The questions are what we were doing at that time and what we can do now? The answers of these questions are explored. The 1980s was crucial and at that time we were under the autocratic regime of Ershad who had not had much time to look at the East's flight or our development vision. Unlikely, many EA countries achieved take off under the 'authoritarian government' that creates a mixed-bag feeling among the researchers and academicians about the role of democracy on development. However, unfortunately we missed many opportunities of development in the 1980s, which I may call a "lost-decade" for Bangladesh.

What we can do now? To set our East-looking strategy, we need to understand the East Asian Development Dynamism. It is widely thought that Japan is the main architect of this regional development dynamism. Nonetheless, the way the EA countries became developed may not be suitable for current backward countries like Bangladesh or Vietnam. It is quite a debate among the researchers, policy makers as to whether the East Asian model can be transferred to other region.

The track of industrialisation is now more complex, needs to be thought in the globalisation context. Since the last three of the ASEAN (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) are already caught in regionalism, they have a hurry mode to fly. This is important for us to observe how they could achieve take off in the context of globalisation and regionalism, and to take initiatives alike.

How the East has achieved take-off? East Asian flight was leaded by Japan, then newly industrialised countries -- 'NIEs' -- (Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore) followed, after that ASEAN 4 (Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) joined. Now Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (Myanmar can be ignored for its bad political situation) are on the way. The pattern of their flight is commonly known as that of 'flying geese', one group following another. How this has happened? Once a group was caught in regional dynamism, they were under constant pressure to improve technology, human capital, competitiveness etc. for survival in the regionalism. It is important to note that the EA countries' development was not a poverty reduction strategy; rather it is a social process of catching up with the forerunners. Their growth was realsed by staggered participation in the regional production network through trade and investment. The supply linkage was established by Japan and other groups, and Japanese firms are the main sources of technology supply too.

What are the main determinants of late industrialisation of EA? EA countries are late comer in the process compared to the West. If they were late, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia will be so late because of the globalisation factors. To understand it, some points need to be pondered over. The institutions in late industrialisation that underscore its success are: an interventionist state, large diversified business groups (for example, pre-war Zaibatsu and post-war keiretsu in Japan, chaebol in Korea), an abundant supply of competent salaried managers and engineers, an abundant supply of low-cost well-educated labour force, and the important one from my point of view is their development-minded bureaucracy. State interventions such as subsidies, different interest rates, different prices for import and export etc. is thought as the key to success. Moreover, they successfully imposed discipline on subsidies and incentives, made 'rent-seeking' into 'productive investment'. States in modern history have always intervened to spur economic growth. Even the first industrial revolution, whose guiding principle was laissez-faire, is now being reassessed by historians. The British government intervened to maintain law and order and to minimise the transfer of technology capability to foreign lands. In the second industrial revolution in Germany and the U.S., infant industry protection was the primary characteristics of that era. The question: is it possible now to make such interventions with the strong role of WTO, IMF, or World Bank? Perhaps it is not possible. Therefore, latecomers of this age will be so late in industrialising, or will never be industrialised.

While the revolution in the west is based on inventions and innovations, late-industrialisation in the East has come about a process of 'learning by doing'. Only the 'institutional set up' has been found significant in their development rather than other elements like natural resource endowment, population, and market. The corporate institutions (inclusive of R&D) first borrowed technology, and then modified and optimised to enhance the price and quality competitiveness. Nonetheless, at recent time technology and capital transfer can only be done by accumulation of foreign direct investment (FDI). Therefore to find us in a catching-up position, building of strong institutions, both at government and corporate level, is a compelling necessity.

With this background, how much can we be benefitted from the individual collaboration with the East? Already some high level visits have been exchanged recently between Bangladesh and Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand etc., some trade and counter trade arrangements have been made with some EA countries to facilitate trade. Above all, we are trying to join the ASEAN. It is important to note that comparative advantages are better in EA countries than ours. They are more interested to look at our market because of their competitive products. FDI flows are higher in those countries, and they are our competitors in attracting FDI and in some other aspects.

Against this backdrop, apparently only integration with the ASEAN regional dynamism can make difference for us if, and only if, we really want to be in a catching-up position. The historical process of industrialisation always tended to allow leaders and laggards, forerunners and followers. Vietnam has already set its target to be industrialised and modernised within 2020, with an existing growth of around 7 percent. Since our effort has not been successful so far to join the ASEAN, I have profound belief that only Japan can help us in this regard if we could be able to pursue them, at government level as well as individual level, because Japan has strong influence over the region. Here we have to strengthen our relationship with Japan more by exchanging top-level visits and by making them sympathetic on our vision and mission. Of course, for this we might have to follow their suggestion about our development plan. Along with, we have to maintain good relations with the EA countries unless or until we have succeeded to join the ASEAN. Joining the ASEAN would be a breakthrough for our development from many respects including increasing FDI flow, manpower supply as the wage level in these countries is becoming higher, as well as we could find market for some of our products.

Monzur Hossain is a Ph.D. candidate at National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo.