Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Directions: From the below given alternative ...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.
The 'best and the brightest' in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as 'the Washington Consensus'. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as 'hot money'. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this 'hot money' is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.

a)
Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.
b)
Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.
c)
Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.
d)
IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises' cause.
e)
Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test Level 2: Text Summary/Text Completion

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one...

Explanation:

IMF and World Bank's Unwavering Belief in Free-Market Economy:
- The text highlights how the IMF and the World Bank were confident in their management of the world economy, following the Washington Consensus.
- The Washington Consensus promoted the idea of free movement of international capital and unrestricted trade, emphasizing faith in the market economy.

Blaming External Factors for the Crisis:
- When the Southeast Asian crisis occurred, the IMF and the World Bank struggled to pinpoint the exact reason for the collapse.
- They shifted the blame towards short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries, known as hot money, instead of acknowledging the flaws in their free-market ideology.

Contradictory Actions and Responses:
- Despite acknowledging the challenges posed by hot money in a globalized economy, the IMF and the World Bank hesitated to impose restrictions on its movement.
- When Malaysia attempted to implement restrictions, there was an outcry from Western nations, highlighting the conflicting stance of these institutions.

Conclusion:
- The IMF and the World Bank's failure to recognize the limitations of their free-market approach and their inconsistent responses to the crisis ultimately led to a lack of accountability and a perpetuation of harmful practices in the global economy.

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test Level 2: Text Summary/Text Completion
10 Ques | 20 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CAT tests

Community Answer

Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one...

The passage mainly highlights failure of IMF and World Bank to own responsibility for their lack of oversight over their free market approach. They simply shifted the blame towards financial intermediaries, and even after this, they again advocated the same free market movement.
(1) - Nothing about 'vested interests' can be inferred.
(2) - This does not mention anything about the confusing advocacy of the free-market economy despite the IMF and World Bank realising how uncontrollably funds can move across the world.
(3) - This statement inaccurately shifts the focus on the Malaysian restrictions. Nothing about key ideas can be inferred.
(4) - This most closely sums up the main ideas of the passage, as evident from the explanation.

Share via Whatsapp

Attention CAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The issues and preoccupations of the 21st century present new and often fundamentally different types of challenges from those that faced the world in 1945, when the United Nations was founded. As new realities and challenges have emerged, so too have new expectations for action and new standards of conduct in national and international affairs. Since, for example, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, it has become evident that the war against terrorism the world must now fight – one with no contested frontiers and a largely invisible enemy – is one like no other war before it.Many new international institutions have been created to meet these changed circumstances. In key respects, however, the mandates and capacity of international institutions have not kept pace with international needs or modern expectations. Above all, the issue of international intervention for human protection purposes is a clear and compelling example of concerted action urgently being needed to bring international norms and institutions in line with international needs and expectations.The current debate on intervention for human protection purposes is itself both a product and a reflection of how much has changed since the UN was established. The current debate takes place in the context of a broadly expanded range of state, non-state, and institutional actors, and increasingly evident interaction and interdependence among them. It is a debate that reflects new sets of issues and new types of concerns. It is a debate that is being conducted within the framework of new standards of conduct for states and individuals, and in a context of greatly increased expectations for action. And it is a debate that takes place within an institutional framework that since the end of the Cold War has held out the prospect of effective joint international action to address issues of peace, security, human rights and sustainable development on a global scale.With new actors – not least new states, with the UN growing from 51 member states in 1945 to 189 today – has come a wide range of new voices, perspectives, interests, experiences and aspirations. Together, these new international actors have added both depth and texture to the increasingly rich tapestry of international society and important institutional credibility and practical expertise to the wider debate.Prominent among the range of important new actors are a number of institutional actors and mechanisms, especially in the areas of human rights and human security. They have included, among others, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, both created in 1993, and its sister tribunals for Rwanda established in 1994 and Sierra Leone in 2001.The International Criminal Court, whose creation was decided in 1998, will begin operation when 60 countries have ratified its Statute. In addition to the new institutions, established ones such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the ICRC and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have been ever more active.Nearly as significant has been the emergence of many new non-state actors in international affairs – including especially a large number of NGOs dealing with global matters; a growing number of media and academic institutions with worldwide reach; and an increasingly diverse array of armed non-state actors ranging from national and international terrorists to traditional rebel movements and various organized criminal groupings. These new non-state actors, good or bad, have forced the debate about intervention for human protection purposes to be conducted in front of a broader public, while at the same time adding new elements to the agenda.Q. A criticism that the author levies against international institutions is that

View answer

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The issues and preoccupations of the 21st century present new and often fundamentally different types of challenges from those that faced the world in 1945, when the United Nations was founded. As new realities and challenges have emerged, so too have new expectations for action and new standards of conduct in national and international affairs. Since, for example, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, it has become evident that the war against terrorism the world must now fight – one with no contested frontiers and a largely invisible enemy – is one like no other war before it.Many new international institutions have been created to meet these changed circumstances. In key respects, however, the mandates and capacity of international institutions have not kept pace with international needs or modern expectations. Above all, the issue of international intervention for human protection purposes is a clear and compelling example of concerted action urgently being needed to bring international norms and institutions in line with international needs and expectations.The current debate on intervention for human protection purposes is itself both a product and a reflection of how much has changed since the UN was established. The current debate takes place in the context of a broadly expanded range of state, non-state, and institutional actors, and increasingly evident interaction and interdependence among them. It is a debate that reflects new sets of issues and new types of concerns. It is a debate that is being conducted within the framework of new standards of conduct for states and individuals, and in a context of greatly increased expectations for action. And it is a debate that takes place within an institutional framework that since the end of the Cold War has held out the prospect of effective joint international action to address issues of peace, security, human rights and sustainable development on a global scale.With new actors – not least new states, with the UN growing from 51 member states in 1945 to 189 today – has come a wide range of new voices, perspectives, interests, experiences and aspirations. Together, these new international actors have added both depth and texture to the increasingly rich tapestry of international society and important institutional credibility and practical expertise to the wider debate.Prominent among the range of important new actors are a number of institutional actors and mechanisms, especially in the areas of human rights and human security. They have included, among others, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, both created in 1993, and its sister tribunals for Rwanda established in 1994 and Sierra Leone in 2001.The International Criminal Court, whose creation was decided in 1998, will begin operation when 60 countries have ratified its Statute. In addition to the new institutions, established ones such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the ICRC and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have been ever more active.Nearly as significant has been the emergence of many new non-state actors in international affairs – including especially a large number of NGOs dealing with global matters; a growing number of media and academic institutions with worldwide reach; and an increasingly diverse array of armed non-state actors ranging from national and international terrorists to traditional rebel movements and various organized criminal groupings. These new non-state actors, good or bad, have forced the debate about intervention for human protection purposes to be conducted in front of a broader public, while at the same time adding new elements to the agenda.Q. Which of the following is true regarding the debate on intervention for human protection purposes?

View answer

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.The issues and preoccupations of the 21st century present new and often fundamentally different types of challenges from those that faced the world in 1945, when the United Nations was founded. As new realities and challenges have emerged, so too have new expectations for action and new standards of conduct in national and international affairs. Since, for example, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, it has become evident that the war against terrorism the world must now fight – one with no contested frontiers and a largely invisible enemy – is one like no other war before it.Many new international institutions have been created to meet these changed circumstances. In key respects, however, the mandates and capacity of international institutions have not kept pace with international needs or modern expectations. Above all, the issue of international intervention for human protection purposes is a clear and compelling example of concerted action urgently being needed to bring international norms and institutions in line with international needs and expectations.The current debate on intervention for human protection purposes is itself both a product and a reflection of how much has changed since the UN was established. The current debate takes place in the context of a broadly expanded range of state, non-state, and institutional actors, and increasingly evident interaction and interdependence among them. It is a debate that reflects new sets of issues and new types of concerns. It is a debate that is being conducted within the framework of new standards of conduct for states and individuals, and in a context of greatly increased expectations for action. And it is a debate that takes place within an institutional framework that since the end of the Cold War has held out the prospect of effective joint international action to address issues of peace, security, human rights and sustainable development on a global scale.With new actors – not least new states, with the UN growing from 51 member states in 1945 to 189 today – has come a wide range of new voices, perspectives, interests, experiences and aspirations. Together, these new international actors have added both depth and texture to the increasingly rich tapestry of international society and important institutional credibility and practical expertise to the wider debate.Prominent among the range of important new actors are a number of institutional actors and mechanisms, especially in the areas of human rights and human security. They have included, among others, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, both created in 1993, and its sister tribunals for Rwanda established in 1994 and Sierra Leone in 2001.The International Criminal Court, whose creation was decided in 1998, will begin operation when 60 countries have ratified its Statute. In addition to the new institutions, established ones such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the ICRC and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have been ever more active.Nearly as significant has been the emergence of many new non-state actors in international affairs – including especially a large number of NGOs dealing with global matters; a growing number of media and academic institutions with worldwide reach; and an increasingly diverse array of armed non-state actors ranging from national and international terrorists to traditional rebel movements and various organized criminal groupings. These new non-state actors, good or bad, have forced the debate about intervention for human protection purposes to be conducted in front of a broader public, while at the same time adding new elements to the agenda.Q. The author presents the example of the terrorists attacks of September 9, 2011 to

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.There is only one term in the left column which matches with the options given in the second column. Identify the correct pair from the following table

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series and 500+ Practice Tests 2024

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: From the below given alternative summaries, choose the one that best presents the essence of the text.The best and the brightest in the IMF and the World Bank were aghast at the sudden collapse in southeast Asia. They thought they had been managing the world economy wonderfully well, following what came to be known as the Washington Consensus. The Washington Consensus was a set of aphorisms shared by the IMF, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, Washington think-tanks and their friends around the world. The Washington Consensus called for an implicit faith in the efficacy of market economy, free movement of international capital and an unrestricted and free trade of goods throughout the world. Unable to place their finger on the precise reason for the collapse, they blamed short-term capital managed by financial intermediaries - commonly referred to as hot money. In a globalised economy, they discovered with feigned wonderment, billions of dollars can be moved at the stroke of a computer key and this fact makes it almost impossible to manage or control its movement. At the same time, they said, imposing any restrictions on the movement of this hot money is just not permissible, since it went against the basic credo of globalisation, namely, the free movement of capital. When Malaysia imposed a few restrictions, there was a howl of protest from all over the West. They said the imposition of such restrictions scared away capital from such countries and would prove counter-productive in the long run.a)Harmful practices like unrestricted flow of goods and services were allowed to continue to satisfy vested interests.b)Southeast Asian crisis presented a significant challenge to the supporters of free market economy.c)Malaysian debacle gave an in-depth idea of what international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank stood for in the global economy.d)IMF and World Bank failed to admit the falsity of their unhindered belief in free-market economy and confusingly advocated for the crises cause.e)Inefficiency of the Washington Consensus allowed IMF and WTO to shift the blame towards extraneous factors.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam