4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST meaning, all of them important. Let me here indicate the very broad sense of 'agrarian transition' which I will maintain. By 'agrarian transition' I understand those changes in the countryside necessary to the overall development of capitalism or of socialism, and to the ultimate dominance of either of those modes of production in a particular national social formation. That is a deliberately broad reading. It is, however, the one which I find most useful. Space precludes treatment of socialism in this paper. My concern is with the capitalist path. That, in all conscience, is demanding enough. My aim is to explore some of the differing forms—differing not in a trivial or epiphenomenal, but in a substantive, sense—that capitalism may take in the countryside in Asia (socialism, too, will take differing forms, but that I do not consider). In so proceeding, I take the logic or the 'laws' of capitalist development, which must be explored theoretically, as primary (and would proceed similarly if treating attempted socialist development). It is within that overall logic, or those "laws', that differences are pursued. In a properly comprehensive treatment, I would, also, contest the possibility of a 'third', or'populist' path, which is held to be neither capitalist nor socialist. Space precludes that, too (for some of the relevant arguments see [Byres, 1979]). I would stress that no attempt is made to secure a fully comprehensive analysis of all Asian countries. That degree of detail and mastery of individual cases are well beyond the scope of a single paper. Thus, for example, consideration of the countries of Western Asia/the Middle East is not attempted. Nor is full coverage of other regions of Asia essayed. Rather, my aim is to consider the broad alternative paths of capitalist transition that have been attempted by, and have been suggested for Asian countries. The treatment is rooted in a consideration of the actual experience of those Asian countries which have secured a successful capitalist agrarian transition : and which have been especially influential, therefore, in the realm of prescription. These happen to be in East Asia. I shall try to suggest what general lessons, if any, might be drawn from such experience. Even this more limited endeavour is sufficiently daunting. The exposition will involve reference, also, to some non-Asian countries, from whose apparent history influential models have been abstracted. These models are influential in the present context, in as much as certain crucial interventions have been made, both in the colonial past and in the post-colonial era, in conformity with them; and to the extent that Asian realities are sometimes judged against them. No analysis of the agrarian question can be complete without this component. In my observations here, I shall try, in whatever small compass, to identify the actual broad contours of capitalist agrarian transition, as these emerge from the work of historians. These may differ in certain important respects from elements of the model that has been in use in the past and which may