The policies associated with this approach do not reflect the historical experience of the currently developed states. The Washington consensus is a set of economic policy recommendation for developing countries, specifically Latin America. The Washington Consensus put forth various policy recommendations, with the general acceptance of market-oriented policies The term consensus was used in reference to the level of agreement between the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and U.S. Department of the Treasury on the recommended policies proposed. All shared the neoliberal view that the in order for a free market to succeed and with the contraction of state involvement were two imperative components for the development of the global south. The Washington Consensus insisted that the developing countries need to adopt a market-led development strategies that will result in financial development that would eventually “trickle down” to advantage all. The IMF and the World Bank were able to advance the view in the developing world by securing policy conditions, known as stabilization. And the Washington Consensus reflected the standard package of advice attached to loans. The main set of policies was pointed to control inflation and reduce government budget deficits because Latin America suffered from hyperinflation amid the 1980s. Therefore, government spending was reduced and interest rates were raised to reduce the money supply. Secondly, the policies reformed the trade and exchange-rate policies so the country could be integrated into the global economy. This concluded state restrictions on imports and exports and resulted in a devaluation of the currency. Lastly, the market forces were able to cut out subsidies and state controls and engaging in a program of privatization. In conclusion, the deviation due to a view that development is simply economic growth. Due to the issues created there had to be change to adjust to a view toward poverty reduction, and the need for both developed and developing country participation and civil society after the attempt to use the Washington Consensus. Latin America is a apparent case of the bankruptcy of the neoliberal approaches during the 1990s. Therefore, the policies brought forth from the Washington Consensus were not based on now developed countries historical experiences but in fact undermined them. Developing states routinely impose trade restrictions due to the role of domestic winners and losers. It is an act to protect domestic industries from foreign competition. Industries such as medicines are vital to the national security of the state. Additionally, it is a form of tax and raises revenue for governments. Developing states apply this tool to aid in the development of other industries that otherwise would be incapable to industrialized. Overall, it can be used as a tool for stimulating socio-economic development The Stopler-Samuelson theorem approach, emphasizes the interests of broad factors of production such as land, labour and capital. Additionally, it illustrates that trade protection benefits the scare factor of protection. Therefore, in a labor-scarce country, labor benefits from protection and loses from trade liberalization. The textbook enforced the theory in a destitute country such as Bangladesh. Bangladesh has an abundance of unskilled labor and barely any capital. Bangladesh exports mainly apparel and leather materials, which makes great use of their unskilled labor and Imports capital-intensive products such as machinery equipment and chemicals. Trade barriers make it more to import capital-intensive goods, therefore some machinery needs to be manufactured within Bangladesh. Consequently, raises the demand for capital, reduces the the local demand for labour, raises the return on Bangladeshi profit and reduces wages.
Part 2: Question #1
The cornerstone of the system of international law established by the charter of the United Nations, the principle of “sovereignty” limits institutions of global governance to limit national sovereignty. Liberalists are the in favor for international organizations because they believe that they lead to cooperation. A realist critique on the international relations is that any powerful nation will not allow any powers to recede their sovereignty, or pursuit of their states interests. International law is being utilized as a tool to prevent an anarchic international system but strong states can do whatever they please, while weak states are left behind. Some countries are more or less conditional/unconditional in their cooperation in international law. There are three variables that international law can vary. First obligation, the degree to which agents are bound to, and it is contextual to when states have to follow. Within international law it is well understood that states will not sign on if it directly goes against their interests. Therefore, international law is designed with this in mind, so they have obligation to sign. Secondly precision, specificity, wording, definition and interpretation. The more specificity in a treaty, states are less likely to sign on because it gives them less wiggle room to interpret. Lastly delegation, who monitors and enforces. Delegating authorities than become responsible for sanctioning those who do not follow the rules. States follow international law for various reasons from self-interest, contextual as they would have to be doing it anyways, to uphold reputation, and lastly states would like to avoid sanctioning effects.
The World Health Organization (WHO) held off from declaring the Coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, due to fears of inciting widespread panic around the world. On blank date the agency’s director general declared the coronavirus a pandemic. The moment of WHO declaring the pandemic underlined their standing as the worlds leading public health agency. Subsequently, demonstrated the underlying weaknesses as an organization that by the international treaty is supposed to lead and coordinate the global fight against coronavirus, but has in many ways been significantly marginalized. As no one appears to be in charge, and no plan is present global solidarity is outright. But indeed there are procedures but many countries are turning the other way. During 2003 SARS outbreak the WHO Undertook a major revision of the International Health Regulations, the global framework for responding to pandemics. The reform was set up to allow the WHO to serve as a central coordinating body. Countries were to notify the agency about outbreaks and share information, to help combat the epidemic from a global approach. The WHO would then coordinate efforts on containment, declare emergencies, and make recommendations. The revised regulation is legally binding and was signed on by 196 countries. The thought of establishing international organizations is for the purpose of eliminating of anarchy and to create a more stable international environment. A loophole formed because countries were reluctant to hand off total oversight to an international agency. States are able to they are able to take health measures they regard would have comparable, or better results than WHO on the recommendations on the premise that these measures were specifically grounded and for the common good. During the coronavirus many countries have failed to report back to agency in. The set out regulations but WHO can do nothing to combat it. I believe with the creation of the WHO, and the non-binding regulation is from a realist perspective. The WHO is functioning under a constitutive, and a fundamental/procedural level of international law. The WHO is functioning under a fundamental/procedural level because it outlines the basic norms of coexistence between states, and is coordinating. Simultaneously, WHO is functioning from a constitutive level because it WHO is allowing for sovereignty, self-determination and non-interference. In hopes of saving the world form the pandemic of corona, the level of law that the WHO should have would be regulative to be able to order compliance with the international law. WHO has no power to enforce international regulations. Agency officials have resisted naming and shaming countries that breach the rules and have largely dodge media questions on the subject. Although, naming, and shaming could potentially evoke stronger compliance from countries. Stronger international regulations would help prepare for such an outbreak. In conclusion due to tensions with sovereignty principle the WHO is an ambitious attempt to coordinate/agreement to fight a severe pandemic.