 I want to give you a sense of the study. Gunnar Middal published his magnum opus, Asian drama, an inquiry into the poverty of nations in 1968. It would be 50 years since then at the end of this year. The past half a century has witnessed a remarkable economic transformation in Asia. Even if it has been uneven across countries and unequal between people, that would have been difficult to imagine, let alone predict at the time that Middal and his associates completed their work. The dramatic changes in Asia and its transformed significance in the world economy are striking. Between 1970 and 2016, the share of Asia, excluding Japan in world GDP and current prices at market exchange rates, more than trebled from less than 10% to almost 30%. This was attributable to much higher GDP growth rates in Asia as compared with industrialized countries and elsewhere in the developing world. And as population growth rates slowed down, even growth in GDP per capita was significantly higher. In a few countries in Asia, there was a modest convergence in per capita incomes compared with industrialized countries so that the wide gap narrowed, but just a little. However, GDP per capita in Asia in current prices at market exchange rates witnessed an impressive convergence relative to per capita income levels in the world economy as a whole. Now, this catch-up in the aggregate reveals or conceals as much as it reveals, it was characterized by most uneven development in Asia. For one, the growth performance and rising shares in output, manufacturing or trade were concentrated in a few, about a dozen countries. For another, development was unequal between regions and among people within countries. Consequently, this rapid economic growth was not transformed always into meaningful development that improved the well-being of people. Of course, there was a significant reduction in absolute poverty that would not have been possible without rapid growth. But sustained rapid growth in Asia did not reduce absolute poverty as much as it could have in part because the initial income distribution was unequal and in part because of rising income inequality. All the same, it is clear that Asian development in this era was driven by economic growth and industrialization associated with structural change in the composition of output and employment which reinforced the process. Now, it would seem that during the past half a century, the Asian continent has witnessed a profound transformation in terms of economic progress and living conditions, even if it has been uneven across countries and unequal among people. Yet, five decades ago, such change would have been thought of as imagination running wild. Indeed, at the time, the economic prospects of Asia, the poorest continent in the third world, were perceived as dim by most observers and analysts. In this sentiment, Middal was by no means alone in his pessimism about Asia. Of course, perfect oversight exists only as an abstraction in economic theory, but the benefit of hindsight does provide a good reason for an inquiry into the economic transformation of nations in Asia. The original Asian drama in three volumes ran into almost 2,300 pages. Middal described its length as abominable. This study is neither so massive nor so ambitious. Now, Middal made a very significant contribution in terms of a conceptual framework and an analytical approach to study the constraints on and the possibilities of development in Asia, which Francis will talk about. In a sense, the title Asian drama was deceptive. The focus of the study was the erstwhile British India, or what we now call South Asia made up of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Burma and Indonesia were parts of the study, but Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam were grouped together as the rest of Southeast Asia in perhaps 30 pages out of 2,300. However, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong were not part of the story, nor was West Asia. Now, in retrospect, it is clear that Middal provided valuable insights that remain just as relevant now for understanding development processes. However, there were other propositions or arguments that are much less relevant now. Some aspects were missing then, while some aspects simply could not have been anticipated at the time. This is no surprise because the world has changed. Now, the object of our study, which you hope to give you a teaser of in this session is to provide an analysis of Asia's development experience and economic transformation over the past 50 years. It would, we hope, contribute to our understanding of the process of development. There are perhaps lessons that can be drawn from the Asian experience, successes, failures or mixed outcomes, which might help in thinking about the economic prospects of Asia and suggest possibilities for countries elsewhere in the developing world. The study also reflects, even briefly, on how the next 25 years might unfold. It needs to be said that Asian drama would be no more than a point of entry or reference for the proposed study. It is not meant to be a sequel and it will have an identity of its own. The study is in two volumes. The first volume, written by me, is about the big picture. The second volume, but it's a shorter book. The second volume, edited by me, is made up of contributions from 20 very distinguished scholars but conceptualized at the outset to create a thematic cohesion in the book. Now, I will stop here at this point and invite Ronald Finlay to make a presentation which is essentially about his contribution to the study, a long-term historical perspective on Asia in the world economy.