A History of the Institute of East Asian Studies

This history of the Institute of East Asian Studies was written by graduate student M. Paulina Hartono for Professor Alexander Cook's History 275F seminar: Foundational Texts in Modern Chinese History.

To read a general history of Asian studies at Berkeley, click here.

The Founding of the Institute of East Asian Studies at UC Berkeley

The establishment of the Institute of East Asian Studies is a story in three parts. First, the shift from the humanities to the social sciences in area studies starting in the 1950s; second, the change in funding opportunities for area studies; and third, the "East Asia regionalism" turn. The history of IEAS speaks to the legacy of national and international geopolitics, and illuminates the past 60 years of area studies at UC Berkeley.

The Cold War cast a long shadow over the field of area studies. When new national strategic priorities and a resultant shift from the humanities towards the social sciences developed, need for the humanities-centered Institute of East Asiatic Studies was displaced by 1957. Private foundation money and government funded initiatives financed a new way to approach Asian studies, and were crucial to the operation and establishment of the Center for Chinese Studies (1957), the Center for Japanese Studies (1958), and the Joint East Asia National Resource Center (1965).

In the mid-1970s, funds from major philanthropic organizations like Ford sharply diminished, along with government funding. Projects on the maintenance of peace, versus previous strategic policy research on East Asia, simply did not attract previous levels of funding from these two groups. One other change was afoot: a turn towards regionalism, spurred on by the growing global marketplace and changing Asian international relations. At UC Berkeley, Robert Scalapino noticed a need to create a new East Asian research center, largely in response to this academic disciplinary shift, and also to funding needs. The Institute of East Asian Studies was founded in 1978, and its early years were defined by policy research and publication output.


Introduction

The Institute of East Asian Studies was officially founded at the University of California, Berkeley in 1978, and it quickly distinguished itself as one of the nation's top Asia research centers. Not long after its inception, IEAS established monograph collections for Korean and Japanese studies, held international bilateral policy conferences, and organized new funding opportunities for students and faculty.1 But the emergence of IEAS was, in fact, not so sudden. The culmination of the Institute's foundation marked a pivotal historical moment that had been building for years, which started with a predecessor Institute of East Asiatic Studies (1949-1957), and was intensified by the Cold War (1946-1991) and the Vietnam War (1955-1975). Its story can be told in three parts: the shift in area studies' academic priorities from the humanities to the social sciences, the new money trail for university organizations, and the "regionalism" turn in scholarship. While much of this institutional history is particular to the Berkeley campus, it is nevertheless also a national story echoed at other universities.2

At the time of writing, there are no secondary source materials on the subject of IEAS. The paper therefore has two goals: first, to provide a narrative of the Institute, and second, to review the available materials used to write such a narrative.


The Institute of East Asiatic Studies, 1949-1957

Although Robert Scalapino is often cited as the founder and first director of the Institute of East Asian Studies in 1978,3 the narrative arc of IEAS can be placed about thirty years earlier when on January 21, 1949, the University of California Regents approved the establishment of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies. Professor Woodbridge Bingham of the History Department spearheaded the Institute's creation, and served as its founding director. According to the Institute's first announcement, its purpose was to "promote research in the cultural history and the current social problems of India, Southeast Asia, China, Northeast Asia, Japan and islands of the Western Pacific," as well as "make recommendations regarding integrated teaching and training programs, on both the undergraduate and graduate level, that will prepare students to function as area specialists."4 The project was in many senses, boundary spanning. Not only did Bingham wish to see the Institute cross regional lines, he also desired it to bridge the divide between modern and traditional studies.5

The first advisory board reflected these decisions. Bingham, a historian of Tang China, was flanked by Peter A. Boodberg, a sinologist in the Oriental Languages Department;6 Delmer Brown, scholar of Japanese history; John B. Condliffe, economist and former research secretary for the Institute of Pacific Relations; John D. Hicks, an American historian; Robert J. Kerner, professor of Slavic history; Ferdinand Lessing, teacher of East, Central, and Southeast Asian languages in the Oriental Languages Department; and David G. Mandelbaum, an anthropologist of South Asia. The advisory board's interests had a broad span across disciplines, though most were based in the humanities. The East Asia course offerings on campus also tended towards the humanities, with Anthropology at 5; Art, 7; Classics, 5; Economics, 4; Geography, 2; History, 14; Oriental Languages, 54; Political Science, 15; and Sociology, 3.7 While numbers do not speak to these courses' popularity among students, they nevertheless suggest the university's deep commitment to the study of the humanities in East Asian Studies.

The Institute's efforts were also strongly supported by campus administrators. UC President Robert Sproul was one of two IEAS officers, the other was Bingham himself. Sproul was firmly behind the Institute's objective to raise money for the East Asiatic Library, now known as the East Asian Library. Historian Delmer Brown reflected that Sproul wished for the University to be a leader in the East Asian Studies field, and have a world-class library to match. He recounted the following story:

Apparently, President Sproul heard about this [trip to Japan] and asked me to come in to see him. In his great voice, he said, "Brown, how much money can you spend for books while you are in Japan?" My response was that I would have to talk with Dr. Huff [East Asian Library librarian] and her staff. I went back to say that I could spend something like six thousand dollars. And to my amazement, and to everybody else's amazement, he said, "I will give you ten." It sounded almost like he was initiating this.8

However, the campus commitment to the Institute of East Asiatic Studies eventually diminished. By 1955, IEAS was incorporated as a sub-unit into the Institute of International Studies,9 and continued operating for at least two years before being phased out. The reasons for its obsolescence are not immediately clear. No official records have been found that account for its disuse, and its final bulletin in June 1957 reads similarly to all previous bulletins — a wrap-up of the Institution's activities, relevant research projects, and faculty activities.10 There was no outward indication that the Institution was in decline, but by the new school year, it slipped into oblivion.11

Despite early support and enthusiasm for the mission of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, its success was short-lived. Why? UC Berkeley campus activities and institutional records of that time may not unravel its full story. For that, one must turn to global political events, the subject of the next section.


Rise of Cold War Politics, and the Creation of New Regional Research Centers, 1957-1965

Both the 1949 Institute's gradual relegation and the new phase of area studies on the UC Berkeley campus are illuminated by the 1957-1958 school year. In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, and with it, initiated the Space Race. As part of its response to Sputnik,12 Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in 1958 "[t]o strengthen the national defense and to encourage and assist in the expansion and improvement of educational programs to meet critical national needs."13 One component of the NDEA was its Title VI section, which funded students and instructors of ‘critical languages' like Russian and Chinese. These moneys assisted with the administration of the new Center for Chinese Studies and the Center for Japanese Studies, founded respectively in 1957 and 1958.

The reasons for the Institute's early dislocation may not have been explained explicitly on paper, but they can be discerned. As the nation faced heightened alert towards competing political ideologies, the academy shifted its focus towards social sciences and contemporary studies. So, too, did the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, which in June 1955 stated that its "specific aim at this time [was] to investigate social, economic, political, and ideological problems, for a clearer understanding which would enable the United States government better to formulate and implement its foreign policy."14 The Institute, once tilted towards the humanities and inclusive of pre-modern studies, now oriented itself towards contemporary Asia policy research, even while much of the same group of humanities scholars mentioned above remained involved in the Institute's operation.

The Center for Chinese Studies was established in 1957, just as the Institute of East Asiatic Studies declined. It should be noted that CCS was not intended to be a continuation of the Institute; its funding sources and its mission were different. Specifically, CCS was started with money from the Ford Foundation and the State of California,15 and had a mandate limited to "Communist China," a move that alienated many of the faculty associated with IEAS. John Service, former U.S. diplomat and CCS librarian, remarked that the new direction meant that "historians were sort of second-rate citizens and the humanities were completely out of the picture."16 For China studies, the intellectual and financial outlook had changed. The university also reoriented its interests: once CCS had the support of outside money, allocated resources decreased accordingly.17

The 1962 creation of Asian Survey, a contemporary Asian affairs academic journal, was another important event for Asian Studies at UC Berkeley. The journal's start was also shaped by Cold War politics: the decline of the Institute of Pacific Relations was critical to its inception. Senator Joseph McCarthy, a staunch anti-Communist Congressman, questioned IPR's political affiliation and accused many of its members of being Communists. Despite IPR's status as the primary scholarly organization for the study of Asia, it took a heavy blow. Many of its members could not fend off allegations, and it lost tax-exempt status by 1955.18 Other developments, such as the growing popularity of the Association for Asian Studies in 1956, the withdrawal of Rockefeller Foundation financial support,19 and the new prioritization of university area studies research centers also unseated IPR from its top position. The Institute of Pacific Relations met its demise in 1960, and its journal, Pacific Affairs, was transferred to the University of British Columbia.20 In its North American absence, UC Berkeley Political Science Professor Robert Scalapino was asked to take up the mantle of creating a journal similar in intent to Pacific Affairs.21 Under this aegis, Asian Survey was created. Asian Survey was considered then, and remains now, a leading journal chronicling contemporary Asian politics and society.

In 1965, Congress passed the Higher Education Act, whose Title VI essentially continued the work of the NDEA Title VI. It funded (and continues to fund) National Resource Centers, Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships, and International Research and Studies. That year, Berkeley and Stanford were given funding to start a joint East Asia National Resource Center, with the administrative offices in Stanford.22 The Center became independent in 1975. Other Asia centers were created or deemed NRCs under the NDEA Title VI, including Columbia's Weatherhead East Asian Institute (established in 1949, gained NRC status in 1960), the University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies (1961), and the University of Washington East Asia Center (1964).23

The transition from university and government moneys to grant funding began around this time, and continued for a limited while in the following years. The period between 1957 and 1965 also marked the emergence of Robert Scalapino as a significant figure on campus. During this time, students and city community members hotly contested his support of Vietnam War, and national politics thrust him into the spotlight.24

But even so, Scalapino's crucial role in UC Berkeley's East Asian studies research remained sure. As stated before, Scalapino's guidance of the journal Asian Survey allowed it to become an important source of scholarship within the field. Furthermore, the journal's scope — all of East Asia — opened a vista to learning more about East Asian regionalism, a unit of analysis that became more popular in the next decade. Scalapino's involvement in Asian Survey, as well as his earlier involvement in the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, arguably prepared the way for the 1978 founding of the Institute of East Asian Studies.


New Funding Sources and the Establishment of the Institute of East Asian Studies, 1965-1978

In the 1960s through early 1970s, foundation grants had an instrumental role in the administration of international and area studies programs, and this role in funding was as important — if not more — than that of the government. Foundations' interest in area studies developed as early as 1952, when a Ford Foundation internal document noted the importance of American knowledge about Asia:

America's power to overcome Asian misunderstanding and to contribute to the shaping of events in these areas can only be in proportion to the extent of her knowledge of the characteristics of the region in which she operates, and the availability of competent, trained personnel to carry out her intentions there.25

In particular, tertiary institutions were to be the new nexus of area studies research, as opposed to former leading organizations like the Institute of Pacific Relations. A Rockefeller Foundation memorandum emphasized the need to sub-contract projects specifically to universities, and Ford had set aside $270 million between 1953 and 1966 to universities and research centers for the purpose of specialist training.26

Those who mapped early American historiography of China studies in the 19th and early 20th century were mostly missionaries or diplomats. But the American impulse to seek and save China in a mission civilisatrice remained deeply embedded in the later aims of foundations and their contemporaneous U.S. administrations. The so-called "gospel of wealth" advocated by Andrew Carnegie was a philosophy that called for the wealthy to distribute their money to responsible causes.27 Philanthropic foundations, together with government initiatives, thus had a large aggregate influence. This twin influence of private money and political power expressed itself as the new mission civilisatrice in funding proposals. The 1952 Ford document mentioned above, for example, expressed that highly trained specialists could "prove to be the key to the [problems] of Asia and its relation to world peace."28

However, funding from the government and private foundations ran aground by the middle of the 1970s. The Nixon Administration reduced the budgeted Title VI sum of $13,940,000 to $1,000,000.29 After the Vietnam War ended in 1975, the new wave of research — i.e., the study of peacetime maintenance, instead of strategic security policy — was no longer a funding interest for the Department of Defense.30 Ford and Mellon, too, redirected their vision and withdrew funding from area studies research.31 This drying up of money was both correlation and cause of the following decline in Chinese studies. For example, there were fewer university tenure track positions available, graduate student enrollment dropped, and the number of scholarly conferences declined.32 The future of American scholarship of Asia was in peril.

This did not go unnoticed by Robert Scalapino, who noted three alarming trends on campus. First, he mentioned his concern with the aforementioned funding cuts. Second, he attributed the lack of a UC Berkeley East Asian research institute like those at Harvard, Columbia, University of Washington, and University of Michigan, as a major shortcoming, because, he argued, Berkeley faculty could not compete for funds without an institute of comparable stature.33 The third trend is closely linked with the second. That is, the tide in area studies had shifted from analyses of individual countries to regions. East Asia — not just China, Japan, or Korea — was the popular unit of analysis for researchers, something Scalapino in his position as editor of Asian Survey undoubtedly understood and accepted.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the study of "Red China" was the major scholarly concern of its day. But in the 1970s, after the Vietnam War, the new interest broadened to the "Pacific Rim."34 New economic inroads between countries and global market considerations also spurred the rise of the "East Asia regionalism" turn in area studies within the 1970s. For example, scholars focused on the renewed and reinvigorated international relations of the People's Republic of China, which had just become a member of the United Nations, improved its relations with South Korea, and begun to thaw relations with the Republic of China.35 In other words, researchers became interested in the connections between nodes, and not just the nodes themselves. The regionalism trend was not foreign to other area studies disciplines, either. Southeast Asian regionalism, for one, became an accepted concept, especially after the multi-country economic forum Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) began in 1968. Studies of Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe are other examples in which "regionalism" as an analytical unit was also adopted.

When funding issues emerged, and researchers began following this new trend, Scalapino made a strong case for the Institution's creation. These factors aside, there were also bureaucratic considerations to coordinate between the Centers for Chinese and Japanese Studies, both of which had been operating autonomously from the Institute of International Studies since 1970, and which Scalapino wished to streamline under one umbrella organization.36

From the beginning, the goals of the Institute of East Asian Studies were, in many ways, quite similar to that of its predecessor, the Institute of East Asiatic Studies. The former Institute's objectives were to ensure (1) the coordination of administrative functions in connection with East Asian research, (2) the growth of intellectual interaction among the faculty and students involved in research in the East Asian field, (3) an expanded attention to library and other resources critical to general research or East Asia, (4) the channeling of research into our teaching and training program, and (5) the pooling of human and material resources.37 However, in contrast with the short-lived Institute of East Asiatic Studies, the new IEAS planned to hold expanded conferences and lectures, as well as increase publication output.38 These two added goals were pivotal in shaping the future of the Institute of East Asian Studies.

Within its first two years of operation, IEAS held international policy conferences, including the Symposium on U.S.-Japan Economic Relations and the American-Soviet Conference on Inter-State Relations, Mutual Security, and Political Developments in Asia.39 In comparison to its predecessor, IEAS made stronger connections with political circles. Through the 1980s, it held Track Two conferences, or informal policy meetings between officials and academics.40 This created a critical connection to Washington and international political leaders. Scalapino, too, was a very successful fundraiser. According to budget materials, over $3 million in endowment funds were raised between 1974 and 1978.41 The largest sum came from the Government of Japan, which donated $1 million in 1974. The Mellon Foundation, Haas Endowment, National Endowment for the Humanities Challenge Grant, and Bank of America Foundation were second in terms of donation; each gave $300,000 to the Institute. Publications were numerous and wide-ranging, mostly dealing with topics in History or Political Science.42

By the early 1980s, funding sources and strategies developed further: at this time, donors are philanthropic foundations (e.g., Sarah Scaife Foundation), individuals (e.g., Agnes J. Porter fund), or companies (e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company43). Oftentimes, the reasons for their donation may not be openly stated within their individual dossiers. In such cases, the background for the decision is either an unknown, or else perhaps simply a choice to allocate money to a reasonable donation request. Other times, however, the rationale is clearer. For example, IBM was approached with the proposal to help fund "a major study of Japanese productivity gains in the past three decades and their relationship to Japanese labor-management relations."44 The Mobil Oil Corporation donated $7000 to help underwrite the May 1983 Institute of East Asian Studies and Center for Strategic International Studies conference on "Economic Development Political Stability; Alternate Scenarios for the 1980's."45 In short, by the 1980s, the relationship between the Institute and corporations comes into sharper focus.



A Note on Sources

This project relied heavily — in the words of Ronald Suleski, author of a Fairbank Center history — on following the "paper trail" and the "people trail." In regards to physical documentation, archival information can be found both at the Institute of East Asian Studies itself and the Bancroft Library. The Institute's holdings begin with the 1970s; any references in this paper to information predating that period relied exclusively on materials in the Bancroft Library.

In terms of materials relevant to this project, the Institute's archives can be separated into three broad categories: (1) the application materials for the Institute of East Asian Studies to become a campus Organized Research Unit, (2) budget, space, and personal correspondence documents which include donor dossiers, and (3) annual reports, Director's newsletters, and other related campus publications.46

Valuable Bancroft holdings include (1) the announcement, bulletins, annual reports, and administrative correspondences of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, (2) the personal papers of Woodbridge Bingham and Frederic Wakeman, the Director of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, and the former 1972-1979 CCS Director and 1990-2006 IEAS Director, respectively, and (3) oral transcripts of John Service and Delmer Brown, both of whom were involved in the operation of the Centers for Chinese and Japanese Studies. While the first set of holdings clarify the administrative mechanics of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, the second and third offer personal remembrances and insights that would not be included in the administrative record. Researchers should be aware of a lengthy process in obtaining access to Bingham's and Wakeman's papers. Interested researchers will need to fill out in-person applications, and approval may take up to three weeks.

As the Institute is relatively young, some former employees and administrators live in the area, and even continue to work there. This particular research paper is primarily indebted to the staff at IEAS, including Martin Backstrom, Cathy Lenfestey, Elinor Levine, and Jerry Swanson. Former IEAS staff members, including Jane Kaneko, Professor Emeritus Joyce Kallgren, Anthony Namkung, and Joan Kask were also helpful and gracious with their time. Faculty and emeriti professors including Lynn White, Bonnie Wade, and James Cahill lent an understanding of the campus environment during the 1960s and 1970s. Future research may wish to look to scholars involved in the years overlapping with the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, namely Cyril Birch and John Jamieson of the Oriental Languages Department. Their collective knowledge, along with the Bingham and Wakeman materials, fills in the personal side of the Institute's history.

———————————————————————

Notes

1 Institute of East Asian Studies 1979-1980 Annual Report, pp. ii-ff.
2 A good resource on the background of the Fairbank Center of Chinese Studies, first established in 1955 as the Center for East Asian Research, is by Ron Suleski, The Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University: a Fifty Year History, 1955-2005 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005).
3 Robert Scalapino, From Leavenworth to Lhasa: Living in a Revolutionary Era (IEAS Special Publication, 2008), p. 55.
4 Announcement of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, 1950-1951 (University of California).
5 T.N. Bisson, J. Cahill, A.C. Helmholz, J.M. Smith, F.E. Wakeman, "1986, University of California: In Memoriam [of Woodbridge Bingham, History: Berkeley]."
6 This department is now known as East Asian Languages and Cultures.
7 Announcement of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies, 1950-1951 (University of California).
8 Delmer M. Brown, with an introduction by Irwin Scheiner, interviews conducted by Ann Lage in 1995, "Professor of Japanese history, University of California, Berkeley, 1946-1977: oral history transcript" (Regional Oral History Office, the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2000).
9 The exact date lies between August 10, 1955 and December 13, 1955, judging from Annual Report title heads.
10 Issued by Institute of East Asiatic Studies, v.1-6, no.1; by Institute of International Studies, East Asiatic Studies, v.6, no.2-v.7; "Bulletin" (Dec 1950-June 1957).
11 To illustrate the thoroughness of its disappearance, top administrators involved in the early years of the current Institute of East Asian Studies seemed not to be aware of its antecedent. Moreover, 1970s application materials for the Institute of East Asian Studies to become a campus Organized Research Unit do not mention its existence. However, there is some institutional overlap; Professor Robert A. Scalapino, founder of the 1978 IEAS, was also an advisory board member of the Institute of East Asiatic Studies in the 1950s.
12 This is according to the first chairman of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China. See Peter J. Seybolt, "China Studies in Crisis," Change (June 1973), pp. 18-21.
13 National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864; 72 Stat. 1580).
14 Institute of East Asiatic Studies, Annual Report (June 1955).
15 "CCS History," (Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley: Center for Chinese Studies).
16 John S. Service, tape-recorded interview conducted in 1977-1978 by Rosemary Levenson, "State Department duty in China, the McCarthy Era, and after, 1933-1977: oral history transcript" (Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1981).
17 To exemplify this, Service notes that CCS was headquartered on the periphery of campus, as the university would not grant central space. There was, however, a silver lining: though geographically somewhat disconnected, the circumstances increased collegiality and togetherness among those associated with the Center.
18 William L. Holland, Remembering the Institute of Pacific Relations (1995).
19 Peter J. Seybolt, "China Studies in Crisis," Change (June 1973).
20 See John N. Thomas, The Institute of Pacific Relations: Asian scholars and American politics (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1974).
21 Scalapino, From Leavenworth to Lhasa: Living in a Revolutionary Era (IEAS Special Publication, 2008), p. 55.
22 Interview with Tony Namkung, former Assistant Director of IEAS (9 December 2011). See also "Berkeley East Asia National Resource Center".
23 "About Weatherhead East Asian Institute" (Weatherhead East Asian Institute), "About Us" (University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies), "Welcome to the East Asia Center" (University of Washington East Asia Center).
24 Anecdotally, some interviewees referred to the Vietnam War-related campus hostility as a reason for some of the resistance surrounding the 1978 IEAS development.
25 Carl Spaeth, "Program for Asia and the Near East," 1952, p. 27. Ford Foundation International Training and Research Paper, Board of Overseas Training and Research: file, Establishment of Board of Overseas Training and Research, 1952.
26 Bruce Cumings, "Area and International Studies in the Early Cold War," Asia, Asian Studies, and the National Security State: A Symposium, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars (Vol. 29, No. 1: January–March 1997); Edward H. Berman, The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and the Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press), pp. 101-102.
27 Andrew Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth, And Other Timely Essays (The Century Co., 1901).
28 Spaeth.
29 Seybolt, p. 18.
30 Richard D. Lambert, "DoD, Social Science, and International Studies," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 502, Universities and the Military (March 1989), pp. 94-107.
31 Cumings, p. 27.
32 Harry Harding, "The Evolution of American Scholarship on Contemporary China" in David Shambaugh, American Studies of Contemporary China (East Gate, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 1993), p. 27.
33 Formal application to establish the Institute of East Asian Studies as an Organized Research Unit (July 5, 1977).
34 Cumings, p. 8.
35 Mark Selden, "East Asian Regionalism and its Enemies in Three Epochs: Political Economy and Geopolitics, 16th to 21st Centuries," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 9-4-09, February 25, 2009.
36 Robert Scalapino, letter to Dean Sanford S. Elberg of the Graduate Division (March 8, 1977).
37 Formal Application.
38 Ibid.
39 Institute of East Asian Studies, 1979-1980 Annual Report. This is the earliest extant Annual Report.
40 Interview with Tony Namkung, former Assistant Director of IEAS (9 December 2011).
41 This does not include term grants or individual research grants.
42 Annual Report, 1979-1980.
43 According to a personal remembrance of an IEAS administrator, R.J. Reynolds had run into bad public relations in the wake of a Surgeon General's report. It approached IEAS to discuss possible strategies for the Asian market.
44 Robert Scalapino, letter to IBM World Trade Manager (24 June 1981).
45 Mobil Oil Corporation, letter to Robert Scalapino (6 April 1983).
46 Here, I was greatly aided by Martin Backstrom at the Institute. His assistance was invaluable.