Myanmar (Burma) since 1962: The Failure of Development (review)

Peter Perry's Myanmar (Burma) since 1962 is a great addition to the literature on a relatively unknown topic that has been studied by only a small number of observers and a deeply polarized research community. This book analyses how and why Burma's development has failed miserably since the military rule in 1962. Specifically, Perry looks at rice, mining, and timber —the three resource sectors that have been mismanaged and misappropriated by the military regime. Perry envisions "a modest re-focusing on and re-emphasis of resources, their use and distribution" and "a hope and trust that soon the development of Burma's resources will be on the basis of fair shares for all rather than privileges of the few."

A geographer by training, Perry provides a different perspective to understanding the roots of Burma's economic crisis by looking at the connection between geography, history, and policies and practices of the military. His "integrative" approach, although neither new nor revolutionary, is a major contribution to a field that has been predominantly occupied by historians, economists, political scientists, and anthropologists.

The book is based on the analysis of secondary resources (e.g., fieldwork-based materials, magazines, newspapers, and publications by various international organizations on their respective areas of expertise), and is sometimes illustrated by the personal narratives of Perry's own students over the course of his teaching career. Consequently, Perry was able to compile impressive amounts of information and interpretations on the subjects and develop a coherent analysis of interrelationships among colonial policies and practices, resource exploitations, military repression, insurgencies, and illegal trade. This reliance on secondary materials may, however, disappoint long-time observers of Burma who are expecting original studies and new discoveries. Needless to say, the book provides a good overview of Burma's developmental policies since 1962 and will be a great resource for policy-makers, activists, humanitarians, and students interested in Burma, Southeast Asian affairs, and development studies.

The book is organized into eleven short chapters. The first chapter sheds light on why Burma has featured very little in the geography discipline and development studies —a major factor that motivated the author to embark on this project. Perry then provides a list of theoretical approaches and briefly states how they apply or do not apply to Burma's situations. None of these theories, such as the "historical-empirical" approach, "bottom up/alternative" approach, "radical dependency", "state capitalism", "resource curse", and "sustainable development" are fully explained to non-specialist readers. In addition, the lack of further elaboration of these theories in later chapters leaves the reader to wonder whether resource management in Burma could enhance or transform our existing knowledge about development in authoritarian and Third World countries. To what extent is Burma's experience similar to or different from other "resource curse" countries? The choice of not situating Burma in broader theoretical and comparative contexts inadvertently undermines Perry's intent to raise the profile of Burma in development studies.

Chapter two focuses on the limitations of scholarship and research in Burma since 1962. The regime's hostility toward academic researchers and foreigners, unreliable official data, and unrecorded data from the black market are issues that have continued to confront and challenge analysts on Burma, including the author.

Chapter three details the historical contexts that have given rise to military rule in 1962. The author convincingly demonstrates that Ne Win's government, which was in principle based upon socialist ideologies and democratic centralism, was in practice an authoritarian government that "offered little to producers and took everything for the state and its military and civilian officials" (p. 27). Chapter four offers numerous perspectives from previous studies on how individualism (a component generally associated with Buddhism), astrology, and authoritarianism have impeded the process of socio-economic and political development in Burma. Perry's position remains ambiguous since he does not provide compelling evidence to either affirm or oppose these arguments.

Chapters five and six cover the history of the...