This paper is an effort to show that the outcome of stabilization and structural adjustment policies, largely based on the neoclassical economic rationale, was justifiable neither in terms of the analytical nor the historical literature. The very ideological nature and the inherent contradictions of policies inhibited successful implementation and accentuated poverty and inequity in developing countries. By drawing on the views of various contemporary schools of economic thought, the paper also questions the validity of the international financial institutions' claims of consensus on development policy. The paper emphasizes that in social science research and, more so in policy prescriptions, the search for consensus may in fact be futile.