Zveryakov M. I. “Globalization and deindustrialization: content, contradictions and
ways to solve them” – A theoretical analysis of the crisis of the neoliberal model of globalization, which led to the processes of deindustrialization in many countries of the world, including Ukraine, was presented. It is shown that in the process of globalization, national states gradually lost their role as decision making centers and became elements of a larger global economy. There was a gradual loss of national state sovereignty by the states that entered the orbit of global economic forces and international institutions. It is noted that global regulators act in favor of TNCS, for which any national restrictions become an obstacle to the attraction of national resources to global economic turnover. It is stressed that the subordination of national interests to forces of global market is the main content of the process of globalization at the present stage. It is emphasized that the effect of the forces of global capital in the form of TNK, on the one hand, and resistance to such an action by national states on the other, constitute the main contradiction of the world economic development. An analysis of the process of deindustrialization as a consequence of the globalization process has been carried out. The process of transition in the USA from deindustrialization to reindustrialization under the influence of the “shale revolution” is considered. It is noted that as a result of renewal of development of high tech branches of the real sector of economy in Western countries, the global economic model is changing, which gives a chance to overcome the negative consequences of the global crisis. An analysis of various models of capitalism under conditions of neo liberal globalization, including those in the countries emerging in the post socialist space, has been carried out. It is shown that solving the existing contradiction between current and long term tasks in Ukrainian economy is possible on the basis of a reproductive approach.
Korablin S. O. “The Washington Consensus: then and now” – Despite the third decade of market reforms, their successes in the Ukrainian economy remain quite modest. This unwittingly raises questions about quality of national transformations and possible directions of their improvement. Since the international institutions led by the IMF are tailoring the financial “adjustment” of the reforming countries, there is an obvious interest in their definition of an effective economic policy, which prior to the global crisis of 2008– 2009 was seen as the Washington consensus.
The initial popularity of the Washington consensus began to melt in the late 1990s after the Asian crisis and the disappointing outcomes of neoliberal reforms in a number of emerging markets and post soviet economies. These reputational losses turned out to be all the more serious that the Washington consensus did not stand still and managed to offer its improved version – “second generation reforms”.
However, their shortcomings, in turn, were revealed during the global crisis of 2008– 2009: both in its unpredictability and in the methods of overcoming, when industrialized countries practically abandoned almost all the postulates of the Washington consensus, giving preference to alternative Keynesian instruments.
In the case of small, commodity economies, the Washington consensus does not take into account their rigid link to global cycles of raw material conjuncture, the overcoming of which requires technological development and modernization of national industries. However, these tasks lie outside the framework of the reforms of the “first” and “second” generations, leaving open the question on macro financial stability of such economies. This conclusion is all the more fundamental that despite the changing rhetoric – since