Introduction
The global economic order of the late 20th century was built on the fragile foundation of three assumptions: political neutrality, market self-regulation, and universal deregulation. Joseph Stiglitz’s analysis proves that this framework—known as the Washington Consensus—is a logical absurdity. In practice, it led to "growth without development," favoring capital at the expense of society and the environment. This article exposes these aporias and points the way toward a new, fairer order.
The Washington Consensus: An Ideological Straitjacket for the Economy
This doctrine is inherently contradictory: politics cannot be neutral if it promotes deregulation, and the market is not self-regulating when it requires public bailouts. Northern protectionism creates glaring asymmetries—wealthy nations preach free trade while employing tariffs and agricultural subsidies that devastate farming in Africa and Latin America.
Financial deregulation destabilizes national budgets by unleashing speculative capital that preys on exchange rate fluctuations instead of investing in the real economy. Meanwhile, Stiglitz describes the intellectual property regime as patents acting as a tax on knowledge. Instead of stimulating progress, it blocks access to medicine and technology, deepening global inequalities. The alternative is the Scandinavian vs. German model: the former focuses on progressive redistribution, the latter on ordoliberal stability, but both recognize the primacy of social cohesion over pure profit.
The Crisis of Legitimacy and Development Metrics
Institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank suffer from a profound democratic deficit—their voting structures reflect a power balance from decades ago, granting the US veto power. The dominant GDP metric masks real social regression by ignoring inequality and ecological degradation. In this system, transnational corporations evade responsibility, shifting the costs of their actions onto the poorest communities.
Current globalization ignores planetary boundaries, treating the environment as a free resource. Stiglitz’s reforms propose a new architecture: the creation of a global reserve system ("green money") and mechanisms for restructuring sovereign debt. The goal is to transition from exploitation to a system where a global regulator protects public goods.
Inclusive Growth and the New Role of the State
True development requires inclusive growth to replace the concentration of wealth. The state must be an active regulator and an architect of development, as proven by the East Asian model, which invested in education and technology. Meanwhile, IMF shock therapy often deepened recessions by imposing pro-cyclical cuts during the height of crises.
A business transformation is necessary: moving away from short-term profit toward sustainability. The stakeholder model must replace shareholder primacy, forcing corporations to consider the rights of workers and future generations. Only then will globalization cease to be a political project of the powerful and become a tool for universal prosperity.
Summary
Globalization, rather than being a universal cure, has become a mirror reflecting our contradictions. Stiglitz’s analysis shows that stability and justice are public goods that require active protection. Can we create a system where development is not synonymous with destruction, and progress does not come at the expense of future generations? Solving the puzzle of globalization requires abandoning market fundamentalism in favor of sustainable institutional reason.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF