On November 15, we held the discussion \u201cThe Washington Consensus in Latin America: what did we learn and where are we going? It was held at the Universidad de los Andes, and was the first face-to-face activity of the alliance between TREES and the PRAEM (Program of Economic Analysis of Mexico) of El Colegio de M\u00e9xico. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The purpose of the event was to reflect on the scope, effects and limitations for Latin America of the economic liberalization policies established 30 years ago in the Washington Consensus. The reforms that were part of this Consensus focused on promoting trade freedom and deregulation, thus limiting the incidence of the State in the market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite the fact that these policies have led to macroeconomic stability in some countries of the continent, the challenges of inclusion, sustainability and increasing inequalities persist in Latin American countries, which has led to social unrest and significant political changes in some countries of the region. Achieving a deep and plural reflection on the decisions made in recent decades is essential to influence the creation of economic, political and social alternatives that will lead to attacking these persistent problems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
To achieve this goal, the discussion brought together four experts: Cecilia L\u00f3pez, former Minister of State of Colombia, an expert on the country's inclusive economic and social policies. Lorenza Mart\u00ednez, CEO of Actinver Bank, who has extensive experience in public and private financial institutions. Olga Luc\u00eda Acosta, member of the Board of Directors of Banco de la Rep\u00fablica de Colombia and expert in monetary and financial policies. Santiago Levy, head of the Employment Mission in Colombia, recognized for his contributions to the fight against poverty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The conversation included questions to reflect on the achievements and legacy of the Washington Consensus in relation to institution building, reforms and public policies. It also explored what illusions have been left unfulfilled, along with the factors that possibly interfered with their realization. In addition, it analyzed the ways in which the paradigm proposed in the 1990s neglected factors of social and political reality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the other hand, more specific ideas were included regarding the weaknesses of current social policy, delayed objectives to reduce inequalities, climate change, mitigation policies, the challenges of central banks in Latin America, the change in the relationship between the public and private sectors to create economic alternatives and the most important lessons learned in the fight against poverty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you missed the conversation, you can watch the live webcast here: <\/p>\n\n\n\n