"During the heyday of the ‘Washington Consensus' in the 1980s and 1990s, the Japanese government became an increasingly vocal critic of its market-liberalizing prescriptions. Drawing on documents produced by the Japanese development bureaucracy, this paper analyses the origins of the Washington–Tokyo controversy, and suggests that it provides new insights into the nature of models of economic development. Such models are based on post hoc social constructs—interpretations of past events forged in part by development experts, but also by states, which can play a major role in selecting, interpreting and packaging development facts. Washington's ‘Anglo-Saxon' model and Tokyo's ‘East Asian' model were based on distinct interpretations of development facts, but were not as far apart as they seemed on the surface. We conclude that although development models may draw on local materials, they are also very much global products, constructed in the context of transnational networks and organizational fields."

Support: Digital