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.

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).

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.

Recently the "Asia-Europe Vision Group" published its report "Asia-Europe Partnership in the 21st Century," outlining a bright, prosperous and trouble-free future of inter-regional relations. Does this rhetoric match reality or is it just wishful thinking? At least for the time being, official relations between Europe and Asia remain on a historic low. Several EU-ASEAN meetings, for instance, were cancelled. The Asian Financial Crisis, changing foreign policy strategies as well as conflicting norms and values have weakened the so-called 'third link' of the post Cold-War order. Furthermore, in many Asian capitals the Kosovo war has resulted in deep distrust of European intentions in world politics. How serious are the recent turbulences in EU relations with Southeast and Northeast Asian countries? Will they hinder the implementation of far-reaching visions and goals such as the proposed Asia-Europe Free Trade Area? Dr. Joern Dosch is a Visiting Fulbright Scholar at Shorenstein APARC. He is also Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Mainz, Germany. Former affiliations include UCSD, Johns Hopkins University, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS, Singapore), Singapore, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS, Jakarta). Dr. Dosch served as a member of the board of directors, German Society of Asian Studies, and participates in various international research projects on Europe-Asia relations and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific. He has published two books and ca. 20 articles on ASEAN, European and US policies in Asia, democratization in Southeast Asia and International Relations theory.