This article examines the role the state has played in the development of a variety of Asian nations through a series of "paired comparisons" to evaluate the model of the developmental state that has become prevalent in the analysis of East Asian political economy. The cases included in the study indicate that neither the state nor the market (as argued by neoclassical economists) can explain developmental outcomes by itself. Too many strong and interventionist states succeeded to gainsay the idea that economic competitiveness can be manipulated. However, the statist faith in strong and autonomous developmental states does not fare very well either. Strong states failed as well as succeeded. In fact, the strongest and most autonomous states may well be in the greatest danger of degeneration because they can resist pressures for change and can use their powers to become a "predator" over society. In addition, quite a few of these mini case studies directly imply that the nature of society is an important variable in determining how well a political economy operates. Thus, the case for "bringing society back in" appears to be a strong one.The study of the political economy of development has been marked by several debates between competing paradigms that revolve around opposite answers to dichotomous questions. From the late 1960s through the early 1980s the field was dominated by the debate between modernization and dependency theory about whether capitalism promoted or perverted development (Caporaso and Levine 1992;Randall and Theobald 1985). Neither of these approaches, it might be noted, assigned much analytic importance to states or to traditional cultures and institutions. Modernization theory believed that both state interference and traditional institutions hindered the operation of capitalist markets, while dependentistas argued that the economic dynamics of capitalism created social and political institutions, so that governments and cultures were only epiphenomenal.This debate, unfortunately, increasingly became a dialogue of the deaf. Moreover, the assumptions of both approaches were challenged by the rapid growth that occurred in a few places in the Third World, most particularly East Asia. This ultimately led to a call for "bringing