¹ Barnet, Richard J. and Muller, Ronald E., Global Reach: The Power of the Multinational Corporations (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974)Google Scholar; Schreiber, Jean-Jacques Servan, The American Challenge (New York: Atheneum, 1968)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Capitalist World-Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Froebel, Folker, Heinrichs, Jurgen, and Kreye, Otto, The New International Division of Labor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

² Among the many studies, those frequently cited include Balassa, Bela, The Newly Industrializing Countries in the World Economy (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Bhagwati, Jagdish, Anatomy and Consequences of Exchange Control Regimes (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1978)Google Scholar; and Agarwala, Ramgopal, “Price Distortions and Growth in Developing Countries,” World Bank Staff Working Papers, no. 575 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1983).Google Scholar

³ World Bank, World Development Report, 1987 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 5.Google Scholar

⁴ James, William E., Naya, Seiji, and Meier, Gerald M., Asian Development: Economic Success and Policy Lessons (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 18.Google Scholar

⁵ See, e.g., Bradford, Colin I., “Trade and Structural Change: NICS and Next Tier NICS as Transitional Economies,” World Development 15 (March 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wade, Robert, Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Leudde-Neurath, Richard, “State Intervention and Export-oriented Development in South Korea,” in White, Gordon, ed., Development States in East Asia (London: Macmillan, 1988).Google Scholar

⁶ Cumings, Bruce, “The Origins of the Northeast Asian Political Economy: Industrial Sectors, Product Cycles, and Political Consequences,” International Organization 38 (Winter 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gold, Thomas, State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1986).Google Scholar

⁷ Gourevitch, Peter A., ed., “The Pacific Region: Challenges to Policy and Theory,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 505 (September 1989)Google Scholar; Naya, Seiji et al., eds., Lessons in Development: A Comparative Study of Asia and Latin America (San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1989)Google Scholar; Gereffi, Gary and Wyman, Donald L., eds., Manufacturing Miracles: Paths of Industrialization in Latin America and East Asia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Haggard, Stephan, Pathways from the Periphery: The Politics of Growth in the Newly Industrializing Countries (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

⁸ While few are recommending that the Third World follow the lead of Latin America, many have suggested that Northeast Asia is an appropriate model. But others before us have questioned the prospect of replicating the experience of Northeast Asia. See Cline, William R., “Can the East Asian Model of Development Be Generalized?” World Development 10 (February 1982)Google Scholar; and Hamilton, Clive, “Can the Rest of Asia Emulate the NICS?” Third World Quarterly 87 (October 1987).Google Scholar

⁹ For the purposes of this essay Southeast Asia is restricted to Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. However, it might be added that those who have included Singapore in the study of East or Northeast Asia are doing a great disservice to geography. Singapore's extraordinary dynamism is inextricably linked to its location at the tip of the Malaysian peninsula: it serves as the processing center for many of the raw materials of its Southeast Asian neighbors, and it is a favored site for the regional headquarters of transnational corporations operating in Southeast Asia. We hope this essay will open a revanchist campaign for Singapore and its rightful position in Southeast Asia.

¹⁰ World Bank, World Development Report, 1992 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar, Table 1.

¹¹ James et al. (fn. 4), Table 1.5.

¹² General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, International Trade, 1987–88, vol. 1 (Geneva: GATT, 1988)Google Scholar, Table 13.

¹³ Robison, Richard, “Industrialization and the Political and Economic Development of Capital: The Case of Indonesia,” in McVey, Ruth, ed., Southeast Asian Capitalists (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Southeast Asia Program, 1992), 87.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For a recent review of some of the issues raised by the new field of institutional economics, see Yarbrough, Beth V. and Yarbrough, Robert M., “International Institutions and the New Economics of Organization,” International Organization 44 (Spring 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Doner, Richard F., “Limits of State Strength: Toward an Institutionalist View of Economic Development,” World Politics 44 (April 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Doner (fn. 14), 401.

¹⁶ There are relatively few studies of Southeast Asia that rigorously follow the tenets of the dependency school. Among the works that have been influenced by the school are Mortimer, Rex, ed., Showcase State: The Illusion of Indonesia's Accelerated Modernization (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1973)Google Scholar; Robison, Richard, “Toward a Class Analysis of the Indonesian Military-Bureaucratic State,” Indonesia, no. 25 (April 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bell, Peter, “‘Cycles’ of Class Struggle in Thailand,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 8, no. 1 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Peng, Khor Kok, The Mahysian Economy: Structures and Dependence (Kuala Lumpur: Marian and Sons, for Institut Masyarakat, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Higgott, Richard and Robison, Richard, “Theories of Development and Underdevelopment: Implications for the Study of Southeast Asia,” in Higgott, and Robison, , eds., Southeast Asia: Essays in the Political Economy of Structural Change (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), 3.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See also Crouch, Harold, “The Missing Bourgeoisie: Approaches to Indonesia's New Order,” in Chandler, David and Ricklefs, M. C., eds., Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Indonesia (Clayton, Victoria, Australi.: Center of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁹ An interpretation similar to that of Jomo can be found in Sani, Rustam A., “The Malay Ruling Elite in the Post-Colonial State of Malaysia,” Solidarity 114 (September-October 1987).Google Scholar Another also Mehmet, Ozay, Development in Malaysia: Poverty, Wealth and Trusteeship (Kuala Lumpur: INSAN, 1988)Google Scholar; and Hui, Lim Mah, “Contradictions in the Development of Malay Capital: State, Accumulation, and Legitimation,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 15, no. 1 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ The conceptualizations are those of Krasner, Stephen, “Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics,” Comparative Politics 16 (January 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Another also Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda, eds., Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rockman, Bert, “Minding the State—Or a State of Mind? Issues in the Comparative Conceptualization of the State,” Comparative Political Studies 23 (April 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Crone, Donald K., “State, Social Elites, and Government Capacity in Southeast Asia,” World Politics 40 (January 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Another prototype for critical analysis of the role of the state in the Third World can be found in Alavi, Hamza, “The State in Postcolonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh,” New Left Review 74 (July-August 1972).Google Scholar

²¹ The definitions of state autonomy and state capacities are from Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol (fn. 20), 9.Google Scholar

²² As Higgott and Robison put it, class analysis is closely related to the notion of production, which is “the starting point” of the political economy approach to Southeast Asia; Higgott and Robison (fn. 17), 46.

²³ See Robison's discussion of the difference between the theories of capitalist class and the middle class, in “Problems of Analyzing the Middle Class as a Political Force in Indonesia,” in Tanter, Richard and Young, Kenneth, eds., The Politics of Middle Class Indonesia (Clayton, Victoria, Australi.: Center of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1990)Google Scholar; see also idem, “Authoritarian States, Capital-Owning Classes, and the Politics of Newly Industrializing Countries: The Case of Indonesia,” World Politics 41 (October 1988).Google Scholar

²⁴ In the role of agrarian capitalism, see Hart, Gillian et al., eds., Agrarian Transformation: Local Processes and the State in Southeast Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Pincus, Jonathon, “Approaches to the Political Economy of Agrarian Change in Java,” Journal of Contemporary Asia 20, no. 1 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Another studies dealing with the relationships between labor, capital, and the state, see Limqueco, Peter, McFarlane, Bruce, and Odhnoff, Jan, Labour and Industry in ASEAN (Manila: Journal of Contemporary Asia Publisher, 1989)Google Scholar; Deyo, Frederic C., ed., The Political Economy of the New Asian Industrialism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; and idem, Beneath the Miracle: Labor Subordination in the New Asian Industrialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).Google Scholar

²⁵ Higgott and Robison (fn. 17), 46.

²⁶ For an analysis of “growth coalitions,” see J. A. C. Mackie, “Economic Growth in the ASEAN Region: The Political Underpinnings,” in Hughes, Helen, ed., Achieving Industrialization in East Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Skocpol (fn. 21), 19 (emphasis in original). See also Mitchell, Timothy, “The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics,” American Political Science Review 85 (March 1991).Google Scholar

²⁸ Winters, Jeffrey, review of Robison's book, in Indonesia 45 (April 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maclntyre, , Business and Politics in Indonesia, 14–16.Google Scholar Another recent study of the state-society relationship in Indonesia is Budiman, Arief, ed., State and Civil Society in Indonesia (Clayton, Victoria, Australi.: Center of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1990).Google Scholar

²⁹ Robison, Richard, “The Rise of Capital,” Inside Indonesia 9 (November 1986), 2.Google Scholar

³⁰ Those whose approach places more emphasis on the explanatory power of culture take the analysis one step further and question the genuineness of the region's capitalism. For two studies that negatively contrast the transition to capitalism in Southeast Asia with earlier transitions, see Clad, James, Behind the Myth: Business, Money and Power in Southeast Asia (London: Hyman Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Yoshihara, Kunio, Rise of Ersatz Capitalism in Southeast Asia (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

³¹ For further critical analysis along this line, see Tanter, Richard, “Indonesia: The Rise of Capital: A Critique,” Asian Studies Association of Australia Review 12 (July 1988).Google Scholar

³² Liddle, R. William, “The Relative Autonomy of the Third World Politician: Soeharto and Indonesian Economic Development in Comparative Perspective,” International Studies Quarterly 35 (December 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Another also Cotton, James, “The Limits to Liberalization in Industrializing Asia: Three Views of the State,” Pacific Affairs 64 (Fall 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ A recent review essay that discusses some of this literature is Yarbrough and Yarbrough (fn. 14), quotation at 241. A study that examines institutions in a range of developing nations is Ostrom, Vincent, Feeny, David, and Picht, Harmut, eds. Rethinking Institutional Analysis and Development: Issues, Alternatives, and Choices (San Francisco: International Center for Economic Growth, 1988).Google Scholar

³⁴ Feeny, David, “The Development of Property Rights in Land: A Comparative Study,” in Bates, Robert, ed., Toward a Political Economy of Development: A Rational Choice Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 272.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., 283–88.

³⁶ For an example of this literature, which explores agricultural change, see Hayami, Yujiro and Ruttan, Vernon W., Agricultural Development: An International Perspective (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971).Google Scholar Another broadly, this subject is also addressed in Davis, Lance and North, Douglass C., Institutional Change and American Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Haggard (fn. 7), 4.

³⁸ Laothamatas, 10; Maclntyre, 15; Doner, 3–10; and Bowie, 5–6.

³⁹ Although Bowie does not explicitly use the language of institutionalism, it is entirely consistent with his analysis to conceptualize the evolving agreement among the Malay, Chinese, and Indian communities as an institution created by political elites and to assume that the form this institution takes at any moment has an important impact on the nature of the Malaysian development strategy.

⁴⁰ Doner's book is the most theoretically ambitious of the four, but at the same time it focuses most narrowly on patterns of interaction among business interests and government policymakers. For him the institutions are to be found in the proliferation of business groups, networks, business-interest associations, and public-private sector consultations. For examples of his work that advance the theoretical implications of the contemporary work on Southeast Asia, see Doner, , “Approaches to the Politics of Economic Growth in Southeast Asia,” Journal of Asian Studies 50 (November 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and idem (fn. 14).

⁴¹ Of the four authors, MacIntyre has the most inclusive notion of society-based actors. In addition to considering business associations, he pays serious attention to the role played by the parliament, the press, and community-based nongovernmental organizations.

⁴² In comparison with Doner and MacIntyre, Laothamatas is more concerned with the autonomy of both the state and business associations.

⁴³ Doner (fn. 14), 399–401.

⁴⁴ Feeny (fn. 34), 274.

⁴⁵ Yarbrough and Yarbrough (fn. 14), 255.

⁴⁶ Thailand is the obvious exception to this comparison, since it was never formally colonized by the Europeans. It was, however, subjected to analogous patterns of foreign domination and economic exploitation.

⁴⁷ These kinds of regional generalizations and comparisons are so broad that they may be of only marginal utility. But the comparison between Latin American and Northeast Asia has highlighted useful differences, and there are other regional comparisons that have also produced helpful insights, e.g., Wolf, Eric, Europe and the People without History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982)Google Scholar; and Worsley, Peter, The Three Worlds: Culture and World Development (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For example, William Liddle emphasizes the role of the politician in making wise economic choices; See Liddle (fn. 32); and idem, “The Politics of Development Policy,” World Development 20 (June 1992).Google Scholar Another (fn. 26) is concerned with the political underpinnings of economic development. And Clad and Yoshihara (fn. 30) focus on the deviant character of capitalism and economic growth in the region.

⁴⁹ As one recent study shows, the state can play a key role in the smooth privatization of state enterprises. Milne, R. S., “The Politics of Privatization in the ASEAN States,” ASEAN Economic Bulletin 7 (March 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar