Introduction

Summary

In 1983, the Rockefeller Foundation announced a programme of social science fellowships for scholars in Southeast Asia and English-speaking Africa to advance knowledge on fundamental development issues in these regions. Although the Foundation did not specify any substantive theme to which proposals were to be directed, it indicated that it was particularly interested in studies which would

1. examine the assumptions underlying alternative development objectives and the relation of these assumptions to development practices and outcomes; and

2. probe the human dimensions of rapid economic and technological change, including the relationship of traditional values, structures and power relations to development aims and institutions, and the concept and role of the state in the development effort.

This volume, which brings together contributions from the Southeast Asian scholars selected for the fellowships, represents an important part of the programme which officially ended with an international workshop at Bellagio in September 1985. However, the seven papers included here form only a part of the larger social and historical studies that these chosen scholars are undertaking on the process of development as it relates to their individual societies. In the interests of a manageable volume, I have had to considerably prune down the original manuscript submissions - in one case, the paper published in this volume is only one-third the length of the original submission.

Nevertheless, most if not all of the central concerns that sparked off the Rockefeller Foundation's initiative in this programme are addressed in these edited papers. The volume begins with two papers that focus on Islam and Buddhism and the important role that these organized religions and their adherents play in the development process in Malaysia and Thailand respectively. However, the approaches that Chandra Muzaffar and Somboon Suksamran employ in emphasizing the need to consider religion as a means to understand the behaviour of individual groups and the society at large, are quite different.