The Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) is Pakistan's best reputed and only private management school. Operating within the environment of a government run university system, LUMS has used innovative strategies in marketing, research and consulting to reach its globally renowned status. Wasim Azhar, Dean of LUMS, will present a case study on its strategies. Dr. Wasim Azhar has taught at Wake Forest University, Swarthmore College, Kean University and the University of Pennsylvania in the USA. He has also worked as Marketing Analyst for Exxon Corporation in the USA. He is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), American Marketing Association, American Production Inventory Control Society (APICS), American Mathematical Association and MENSA. His research interests include issues in business policy, marketing strategy, and negotiation dynamics. Dr. Azhar received his Ph.D. and MSc from the University of Pennsylvania, MBA from Wake Forest University, and MSc from University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore.

Japan represents a quintessential "network society" -- permeated by dense webs of formal and informal relationships across all areas of daily life, from the political to the economic. Yet as industrial activity continues to languish along many indicators in the 1990s, what was once considered a source of competitive strength is now viewed as an underlying weakness. Critics of "crony capitalism" in Japan (and the rest of Asia) charge that mutual backscratching has replaced the kind of hard-nosed business decisions needed to make economically efficient decisions about how to allocate capital, weed out poorly performing companies, and shift resources into more productive uses. Based on the forthcoming volume, "The Organization of Japanese Business Networks" (Cambridge University Press), this presentation evaluates these criticisms theoretically and empirically. It also considers efforts now underway in Japan in the area of keiretsu reform. Michael L. Gerlach received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Yale University and is currently associate professor at UC Berkeley's business school. His research is focused on cross-national studies of business organizations; entry strategies in foreign markets; strategic alliances, joint ventures, and new organizational forms; interfirm relationships and corporate strategies in Japanese business; business and public policies concerning international competitiveness; the comparative analysis of the institutions of modern market economies as they reflect social and cultural contexts.

For three decades following its establishment in 1967, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) played an important role in managing regional conflicts and nurturing a sense of regional identity in Southeast Asia. Toward the end of the 1990s, however, transnational environmental and economic crises dealt heavy blows to the credibility of the Association. These crises exacerbated tensions and burdens that had already arisen inside ASEAN in the wake of its expansion to include all ten Southeast Asian countries and its involvement in building larger multilateral institutions for the Asia Pacific. Are ASEAN's best years behind it? Or will it recover, perhaps even exceed, its former ability to sustain regional security and strengthen regional identity in Southeast Asia? Why, or why not? Amitav Acharya is an internationally recognized authority on regionalism in Southeast Asia. His latest books are The Quest for Identity: International Relations of Southeast Asia (Oxford, 2000) and Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia (Routledge, 2000). He is on research leave at Harvard for the current academic year as a fellow of the Asia Center and the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

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.

Simon Hix is a Senior Lecturer in European Union Politics and Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is author of Political Parties in the European Union (Macmillan, 1997) and The Political System of the European Union (Macmillan, 1999). He is co-editor of the journal European Union Politics (Sage) and Director of the European Parliament Research Group.

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.