Abstract:
Adopting an appropriate approach to development has been a matter of debate in developing countries including Iran. Within these debates, a lot of attention is paid to the Chinese model of development or what is generally known as the Beijing consensus. These debates center on the applicability of the Beijing Consensus to Iran’s development. Here in this research we tend to answer the following questions: what are the similarities and differences between Beijing and Washington consensus? And, to what degrees the Beijing model of development can be pursued by countries like Iran? According to our hypothesis, it turns out that the two schools are similar in being export-orientated, their insistence on free trade and politico-economic development models. They, however, differ on what the Beijing school sees necessary in state centrism, authoritarian development, combination of political and economic geography and the technology-based economy; these are ignored in the Washington consensus. Both schools have elements that can be learned from in the course of Iran’s development. This is while the determinant factor in Iran’s development is not pursing a particular model but rather achievement of a national consensus. This national consensus may be reached after a close look at the two existing models. The theoretical framework that informs this study is the state-centric political economy theory of Robert Gilpin, using a causal-comparative method
Machine summary:
"They, however, differ on what the Beijing school sees necessary in state centrism, authoritarian development, combination of political and economic geography and the technology-based economy; these are ignored in the Washington consensus.
The Washington consensus was inclusive of a list of economic policies that were deemed by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and Wall Street as the minimum conditions for the health of any economy.
Some factors helped Beijing consensus flourish, among them are the Chinese development-oriented foreign policy, considerable economic growth, China’s acceptable performance during the East Asian financial crisis and the gradual appearance of Washington consensus’s deficits (Shirkhani and Arghavani Pirsalami, 2016: 147).
IV- Comparison The following are the most important cases of similarities and differences between the Washington and Beijing consensus: The similarities of these two schools are: the prominence of export, free trade and development-centrism in politico-economic matters.
Despite all criticisms raised against the Beijing consensus for its adoption of liberal policies of the Washington consensus, this Chinese pursuit of liberalism should be seen against the reality that economic development is impossible with isolationism and separation from international society.
Having reviewed the two present consensus, the Beijing and Washington, it turns out that adopting models for development in different countries depends on the national conditions and countries internal capacities.
Shirkhani, Mohammad Ali and Arghavani Pirsalami, Fariborz (2016) The Beijing Consensus: The New Model of Economic Development in a Globalized World, Politics Quarterly, The Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Vol 46, No 1."