I. INTRODUCTION Hou: With the Industrial Revolution, the "Epoch of Modern Growth" (EMG), as Kuznets (1966) called it, replaced centuries of settled agrarianism. The past two centuries has been essentially a gradual spread of the EMG, resulting in a diverse range of economies at different stages towards modernization/industrialization. Especially since the end of World War II, the less developed countries (LDCs) have embarked on industrialization, repeating the experience of the industrialized countries (ICs). Among contemporary LDCs, the Four Small Dragons (or Tigers) - Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea - stand out as successfully transforming into a technology-oriented stage of growth (i.e., exporting technology-intensive products), following Japan's footsteps. Other economies in the region also have made great strides, making the Pacific Rim comparable to the world's two major economic regions, North America and EC. II. PACIFIC RIM OR PACIFIC ASIA? Werin: At home, I have a globe in my study. Now and then the Pacific Ocean happens to be turned towards me. When that happens, I always am amazed because I see nothing but water, the Pacific. Or to be exact, I get a glimpse of Australia, and a number of tiny dots representing Hawaii and other small islands. But I see neither the Old World nor the New World. So obviously, the borders of the Pacific are very, very far apart. Then why do so many people speak of the Pacific Rim, or the Pacific Basin, as a specific, well-defined region? One possible explanation could be that water unites better than land, and once it obviously did. Very long ago, the international economy was mainly a Mediterranean economy. Later on, the international economy was essentially an Atlantic economy. But the era of the Atlantic economy ended a few decades ago. Now the amount of trade that crosses the Pacific exceeds the amount of trade that crosses the Atlantic. But this in itself is not enough to establish a true Pacific Rim economy. For, after all, the bulk of international trade does not cross any oceans at all. It crosses land or is carried along coasts. In the case of the Atlantic economy, it was a question of how easily not only goods could be moved. The ease with which people as well as capital could move was more important. The system was in fact generated by migration of Europeans to America rather than by trade. When people themselves move or financial capital is transferred or when information is conveyed, it does not matter whether land or water is in between. Indeed, these movements probably are more unifying than is merchandise trade. Thus, if anything is inherent in the idea of a Pacific Rim economic region, it seems to have very little to do with transportation geography and rather little with the intensity of merchandise trade. The idea must be based on something else. My guess is that when people speak of the Pacific Rim as a well-defined economic region, they do so not because of what it is, but because of what it is not. It is not Europe; or rather: it does not belong to the part of the world that consists of Europe and the eastern half of the United States. It may be true that nearly all basic scientific progress has taken place - and nearly all Nobel Prizes have landed - in that part of the world. But economically it is the old, tired part of the world. Europe is stagnating and shows signs of becoming increasingly introspective. The eastern half of the United States perhaps is not in quite as bad a condition, but it is not particularly dynamic either. But as we all know, the Asian part of the Pacific Rim is indeed dynamic. So by designing a geographically coherent super-region that includes all the East Asian miracle countries, many people elsewhere in that super-region can indulge in the hope that their own countries might be touched by some kind of magic wand, and themselves automatically grow faster. …