primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure ;tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base);Interest rate liberalization ;a competitive exchange rate ;trade liberalization ;liberalization of inflows of foreign direct investment ;privatization ;deregulation (to abolish barriers to entry and exit) and secure property rights. This privatization agenda in pursuit of globalization has come under criticism as (1) says," Some of the most vociferous of today's critics of what they call the Washington Consensus, most prominently Joe Stiglitz... do not object so much to the agenda laid out above as to the neoliberalism that they interpret the term as implying. I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization...monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas". In development literature it is examined and accepted that The Washington consensus emerged out of a kind of counter reaction in development economics (3) to what has been termed as rather operationally successful neoliberal revolution against Keynesianism prescriptions of the 1970s.The Washington Consensus, materialized in large and specially built Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) suggested for a substantial portion of the developing countries in the ensuing years of 1980s and 1990s.It was the outcomes of these SAPs that were not along expected lines and which resulted in external criticism of The Washington Consensus itself. Joseph Stiglitz a World Bank Economist was the most prominent insider to offer criticism of the neoliberalism inherent in The Washington Consensus and the body of criticism is now termed as post Washington consensus consensus (4) in the sense that it agrees on drawbacks and weak points of the consensus. This paper examines the critical body of arguments posed in this new consensus.
2.Post Washington Consensus Consensus
(5) exemplify in detail the various outcomes of the SAPs, based on The Washington Consensus, which not fell short of mark in their prime objective of achieving economic growth through market deregulation but also created other weak spots.Amin states that SAPs resulted in ," a sharp increase in unemployment, a fall in the
remuneration of work, an increase in food dependency, a grave deterioration of the
environment, a deterioration in healthcare systems, a fall in admissions to educational
institutions, a decline in the productive capacity of many nations, the sabotage of democratic systems, and the continued growth of external debt. "This made Stiglitz look out for an intellectual alternative t economic growth model. An alternative which was not based on sole emphasis on deregulations of all categories of markets to attain economic growth targets. Stiglitz writes about 'a new paradigm for economic development' (6).This idea of anew consensus arrived from Stiglitz when global development financial institutions had undergone a major policy shift after having witnessed the Asian crisis and analyzed its reasons that were traced to deregulated