Fiant fruges? Burma?s sui generis growth experience, Wylie Bradford; The State?s Incentive Structure In Burma?s Sugar Sector and Inflated Official Data: A Case Study of the Industry in Pegu Division, Alison Vicary; Some Further Developments in Burma?s Financial Sector, Sean Turnell; Sanctions and Burma: Revisiting the Case Against, Alfred Oehlers...In this issue of BEW we have four papers for your consideration: First is an article by Wylie Bradford which conducts an ‘external critique? of the economic data Burma supplies to the rest of the world. Often used uncritically by commentators on Burma, such data has been interrogated according to its internal contradictions before (by BEW, other writers, and even by some international agencies), but the purpose here is to examine how it fits cross-country experiences historically - the empirical realities that establish the ‘stylised facts? we can use to test the credibility of theory and data alike. Wylie finds that the only way Burma?s supplied data can be believed is that we simultaneously also believe ‘that Burma has discovered a hitherto unknown recipe for generating rapid growth…that a country with the characteristics of a growth disaster is in fact a growth titan?. Our second article, by Alison Vicary, likewise investigates problems in Burma?s official economic data, albeit with a tight focus upon the sugarcane growing and processing industry in Pegu Division. Alison?s comprehensive fieldwork paints a Kafkaesque picture ? of an industry in which distorted incentives creates layers of deception as each stage in the production hierarchy inflates cultivation and output numbers to meet arbitrary targets imposed by the state. She highlights the extraordinary case of Burma?s recent investments in new sugar mills, mills that unaccountably seem to have both increased the country?s sugar output and, yet, also its need for sugar imports. Finally, she observes that the spectre of indebtedness and landlessness once more stalks the land. The third piece, by Sean Turnell, continues the examination of the ramifications of Burma?s banking crisis of 2003, and other issues concerning Burma?s financial sector. Amongst the latter include Burma?s efforts to extricate itself from allegations that the country?s financial system is prey to money-laundering. These efforts have been conducted at a high diplomatic level and seem to have reached something of a crescendo as BEW went to press. Sean examines the shifting fortunes amongst Burma?s surviving private banks and, perhaps not surprisingly, finds a winner in the bank regarded as closest to officers in Burma?s military regime, serving and retired. That Burma?s financial system is still ill-functioning is highlighted by a quote from a real estate developer in Rangoon who, bemoaning low sales for up-market apartments, observed that ‘buyers have to pay in cash, so they have to carry the money in bags, which is not very convenient…?. Finally, but by no means least, we have Alfred Oehler?s article on economic sanctions and Burma. As noted at the start of this introduction, the question of sanctions has dominated the discourse on Burma and its economy in 2004. Much recent commentary has taken up what might be called an anti-sanctions position, but here Alfred presents the argument that Burma?s particular structural and institutional characteristics make sanctions a potent device in pressuring its military regime to undertake internal political reform. Alfred notes that many anti-sanctions campaigners unwittingly base their arguments on a particularly narrow interpretation of ‘neo-classical? economics which assumes, amongst many other things, that a country?s trade is (in the absence of sanctions) in a welfare-maximising, optimal equilibrium. He also highlights that much of the anti-sanctions literature is informed by a largely anecdotal understanding of Burma?s economy. A truer understanding, he argues, would identify the highly dualistic nature of Burma?s economy into formal and informal components. The former, dominated by Burma?s military regime and its allies, is most vulnerable to sanctions while the effects of sanctions on the informal economy (within which most people in Burma live) have been much exaggerated. Whatever your feelings on the sanctions question, Alfred?s article is a considered, thoughtful piece that deserves attention.