Development theories and strategies have been multiple and, in general, new approaches have been added to existing approaches. Conventional and neo-classical economic approaches generally emphasize the need for unbridled and polarized growth and market self-decision. Neoliberalism as a general paradigm of development comes from the New Right and underlines what is seen as the continuing need for market liberalization and a market-oriented and performance-oriented economy. Historical models give a normative idea of the extent to which the evolution of the past has polarized in a very uneven and spatial way since mercantilism and colonialism. Addiction approaches and alternative developments can be seen as a direct critique of the theory of modernization. Thus, in the 1960s and 1970s, the paradigm of economic growth in the 1960s and 1970s was challenged by socialist and environmental paradigms [12]. In the early 1970s, pressure appeared, leading to a gradual dismantling of the Keynesian regulatory system. The gold standard has been abandoned and the monetary movement has become easier, in many developed economies, inflation and labour unrest have been governments weighing, and an oil crisis has forced an international recession. This was used against the polarities of the Cold War, which saw (often hidden) military aid and support to regimes that pledged to support one of the superpowers. The lessons learned by American politicians of the interwar period informed the institutions created at the conference. Officials such as President Franklin D.

Roosevelt and Foreign Minister Cordell Hull were proponents of Wilson`s belief that free trade promotes not only international prosperity, but also international peace. The experience of the 1930s certainly suggests this. Governments` measures to combat the Great Depression – high customs barriers, competitive currency devaluations, discriminatory trading blocs – have helped to create an unstable international environment without improving the economic situation. This experience has led international leaders to conclude that economic cooperation is the only way to achieve peace and prosperity both at home and abroad. At the international level, the oil crisis of the early 1970s led to a recession, but also to huge profits for oil producers. With huge amounts of money in the banks, but less productive opportunities in the capitalist core, bankers were looking for other ways to make profitable investments. These so-called petrodollars have been loaned to developing countries at relatively low interest rates. In the late 1970s, as one of the first neoliberal attacks on inflation in nuclear economies, interest rates rose rapidly. For those developing countries with bank loans in the north, this has resulted in a massive and unsustainable debt problem, with Mexico declaring bankruptcy in 1982 and unable to be repaid. For the banks, this was a huge (and embarrassing) issue that could threaten the legitimacy of the international financial system and the wealth privileges it has secured.

As a result, a debt repayment mechanism was required to ensure that these savings did not decrease further, resulting in debt service funds. It is at this critical point that a structural adjustment is occurring for the first time. Although they were established in Bretton Woods, these institutions are all based in Washington, DC. Orthodoxy, which dominated its relations with developing countries, became a Washington consensus and imposed a dogmatic reading of neoliberal policy under its terms. It started in the early 1980s and started until the middle of that decade.