This text may perhaps be best viewed as an exercise in theory building aimed at developing an argument analyzing popular premises that liberal democracy is a political form conducive to the generation of economic development, particularly as applied in the context of developing countries. The attempt may be viewed as particularly timely and important given the current nation-building challenges presented in such places as the Balkans, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The argument is constructed around a model that the author posits as a “2×3+1 axis,” wherein the first set of three concepts are economic, civil, and political liberalism and the second set of concepts are security, stability, and information and openness. These six concepts interact together and are embedded in a particular “institutional matrix,” which is the seventh concept used to explain the democracy-development connection in the various East Asian countries (primarily Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea) developed as case studies in the later part of the text. The book appears designed to appeal most directly to scholars of political theory, comparative political development, and East Asian studies.

The text is divided into two parts; the first addresses the present context of democratization and the “decomposing” or disaggregating of the fundamental concepts of liberal democracy, while the second deals with the ongoing democracy-development debate within the subfield of comparative politics, as well as the contending explanations of East Asia's relative developmental successes. Both parts are in essence extensive, thorough, and complex reviews of the relevant literature dominating the academic discourse concerning the aforementioned areas. This rather exhaustive literature review is perhaps the major strength of the work, as it not only presents the major contending arguments currently dominating the academic discourse but also subjects them to a very rigorous examination in terms of their individual strengths and weaknesses. This is augmented by the author's impressive attention to theoretical detail, subtlety, and nuance as she deals with the many and diverse perspectives and approaches brought together. Graduate students in particular are going to appreciate the degree to which this work will assist them in organizing and synthesizing the relevant literatures dealing with both democracy and comparative development.

Of particular interest and utility is Sylvia Chan's decomposing or disaggregating of the concept of liberal democracy into three discrete variants or subtypes, which are labeled “political,” “civil,” and “economic” democracy, her point being that each sphere has its own unique virtues and dynamics and will be present to varying degrees in different polities. To Chan, lumping all these dimensions of democracy together significantly confuses the analytical discourse, causes conceptual confusion, and facilitates mismeasurement and misunderstanding of complex developmental processes. This conceptual disaggregation may be viewed as the most important theoretical and procedural contribution that this work makes to the analysis of political and economic development studies.

Another important contribution is the author's advocacy of moving from a “statist institutionalism” to a more “inclusionary form of institutionalism” when investigating the state and potentially constraining institutional settings “across time, societies, and industrial sectors” in various East Asian countries (p. 192). This focus advocates greater attention to the various policy consultation bodies, state-sponsored industrial peak organizations, export cartels, and informal interpersonal networks that are usually characteristic of East Asian polities. This approach supports and adds to Richard Doner's arguments (“Limits of State Strength: Toward an Institutionalist View of Economic Development,” World Politics 44 [April 1992]: 398–431).

However, Liberalism, Democracy, and Development is not without its drawbacks. First, while the literature review is on the one hand laudatory, it is also perhaps overly thorough, going into such great detail and unpacking approaches with such complexity that the average, nontheoretician reader may often feel not just confused but overwhelmed. This would be particularly true for those readers primarily looking for new insights offered in the case studies of East Asian experiences, rather than those primarily interested in the nuances and subtleties of developmental theory. The text's strength clearly lies in the latter area.

Second, there seems a lack of balance between the theoretical and case study treatments; one has to get to page 191 of a 236-page text before the case studies are encountered. Those readers whose interests are driven primarily by a desire for in-depth information on the Chinese, Korean, or Japanese experience are likely to feel shorted. In addition, the text's case studies rely almost exclusively on secondary sources rather than primary research for the critical data, with the result that the case studies may be perceived as lacking compelling currency. Although the author introduces the recent works of a welcome number of East Asian researchers (Teranishi Juro, Tsuru Shigeto, Kong Tat Yan, and Pei Minxin, to name a few), in addition to those of more well known and established authors, such as Samuel Huntington and T. J. Pempel, most of these data sources are already 10 to 15 years old. This is a vexing problem when dealing with dynamically developing political economies, such as those of the various East Asian states.

Nevertheless, Chan makes a strong case that the terms of debate on whether or not liberal democracy enhances economic development have in the past been poorly specified in the literature dealing with the East Asian experience. She per-suasively argues that these systems have incorporated some liberal democratic elements, but with different institutions and manifestations. Hence, she concludes that “liberal democracy may help development in some respects, and a different mix of liberties in Asia (together with a particular set of institutions and under particular historical circumstances) can achieve a high level of development” (p. 232). In the final analysis, Chan has contributed an ambitious and thought-provoking work to the growing body of literature that focuses on the continuing debate over the precise nature of the connection between democracy and economic development.