History
-

In 1975Ð76 the fall of Saigon was followed by national reunification and the establishment of the Socialist Republic. Access to the Mekong Delta was widely expected to facilitate rapid neo-Stalinist industrialization and the appearance of a powerful military threat to capitalist SEA. But this did not happen. By 1981 partial reforms had permitted all state enterprises to operate in markets and some degree of agricultural decollectivisation. In the second half of the 1980s there was a clear de-Stalinization of everyday life. And by 1989Ð90 a recognizable market economy had emerged. Since then the Vietnamese Communist Party has, with some success, negotiated a major opening-up of the country to foreign contacts. Vietnam has joined ASEAN, and has seen the emergence of land, labor, and capital markets, and the confused processes by which classes form. Fundamental economic and political change has therefore occurred. Growth has been rather fast and the use of state violence minimal. Politically, for the still-Leninist VCP, the shift from Plan to Market has been a great success. What is the political economy basis for this? Despite emergent capitalist classes and a market economy, the political economy of "post-transition" Vietnam is heavily marked by its recent history, and remains very different from other ASEAN members. Notwithstanding revolutionary change, dualities common to both the traditional and modern political economies have offered great potential for political restructuring. In this sense "development doctrines" are perhaps less exotic and more indigenous than elsewhere in SEA. This facilitates relatively harmonious political adaptation and is the key to understanding change. For example, wide rural land access, with a collective tinge in the most densely populated areas, has a strong and pervasive effect upon the macro political economy. "Voice and exit" are enhanced. Thus we see rather high levels of migration, and risk bearing be farmers. Rural GDP has grown fast through the 1990s. Also, real wages in urban areas tend to be higher and the labor regime less brittle. What are the political implications of such a land regime? At the end of the day, one reason for the lack of extensive state violence against the population seems to be that the party/state has sufficient sources of support and power for tense economic issues in the rural areas to be fought out without property rights needing violence to enforce them. These issues are fought out locally (within cooperatives and communes) and in macro contexts (access to world markets). But in the rural areas the state does not, apparently, need to support particular economic interests for its survival. One reason for this is that the "land issue" has been addressed through the adaptation of socialist models, so that large-scale land property is not (yet?) a major issue. Dominant groups in the rural areas do not depend upon land access for their incomes. Adam Fforde is a development economist. He holds an Oxford MA (Engineering Science and Economics), a London MSc (Economics) and a Cambridge PhD (Economics). He studied Vietnamese in Hanoi during 1978/79 and was a visiting scholar at the National Economics University (Hanoi) in 1985Ð86. He lived in Vietnam from 1987 to 1992 while working as an advisor to the Swedish aid program, and in Australia from 1992 to 1999, where he was a visiting fellow at the ANU and Chairman of Aduki Pty Ltd (Consultants). He is now senior fellow at the SEA Studies Programme, National University of Singapore. He has published on topics including the economic development of north Vietnam prior to 1975, agricultural cooperatives, and the transition from plan to market. He is currently working on class formation and the emergence of factor markets in the 1990s, industrial reform since the early 1960s, and Vietnamese development doctrine.

Okimoto Conference Room, Encina Hall, East Wing, Third Floor

Adam Fforde Senior Fellow Speaker SEA Studies Programme, National University of Singapore
-

Prof. Panikkar will address the relationship of history to issues of power, politics, and censorship in the context of the recent controversy involving the withdrawal of two volumes on modern history by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR).

Prof. K. N. Panikkar teaches at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He is the Chairman of the Archives on Contemporary History and formerly the Dean of the School of Social Sciences, JNU. He is associated with several universities and institutions in India and abroad. He has been the President of the Modern History Section of the Indian History Congress and a member of the Indian Council for Social Science Research and the Indian Council for Historical Research. He has also been a member of several academic and research organizations and a visiting professor to universities abroad.

Prof. Panikkar's main area of current research is intellectual-cultural history of modern Indian on which he has written extensively. His publications include, Culture, Ideology and Hegemony--Intellectuals and Social Consciousness in Colonial India; Culture and Consciousness in Modern India; Against Lord and State--Religion and Peasant Uprisings in Malabar; Communal Threat, Secular Challenge and British Diplomacy in North India. Among the books he has edited the latest is The Concerned Indian's Guide to Communalism.

Gates Info Sciences Bldg., Room 104, Stanford University

Prof. K.N. Panikkar Professor Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Panel Discussions
-

John Wilson Lewis, William Haas Professor Emeritus of Chinese Politics at Stanford University, is one the founders of the field of contemporary China studies. After receiving a doctorate from UCLA, he taught at Cornell University before coming to Stanford in 1968. He founded and directed Stanford's Center for East Asian Studies, as well as the Center for International Security and Arms Control, and the Northeast Asia-United States Forum on International Policy (now Shorenstein APARC). He currently directs the Project on Peace and Cooperation in the Asian-Pacific Region. Professor Lewis has written widely about China, Asia, and security matters. Many of his works have long been required reading for students of Chinese politics, especially his still often cited Leadership in Communist China. His edited volumes include: The City in Communist China, Party Leadership and Revolutionary Power in China, Peasant Rebellion and Communist Revolution in Asia, and Next Steps in the Creation of an Accidental Nuclear War Prevention Center. His history of the Chinese nuclear weapons program, China Builds the Bomb, written with Xue Litai, is published both in English (by Stanford University Press), and, in Chinese, by the Atomic Energy Press in Beijing. He has also co-authored Uncertain Partners: Stalin, Mao, and the Korean War and China's Strategic Seapower: The Politics of Force Modernization in the Nuclear Age. In addition to his work at Stanford, John Lewis has served on the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences, the Joint Committee on Contemporary China of the Social Science Research Council, and the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. He has been a consultant to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Department of Defense, and is currently a consultant to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. He has made numerous visits to the People's Republic of China (PRC), Japan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation.

Bechtel Conference Center

John Lewis William Haas Professor Emeritus of Chinese Politics Speaker Stanford University
Lectures
Paragraphs

Recent research on career mobility under communism suggests that party membership and education may have had different effects in administrative and professional careers. Using life history data from a nationally representative 1996 survey of urban Chinese adults, we subject this finding to more stringent tests and find even stronger contrasts between career paths. Only recently has college education improved a high school graduate's odds of becoming an elite administrator, while it has always been a virtual prerequisite for a professional position. On the other hand, party membership, always a prerequisite for top administrative posts, has never improved the odds of becoming an elite professional. We also find that professionals rarely become administrators, and vice versa. Differences between career paths have evolved over the decades, but they remain sharp. Thus, China has a hybrid mobility regime in which the loyalty principles of a political machine are combined with, and segregated from, the meritocratic standards of modern professions. Recent changes may reflect a return to generic state socialist practices rejected in the Mao years rather than the influence of an emerging market economy.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
American Sociological Review
Authors
Andrew G. Walder
-

An eminent historian of China and Overseas Chinese, Wang Gungwu has served as President of the University of Hong Kong, Professor and Director of the Research School of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University, and Dean of Arts at the University of Malaya in Singapore. He is currently Director of the East Asian Institute at National University of Singapore and Distinguished Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. His many books include The Nanhai Trade: The Early History of Chinese Trade in the South China Sea (1958, new edition 1998); Community and Nation (1981, new edition 1993); China and Southeast Asia: Myths, Threats, and Culture (1999); The Chinese Overseas: From Earthbound China to the Quest for Autonomy (2000).

Bechtel Conference Center

Wang Gungwu Director of the East Asian Institute Speaker National University of Singapore
Lectures
-

Tatsuo Yamada is one of Japan's foremost experts on China's modern political history and Sino-Japanese Relations. He has written numerous articles and edited important volumes on the Republican Period, including works on the internal politics and ideology of the Nationalist Party and the relationship between the Nationalists and the Communists. He is editor of the book 150 Years of Sino-Japanese Relations, has written on Japanese studies on modern Chinese history, and on current political developments in the PRC. Professor of Political Science at Keio University since 1977, he has served as Director of the Center for Area Studies and as Dean of the Faculty of Law at Keio.

Bechtel Conference Center

Tatsuo Yamada Professor of Political Science Speaker Keio University, Japan
Lectures
-

Between four and five thousand years ago, elephants were found in China as far north as the location of present-day Beijing. Today, wild elephants are confined to a few protected enclaves along the southwest border. To some degree, this retreat was due to a long-term decrease in the mean annual temperature, but the most important cause was the destruction of habitat by Chinese-style agricultural development. Mark Elvin uses the pattern of retreat of the elephants as a means of defining to a first degree of approximation the complementary pattern of the spread of forest clearance for farming in China across space and time, and to discuss the economic and other causes for the historical deforestation. Mark Elvin is Research Professor of Chinese History at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, ANU, and Emeritus Fellow of St. Anthony's College, Oxford. He is author of The Pattern of the Chinese Past (1973), Another History: Essays on China from a European Perspective (1996), and Changing Stories in the Chinese World (1997, among other works. Elvin was educated at Cambridge University and Harvard.

Okimoto Conference Room, Encina Hall, East Wing, Third Floor

Mark Elvin Professor of Chinese History Speaker Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University
Seminars
-

In many markets, organizations compete with rivals from all over the world, transcending national boundaries. We offer a theory to explain patterns of global competition, proposing that global competition "coevolves" in an ecology of learning organizations. Our theory points to certain conditions under which such evolution intensifies competition, but also to patterns of adverse selection within and among organizations. We test our theory in a study of organizational failure rates among all computer hard disk drive manufacturers that have ever existed, and find that our theory is able to explain patterns of competition in that industry over its history. William P. Barnett is an Associate Professor of Strategic Management and Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University. He studies competitive systems within and among organizations, focusing especially on how competitiveness evolves as organizations grow and change. This research includes empirical studies of the evolution of organizational performance, the organizational and career determinants of entrepreneurship, the effects of technological and regulatory changes on competition among organizations, and how competitiveness evolves over time and across markets. His work reports on a range of firms and industries, including organizations in telecommunications, semiconductor manufacturing, beer brewing, newspaper publishing, and banking. Most recently he is studying the evolution of the computer industry. In 1988 he received his Ph.D. in Business Adminstration from the University of California, Berkeley.

Okimoto Conference Room, Encina Hall, East Wing, Third Floor

William P. Barnett Associate Professor of Strategic Management and Organizational Behavior Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
-

In Southeast Asia over the last two centuries, Chinese traders, workers, and immigrants adapted to a changing series of local environments--pre-national, colonial, and post-colonial. At each stage, they broadened the scope of their activities. They were on the brink of working the modern global economy when the post-World War II nation-states of Southeast Asia were created. Nationalist agendas and the politics of cold and hot wars soon obliged the ethnic Chinese to make readjustments. New forms of globalization are changing the Southeast Asian environment once again. Will former strategies of survivalÑadaptations honed during the last fifty years, if not the past two hundred--help the region's ethnic Chinese to deal with globalization in the 21st century? Or will such accommodations need to be replaced? Will the ethnic Chinese mainly seek (or be obliged) to concentrate on saving themselves? Or will they be able to share their own skills and values on behalf of the viable nations and vibrant economies that Southeast Asia will need if it is to cope successfully with the new century's challenges? Wang Gungwu is Director of the East Asian Institute and Faculty Professor in Arts and Social Sciences at the National University of Singapore; Distinguished Professorial Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, also in Singapore; and Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra. Previously, he was Vice-Chancellor (President) of the University of Hong Kong (1986-1995) and Professor of Far Eastern History at ANU (1968-1986). He also taught at the University of Malaya (1957-1968). His many publications include The Chinese Overseas (2000), China and Southeast Asia (1999), The Nanhai Trade (new ed., 1998), and, as coeditor, The Chinese Diaspora (2 vols, 1998) and Changing Identities of Southeast Asian Chinese since World War II (1988). Prof. Wang was born in Surabaya, Indonesia, and grew up in Ipoh, Malaysia.

Okimoto Conference Room, Encina Hall, East Wing, Third Floor

Wang Gungwu Director of the East Asian Institute National University of Singapore
Subscribe to History