Review

Author(s): Norman G. Owen

Review by: Norman G. Owen
Source: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 53, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 619-621
Published by: Association for Asian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2059918
Accessed: 17-03-2015 04:56 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Asian
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:56:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK

REVIEWS-SOUTHEAST

ASIA

619

However, the next chaptershows that even the Muslims are organizedinto the
water-managementassociations the Balinese call subaks. We're encouraged,
to focuson thewaysin whichthesevillagesare unlike,sincetheexistence
nonetheless,
is supposedto underscorethe dangersof essentialism.The same
of such differences
argumentis repeatedwith a briefaccountof two "Bali Aga" villageson the North
Coast, Sembiranand Jullah. These villageswill be familiarto thosewho continue
to read the scholarlyliteratureon Bali as the site of Wayan Ardika's recent
archaeologicaldiscoveriesof Indian tradegoods and earlyrice.
Barth'schoiceofvillagesseemsa littleodd givenwhathe's tryingto demonstrate.
The people of Pagetapanregardthemselvesas thedescendantsofJavanesecolonists,
yet theyseem remarkablyBalinese in all but theirreligion.Jullah and Sembiran
introducemorecomplicatedissues: with minorvariations,theirsocial organization
is remarkablyunchangedsince it was delineateda thousandyears ago in royal
addressedto bothvillages.The persistence
of theseancientpatternswas
inscriptions
treatedas a historicalquestion by Dutch scholars.For Barth, however,historical
sincewe shouldexpectall culturesto exhibitmuchlocalvariation.
analysisis irrelevant
Throughoutthe book, Barthurgeshis readersto adopt an approachto culture
thatcenterson the experienceof individuals.This methodis exemplifiedby stories
fromthe lives of severalBalinese,especiallyMuslim villagers.The book ends with
view of culture,and a capsule summaryof a
a renewedcall foran actor-focused
thattendto be salientin Balineseinteraction,"
suchas "a pervasive
"setoforientations
fearof making an erroror mistake . . . a strongobligation to cooperate. . . a
concernto be humble." Barthacknowledgesthatthese"compellingconcernsshow
a veryclose familyrelationship"to Mead and Bateson'sconceptof an (ahistorical)
drawsa different
Balinese"ethos."This reviewer
conclusionfromBarth'sethnography:
of the Muslim communitiesof
the need fora betterethnohistorical
understanding
northBali, focusingon the questionof why theyseem so veryBalinese.
J. STEPHEN LANSING
University
ofSouthern
California

ThePoliticalEconomy
ThePhilippines.
ofGrowth
and Impoverishment
in theMarcos
Era. By JAMES K. BOYCE. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press,
1993. xv, 405 pp. $32.95 (cloth); $18.95 (paper).
In the subtitleof this book, JamesK. Boyce nails his colorsto the mast: it is
a studyin "politicaleconomy"(in explicitcontradistinction
to "orthodox"economics),
the intimateinterconnection
and its purposeis to demonstrate
betweengrowthand
in the PhilippinesunderFerdinandMarcos. By citingsuch writers
impoverishment
as Karl Marx,FriedrichEngels, Paul Baran,and WilliamJ. Pomeroy,Boycefurther
flauntshis leftistviews and thus ensuresthat the book will not be takenseriously
economistsand politicianswho might benefitfromit most.
by the establishment
This is unfortunate,
forat his best Boyce transforms
"politicaleconomy"froman
ideologicalstanceto a practicalanalyticaltool, as when he shows just how power
affectthe implementation
of new agriculturaltechnologiesor distort
relationships
of foreignloans.
the significance

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:56:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

620

THE JOURNAL

OF ASIAN

STUDIES

What the titledoes not make clearis thatthisis a veryselectivestudycovering

theexpansionofexportagriculture
and forestry,
justthreetopics:thegreenrevolution,
and foreignborrowing.These are obviouslyimportant,but not everyonewould
agree that theywere "the threepillarsof Philippinedevelopmentstrategy"(p. 9)
all importanteconomictrendswithintheera. Only in passingdoes
and represented
Boyce note what othersmight regardas the single most strikingdevelopmentin
and construction
fromunder7 percentto over
theseyears:the riseof manufacturing
30 percentof the PhilippineGDP between1962 and the early 1980s (pp. 7, 1618). He also offerslittleor nothingon mining,services,exportprocessingzones,
urbanization,the economicsignificanceof Americanmilitarybases and directaid
grants,the roleof theChinese(though"Binondobankers"are mentioned[pp. 283,
fromFilipinosoverseas.Readersin searchof an overviewof
2981), or remittances
the Philippineeconomyin the Marcosera will have to seek elsewhere.
will
Within thesectorshe has chosento analyze,the basic critiqueBoyceoffers
come as no surpriseto readersfamiliarwith the writingsof Walden Bello, Robin
Broad, RandolfDavid, ErnestFeder,GaryHawes, MaharMangahas,CherylPayer,
and othersof thatilk. The greenrevolutionbenefitedrichratherthanpoor farmers;
was at the expenseof the poor, cultural
the rise of exportagricultureand forestry
minorities,and the environment;foreignborrowingled to capital flightand the
ofcapitaland interesteventuallycreatedan actual
"debt trap,"in whichrepayments
outflowof wealthfromthe indebtedand impoverishedcountry.Not only did the
gap betweenrich and poor widen-whichmost establishmenteconomistsadmitbut in absolutetermsthe poor becameeven poorer.And the policiesof the Marcos
sponsors,were
abetted,if not actuallyinstigated,by his international
government,
directlyresponsibleforthis shamefulstate of affairs.
What Boyce principallyadds to theseconclusionsis systematicquantification,
as he has gathered(and adjusted,as necessary)data forseveralplausible time series
coveringthe quartercenturyfrom1962, the pre-Marcosdevaluationof the peso,
erratic
usefulforthe notoriously
to 1986, whenMarcosdeparted.This is particularly
figureson foreigndebt and capital flight(pp. 262, 295), but anyonewho has tried
to make sense of any of the numbersemanatingfrom,or pertainingto, the
Philippineswill be gratefulforBoyce's endeavorsin this area. Not
contemporary
will be totallyconvincedby all the assumptions
everyone
and statistical
manipulations
he has made in orderto approximatethe realitybehind the officialdata-e.g.,
forthe rich
"compensating"shiftsovertime towardgreaterincomeunderstatement
and less forthe poor (pp. 36, 43), or the significanceof the correlationbetween
is out
externaldebt and capital flight(p. 311; cf. pp. 325-28)-but everything
in the open and readerscan make theirown adjustments,if theywish.
of Boyce is his documentationof the intellectual
The othermajorcontribution
bankruptcyof World Bank developmentalism,at least as it pertainedto the
Philippines.In 1973 the Bank suggestedthatmartiallaw offered"an opportunity
fora moreseriousattackon . . . social and economicproblems"(p. 1) and urged
even greaterforestexploitation(pp. 235-36); in 1976 they felt it would be
ifthePhilippinesfailedto borrowmore(p. 255); in 1979 theyapplauded
"unfortunate"
"the Government'sremarkablesuccess in raisingthe level of public investment,"
ignoringthe factthatmuchof this "public" spendingwound up in privatepockets
(p. 329); and in the late 1980s theywerestill jugglingthe figuresto tryto prove
thatpovertyhad actuallydecreasedsince 1971 (pp. 39-42; cf. pp. 47-50). Without
assumingsome sinistercapitalistplot, Boyce showsagain and again how theseand

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:56:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK

REVIEWS-SOUTHEAST

ASIA

621

otherforeign"experts"contributedto the demise of the Philippineeconomyby

ignoringthe realitiesof Philippinepolitics.
This book is reasonablywell presentedexceptfora cumbersomecombination
that requiresa readerinterestedin
of chapterendnotesand author-datereferences
Boyce's sourcesto keep at least two bookmarksin the volume at all times. The
volume should prove useful-although probablynot necessaryand certainlynot
sufficient-toanyoneconcernedwiththe precariousstateof the Philippineeconomy,
or with issues of agricultureand foreignborrowingin general.
NORMAN G. OWEN
University
ofHongKong

FieldsfromtheSea. Chinese
JunkTrade withSiam duringtheLate Eighteenth
Ithaca:
Centuries.By JENNIFER WAYNE CUSHMAN.
and EarlyNineteenth
SoutheastAsia Program,CornellUniversity,1993. ix, 206 pp.
FieldsfromtheSea is Cushman's 1976 Ph.D. dissertation.Beforeher untimely
death in 1989, she had intendedto update and revisethe manuscript.She was a
modestand meticulousscholarwhose cautiondelayedthe earlypublicationof the
thesis.She would surelyhave augmentedthe book withmorerecentscholarshipon
thatofJapanesescholars.
Chineseand SoutheastAsian maritimehistory,particularly
and the workis somewhatdated.
she neverhad the opportunity,
Unfortunately,
Tributeand Profit.
Those familiarwith SarasinViraphol'smore comprehensive
Trade1652-1853 (Harvard, 1977) will findthatthe two authorshave
Sino-Siamese
made use of many of the same source materials.During the early 1970s, both
Virapholand Cushman, he at Harvardand she at Cornell, were among the first
sourcesin treatingnineteenthof scholarsto relyheavilyon Asian-language
generation
Their
books, however,differconsiderablyin approach.
centuryChinese trade.
structured
historyof the Sino-Thaitradeduringthe
Viraphol'sis a chronologically
first200 yearsof the Qing period with a clear focuson developmentsin Siam.
Cushman,in contrast,chose to focusmorespecificallyon the Chinese and on the
tradeitself.Her studytreatsfirstthenatureof theQing maritimetradeadministration
and then moves on to examinethe goods which Siam and China exchanged,the
men who wereinvolvedin the trade,and, finally,the attitudesand policies of the
Qing governmenttowardSiamese tradeand foreigntradein general.It is, in fact,
more properlya book about China ratherthan SoutheastAsia; however,thereis
much hereforthe SoutheastAsianist.
to our understanding
of the relationship
Cushman'sworkis a majorcontribution
betweenChina and SoutheastAsia and its place in Asia's economicdevelopment
duringthe eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies.Beforethe 1970s, mostscholarship
thatvirtually
all of China'sforeigntradeinvolvedtea and opium,
gave the impression
and was conductedby the East India Companythroughthe Cohong in Guangzhou.
view is no longerpossible. During the eighteenth
Today, such a Europe-centered
and earlynineteenthcenturies,the Chinese junk traderswere the major economic
theexchangeofSoutheastAsia'srawmaterials
actorsin SoutheastAsia. Theyfacilitated
and in manyrespectslaid the foundations
forthe economic
forChina'smanufactures,
that is the region'slegacyat the presenttime.
prosperity

This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:56:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions