The criticism against the Washington Consensus is great and varied; predominantly, it is aimed at the way in which the Consensus is stuck in the idea that the policies followed by rich western capitalist states are inherently ‘good’, and should, as a model, be followed by all countries. By forcing developing nations, such as in South America, or Africa, to follow these rules in order to gain international aid, the argument is made that these economies are unnecessarily hindered, by constricting them into a pattern that suits the developed Western economies, and forces them to open their markets to foreign goods and services when they are least well equipped to handle and accept them. The effects that the consensus has on economies it is forced upon have been shown to be detrimental, such as the Argentinean economic crisis of the early 1990s , even if there were positive side effects that occurred at the same time. Broadly speaking, the Washington Consensus reinforces the current situation, and aids the rich nations who police the consensus, and provide aid to those who implement it far more than the poor nations which are most in need of help.The Washington Consensus has a number of impacts on the countries in which it is implemented; specifically, a reduction in the minimum wages – in already disproportionately poor countries – reductions in the power of the labour unions, and an accompanying reduction in employment protection (Cornia, 2004: 197). These results, however, are often considered to be irrelevant by those in charge of making decisions; whether or not any one individual is getting paid less matters not one bit to a banker, but rather whether as a result the economy is growing. Even if individuals are worse off, with a growing economy the position could be taken that everybody benefits en masse from the newfound wealth, and particularly from the increased government expenditure that can result. The Consensus can even work against what it seems to be aiming for, for example with its position on labour unions; holding the traditional liberal market view that collective bargaining forces wages to rise too high to be competitive, and insist on other regulations, and that therefore unions serve to hold back the development of an economy, countries that enforce the Washington Consensus see a weakening of the position of their unions. Yet research has shown that countries with strong central, collective bargaining, such as Switzerland and Germany, feature lower inequality of income and lower inflation rates than those without (Cornia, 2004: 217). Whether or not the economist is concerned with the inequality of income, aiming for a lower rate of inflation would surely be beneficial – yet the policies taken are the precise inverse of those which should be to bring about the desired end result.