540 in various streams as of now. Our expectation is that this year it may go up to 900,' he added. 'The university now is in a take-off mode and this year we are going to widely advertise the space. Now 99% of construction work is over, so we can now focus on quality education,' he said, adding that unlike the South Asian University, supported by the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, India is the sole decision-maker in the functioning of Nalanda University.
Economic Times
09-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
India must choose its own path for a stronger and more equitable future
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of .) Donald Trump got one thing right. Working-class people are hurting. Neoliberal, free-market capitalists want financial capital to roam the world, unhampered by tariff and non-tariff barriers. They are unconcerned about the freedom of human capital - its citizens searching for work and incomes to live, who are being shut out to protect the cultures of rich and his corporate friends are hammering on India's doors again to open its borders to import US corporations-manufactured and agricultural products, and their services. India's leaders must rise above US pressures and reflect. What will be best for India's workers and farmers?History can be a good teacher. The Washington Consensus (read: ideology) was presumed to have won the ideological war with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Free-market capitalism had defeated government-regulated socialism. Ease of doing business trumped the ease of living of markets were forced on Russia by the US, and its state sector was dismantled, with disastrous consequences. Russia's GDP shrank by nearly 40% between 1991 and 1998, industrial output dropped and poverty rose, with 30% of the population living below the poverty line by the mid-1990s. Ironically, out of the shambles, Vladimir Putin emerged in 1999 as the leader to Make Russia Great and India took different paths in the 1990s. India toed closer to the US anti-socialist, free-market line. China did not succumb to US pressures. It continued the development of a centrally guided ' socialist market economy ', and to build its industrial capabilities before joining the global per-capita GDP has grown 7.3x since 1990; China's 42x - six times faster. China's manufacturing sector has grown 9x as large as India's. Its exports of hi-tech goods are 48x. Trump wants to Make America Great Again by curbing China's remarkable growth. He says the global trade regime - which the US itself put in place in the 1990s - is not fair to the 2010, Adair Turner said the time has come to reconstruct economics. Too much reality was being left out of economists' models for them to explain the world. These flawed models are incapable of predicting the future condition of an a twist of Keynes' famous statement that 'practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist', Turner warned that 'the great danger lies with reasonably intellectual men and women who are employed in policy-making departments of central banks, regulatory bodies, and governments, who are aware of intellectual influences, but who tend to gravitate to simplified versions of the dominant belief of economists who are very much alive'.Communist China escaped the shock therapy Western economists imposed on communist Russia in 1992. China continued its path of reforms to a 'socialist market economy' - China's way of adopting capitalist tools without abandoning socialist her book, How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate, Isabella M Weber writes, 'The famous Harvard development economist Dani Rodrik represents the economics profession more broadly when he answers his own question of whether 'anyone [can] name the [Western] economists or the piece of research that played an instrumental role in China's reforms' by claiming that 'economic research, at least as conventionally understood', did not play 'a significant role'.India's economists have two challenges before them:Redesign, along with other nations, structures of global trade and financial systems to make them fair for structures of India's economy, and take a new road to create an equitable, democratic society, and achieve the vision of poorna swaraj - a country that provides equal political, social and economic freedom to all its 'socialist' model India followed until 1991 was too top-down and controlled by government. The capitalist model of the economy it followed afterwards has turned out to be too much 'trickle-up'. Inequalities have increased, and incomes are not growing sufficiently in the lower half of the needs a new model of economic growth to strengthen its economy, and to make it a more equitable country.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
India must choose its own path for a stronger and more equitable future
Donald Trump got one thing right. Working-class people are hurting. Neoliberal, free-market capitalists want financial capital to roam the world, unhampered by tariff and non-tariff barriers. They are unconcerned about the freedom of human capital - its citizens searching for work and incomes to live, who are being shut out to protect the cultures of rich countries. #Operation Sindoor India-Pakistan Clash Live Updates| Missiles, shelling, and attacks — here's all that's happening Pakistani Air Force jet shot down in Pathankot by Indian Air Defence: Sources India on high alert: What's shut, who's on leave, and state-wise emergency measures Trump and his corporate friends are hammering on India's doors again to open its borders to import US corporations-manufactured and agricultural products, and their services. India's leaders must rise above US pressures and reflect. What will be best for India's workers and farmers? History can be a good teacher. The Washington Consensus (read: ideology) was presumed to have won the ideological war with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Free-market capitalism had defeated government-regulated socialism. Ease of doing business trumped the ease of living of citizens. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These 20 Scary Bridges Will Test Your Fear of Heights Learn More Undo Private markets were forced on Russia by the US, and its state sector was dismantled, with disastrous consequences. Russia's GDP shrank by nearly 40% between 1991 and 1998, industrial output dropped and poverty rose, with 30% of the population living below the poverty line by the mid-1990s. Ironically, out of the shambles, Vladimir Putin emerged in 1999 as the leader to Make Russia Great Again. China and India took different paths in the 1990s. India toed closer to the US anti-socialist, free-market line. China did not succumb to US pressures. It continued the development of a centrally guided ' socialist market economy ', and to build its industrial capabilities before joining the global game. Live Events India's per-capita GDP has grown 7.3x since 1990; China's 42x - six times faster. China's manufacturing sector has grown 9x as large as India's. Its exports of hi-tech goods are 48x. Trump wants to Make America Great Again by curbing China's remarkable growth. He says the global trade regime - which the US itself put in place in the 1990s - is not fair to the US. In 2010, Adair Turner said the time has come to reconstruct economics. Too much reality was being left out of economists' models for them to explain the world. These flawed models are incapable of predicting the future condition of an economy. With a twist of Keynes' famous statement that 'practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist', Turner warned that 'the great danger lies with reasonably intellectual men and women who are employed in policy-making departments of central banks, regulatory bodies, and governments, who are aware of intellectual influences, but who tend to gravitate to simplified versions of the dominant belief of economists who are very much alive'. Communist China escaped the shock therapy Western economists imposed on communist Russia in 1992. China continued its path of reforms to a 'socialist market economy' - China's way of adopting capitalist tools without abandoning socialist ideology. In her book, How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate, Isabella M Weber writes, 'The famous Harvard development economist Dani Rodrik represents the economics profession more broadly when he answers his own question of whether 'anyone [can] name the [Western] economists or the piece of research that played an instrumental role in China's reforms' by claiming that 'economic research, at least as conventionally understood', did not play 'a significant role'. India's economists have two challenges before them: Redesign, along with other nations, structures of global trade and financial systems to make them fair for all. Reimagine structures of India's economy, and take a new road to create an equitable, democratic society, and achieve the vision of poorna swaraj - a country that provides equal political, social and economic freedom to all its citizens. The 'socialist' model India followed until 1991 was too top-down and controlled by government. The capitalist model of the economy it followed afterwards has turned out to be too much 'trickle-up'. Inequalities have increased, and incomes are not growing sufficiently in the lower half of the pyramid. India needs a new model of economic growth to strengthen its economy, and to make it a more equitable country.
Asia Times
24-04-2025
- Business
- Asia Times
World Bank 2d try at ranking economies for investors also lacking
In 2021, the World Bank shut down one of its flagship projects: the Doing Business index, a global ranking system that measured how easy it was to start and run a business in 190 countries. That followed an independent investigation that found World Bank officials had manipulated the rankings to favor powerful countries, including China and Saudi Arabia. The scandal raised serious concerns about the use of global benchmarks to shape development policy. Now, the bank is trying again. In October 2024, it launched its newest flagship report, Business Ready. The 2025 spring meeting of the World Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, mark the first time the report will be formally presented to delegates as part of the institutions' high-level agenda. Nicknamed B-READY, the report aims to evaluate business environments through more transparent data. This time, the annual assessment has a broader ambition: to go beyond laws and efficiency and also measure social inclusion, environmental sustainability and public service delivery. As experts on international organizations, law and development, we have given B-READY a closer look. While we appreciate that a global assessment of the economic health of countries through data collection and participation of private stakeholders is a worthwhile endeavor, we worry that the World Bank's latest effort risks recreating many of the same flaws that plagued its predecessor. To understand what's at stake, it's worth recalling what the Doing Business index measured. From 2003 to 2021, the flagship report was used by governments, investors and World Bank officials alike to assess the business environment of any given country. It ranked countries based on how easy it was to start and run a business in each of 190 economies. In prioritizing that as its marker, the index often celebrated reforms that stripped away labor protections, environmental safeguards and corporate taxes in the name of greater 'efficiency' of common law versus civil law jurisdictions. As economist Joseph E. Stiglitz argued in 2021, from its creation the Doing Business index reflected the values of the so-called Washington Consensus − a development model rooted in deregulation, privatization and market liberalization. Critics warned for years that the Doing Business index encouraged a global 'race to the bottom.' Countries competed to improve their rankings, often by adopting symbolic legal reforms with little real impact. In some cases, internal data manipulation at the World Bank penalized governments that did not appear sufficiently business-friendly. These structural flaws − and the political pressures behind them − ultimately led to the project's demise in 2021. B-READY is the World Bank's attempt to regain credibility after the Doing Business scandal. In recent years, there has been both internal and external pressure to create a successor − and B-READY responds to that demand while aiming to fix the methodological flaws. In theory, while it retains a focus on the business environment, B-READY shifts away from a narrow deregulatory logic and instead seeks to capture how regulations interact with infrastructure, services and equity considerations. B-READY, which in the pilot stage covers a mix of 50 countries, does not rank countries with a single score. Rather, it provides more accurate data across 10 topics grouped into three pillars: regulatory framework, public services and operational efficiency. The report also introduces new themes such as digital access, environmental sustainability and gender equity. Unlike the Doing Business index, B-READY publishes its full methodology and makes its data publicly available. On the surface, this looks like progress. But a criticism of B-READY is that, in practice, the changes offer only a more fragmented ranking system — one that is harder to interpret and still shaped by the same investor-driven macroeconomic assumptions. In our view, the framework continues to reflect a narrow view of what constitutes a healthy legal and economic system, not just for investors but for society as a whole. A key concern is how B-READY handles labor standards. The report relies on two main data sources: expert consultations and firm-level surveys. For assessing labor and social security regulations, the World Bank consults lawyers with expertise in each country. But when it comes to how these laws function in practice, the report relies on surveys that ask businesses whether labor costs, dismissal protections and public services are 'burdens.' This approach captures the employer's perspective, but leaves out workers' experiences and the real impact on labor rights. In some cases, the scoring system even rewards weaker protections. For example, countries are encouraged to have a minimum-wage law on the books − but are penalized if the wage is 'too high' relative to gross domestic product per capita. This creates pressure to keep wages low in order to appear competitive. And while that might be good news for international companies seeking to reduce their labor costs, it isn't necessarily good for the local workforce or a country's economic well-being. According to the International Trade Union Confederation, this approach risks encouraging symbolic reforms while doing little to protect workers. Georgia, for example, ranks near the top of the B-READY labor assessment, despite not having updated its minimum wage since 1999 and setting it below the subsistence level. Another troubling area, to us as comparative law experts, is how B-READY evaluates legal issues. It measures how quickly commercial courts resolve disputes but ignores judicial independence or respect for the rule of law. As a result, countries such as Hungary and Georgia, which have been widely criticized for democratic backsliding and the erosion of the rule of law, score surprisingly high. Not coincidentally, both governments have already used these scores for propaganda and political gain. This reflects a deeper problem, we believe. B-READY treats the legal system primarily as a means to attract investment, not as a framework for public accountability. It assumes that making life easier for businesses will automatically benefit everyone. But that assumption risks ignoring the people most affected by these laws and institutions − workers, communities and civil society groups. B-READY introduces greater transparency and public data − and that, for sure, is a step up from its predecessor. But in our opinion it still reflects a narrow view of what a 'good' legal system looks like: one that might deliver efficiency for firms but not necessarily justice or equity for society. Whether B-Ready becomes a tool for meaningful reform − or just another scoreboard for deregulation − will depend on the World Bank's willingness to confront its long-standing biases and listen to its critics. Fernanda G Nicola is a professor of Law at American University and Dhaisy Paredes Guzman is a research assistant at American University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
From Doing Business to B-READY: World Bank's new rankings represent a rebrand, not a revamp
In 2021, the World Bank shut down one of its flagship projects: the Doing Business index, a global ranking system that measured how easy it was to start and run a business in 190 countries. It followed an independent investigation that found World Bank officials had manipulated the rankings to favor powerful countries, including China and Saudi Arabia. The scandal raised serious concerns about the use of global benchmarks to shape development policy. Now, the Bank is trying again. In October 2024, it launched its newest flagship report, Business Ready. The 2025 spring meeting of the World Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, mark the first time the report will be formally presented to delegates as part of the institutions' high-level agenda. Nicknamed B-READY, the report aims to evaluate business environments through more transparent data. This time, the annual assessment has a broader ambition: to go beyond laws and efficiency and also measure social inclusion, environmental sustainability and public service delivery. As experts on international organizations, law and development, we have given B-READY a closer look. While we appreciate that a global assessment of the economic health of countries through data collection and participation of private stakeholders is a worthwhile endeavor, we worry that the World Bank's latest effort risks recreating many of the same flaws that plagued its predecessor. To understand what's at stake, it's worth recalling what the Doing Business index measured. From 2003 to 2021, the flagship report was used by governments, investors and World Bank officials alike to assess the business environment of any given country. It ranked countries based on how easy it was to start and run a business in 190 economies. In prioritizing that as its marker, the index often celebrated reforms that stripped away labor protections, environmental safeguards and corporate taxes in the name of greater 'efficiency' of common law versus civil law jurisdictions. As economist Joseph E. Stiglitz argued in 2021, from its creation, the Doing Business index reflected the values of the so-called Washington Consensus − a development model rooted in deregulation, privatization and market liberalization. Critics warned for years that the Doing Business index encouraged a global 'race to the bottom.' Countries competed to improve their rankings, often by adopting symbolic legal reforms with little real impact. In some cases, internal data manipulation at the World Bank penalized governments that did not appear sufficiently business-friendly. These structural flaws − and the political pressures behind them − ultimately led to the project's demise in 2021. B-READY is the World Bank's attempt to regain credibility after the Doing Business scandal. In recent years, there has been both internal and external pressure to create a successor − and B-READY responds to that demand while aiming to fix the methodological flaws. In theory, while it retains a focus on the business environment, B-READY shifts away from a narrow deregulatory logic and instead seeks to capture how regulations interact with infrastructure, services and equity considerations. B-READY, which in the pilot stage covers a mix of 50 countries, does not rank countries with a single score. Rather, it provides more accurate data across 10 topics grouped into three pillars: regulatory framework, public services and operational efficiency. The report also introduces new themes such as digital access, environmental sustainability and gender equity. Unlike the Doing Business index, B-READY publishes its full methodology and makes its data publicly available. On the surface, this looks like progress. But a criticism of B-READY is that in practice, the changes offer only a more fragmented ranking system — one that is harder to interpret and still shaped by the same investor driven macroeconomic assumptions. In our view, the framework continues to reflect a narrow view of what constitutes a healthy legal and economic system, not just for investors but for society as a whole. A key concern is how B-READY handles labor standards. The report relies on two main data sources: expert consultations and firm-level surveys. For assessing labor and social security regulations, the World Bank consults lawyers with expertise in each country. But when it comes to how these laws function in practice, the report relies on surveys that ask businesses whether labor costs, dismissal protections and public services are 'burdens.' This approach captures the employer's perspective, but leaves out workers' experiences and the real impact on labor rights. In some cases, the scoring system even rewards weaker protections. For example, countries are encouraged to have a minimum-wage law on the books − but are penalized if the wage is 'too high' relative to gross domestic product per capita. This creates pressure to keep wages low in order to appear competitive. And while that might be good news for international companies seeking to reduce their labor costs, it isn't necessarily good for the local workforce or a country's economic well-being. According to the International Trade Union Confederation, this approach risks encouraging symbolic reforms while doing little to protect workers. Georgia, for example, ranks near the top of the B-READY labor assessment, despite not having updated its minimum wage since 1999 and setting it below the subsistence level. Another troubling area, to us as comparative law experts, is how B-READY evaluates legal issues. It measures how quickly commercial courts resolve disputes but ignores judicial independence or respect for the rule of law. As a result, countries such as Hungary and Georgia, which have been widely criticized for democratic backsliding and the erosion of the rule of law, score surprisingly high. Not coincidentally, both governments have already used these scores for propaganda and political gain. This reflects a deeper problem, we believe. B-READY treats the legal system primarily as a means to attract investment, not as a framework for public accountability. It assumes that making life easier for businesses will automatically benefit everyone. But that assumption risks ignoring the people most affected by these laws and institutions − workers, communities and civil society groups. B-READY introduces greater transparency and public data − and that, for sure, is a step up from its predecessor. But in our opinion it still reflects a narrow view of what a 'good' legal system looks like: one that might deliver efficiency for firms but not necessarily justice or equity for society. Whether B-Ready becomes a tool for meaningful reform − or just another scoreboard for deregulation − will depend on the World Bank's willingness to confront its long-standing biases and listen to its critics. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Fernanda G Nicola, American University and Dhaisy Paredes Guzman, American University Read more: Scandal involving World Bank's 'Doing Business' index exposes problems in using sportslike rankings to guide development goals If US attempts World Bank retreat, the China-led AIIB could be poised to step in – and provide a model of global cooperation Can this former CEO fix the World Bank and solve the world's climate finance and debt crises as the institution's next president? The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
