Why Economic History?

Abstract

Until recently, the world knew Southeast Asia primarily for its turbulent politics, and what economic successes there were tended to be dismissed as nee-colonial enclaves of little long-term relevance. The impressive ASEAN performance since 1970 can no longer be ignored, but it has by no means been understood. Is this a recovery from the artificially low levels created by post-war conflicts, a spillover from Japan and the NICs, or does it fit into long-term trends for the region? Were Myrdal's "soft states" an aberration of the fifties and sixties, or must we rethink the whole literature about the role of the state? Must we announce the failure of the centrally planned economies (Vietnam and Burma being the recent casualties in the region), or is there a pendulum swing between the social costs of the international market, and the economic costs of isolation? Can we at last evaluate the long-term effect of colonialism on this region, and understand the roots of underdevelopment as well as its solutions?