This essay reviews two sets of books that explore the origins and dynamics of Southeast Asia's growth and economic transformation. One set of books utilizes a structuralist framework and emphasizes the role of the state in creating a (now) powerful capitalist class. The other set of books utilizes an institutionalist framework to explain how new patterns of private/public sector collaboration have resulted in rapid economic growth. The authors point to weaknesses in both approaches and to areas where the two approaches can be fruitfully synthesized. They also offer suggestions for future research.

This article examines three models—moral economy, rational choice, and class structure—that have been applied to rebellions and revolutionary movements in Southeast Asia. All three are found lacking in various ways and unable to provide convincing explanations for the growth and continuing strength of the contemporary revolutionary movement in the Philippines. The Aquino government is challenged by a movement that has a mass base of roughly ten million and fields a fighting force of twenty thousand to twenty-five thousand men and women. It is active in virtually every province and city of the nation. Based on the present case study, suggestions are made both for ways in which the insights of extant theories can be synthesized and ways in which these theories must be revised if they are to be made more generally applicable to today's revolutions.