Forgive me if this is blunt, but maybe the Washington Consensus was not given the proper chance to prove itself.
The Washington Consensus was all about free-markets all over the world, but agricultural subsidies in the developed world killed the agricultural exports in the developing world; and it still is. If you think about it, agriculture is the comparative advantage of the developing world as well as the largest sector in terms of value and employment.
There seems to be a lot of judgment on developing policies solely looking at the results (well, how else?). Combine agricultural subsidies, the Washington Consensus, and failed development results, and a possible conclusion is that Washington Consensus = no good.
So, maybe a more complete free-market initiative that eliminates agricultural subsidies could have redeemed the Washington Consensus' poor reputation.
Please let me know if otherwise.