In Japan, for instance, industrial development from light industries to heavy industries has followed the pattern of flying wild geese development fairly clearly. Starting with the cotton industry, Japan now boasts of its strong steel and automobile industries. The same trend as this can be observed in the synthetic textile industry and the steel industry in other countries. (See Fig.1, Fig.2)

Originally the flying wild geese development theory assumes a process of gradual development of the domestic industry founded by local capital with the stimulation of import. However, the product cycle theory derived from the concept of Raymond Vernon imagines that an arrival of foreign capital in a country with advanced technology will trigger industrial development of the country. According to the Hitotsubashi group, industrial development in the form of flying wild geese by means of direct foreign investment or technology transfer can be considered, and it will surely be good for shortening time required for the development, but whenever a new product is put on the market, the whole process should be repeated.

The great difference between Vernon's theory and the flying wild geese development theory, they think, lies on whether industrialization of a country is carried out by local capital or it is carried out by foreign capital. Certainly there is the tendency that the whole process should be repeated from the very beginning as to each product in the case of a mere transplant of an industry. However, it may be safe to say that there are few reasons to differentiate one from another, considering that the purpose of local production has not been limited to the supply of raw materials or parts and intermediate products but expanded from the formation of capital and human resources to research and development, and that local capitalists, who were stimulated by foreign capital, have begun to show entrepreneurship.

The important point is that the Hitotsubashi group has taken a stance to apply the flying wild geese development theory to explain reciprocal influences among plural countries, not limiting it to use only for explaining a pattern of industrial development of a country. The United States, Japan, NIEs, and ASEAN member countries have followed such a process of industrial development as mentioned above through economic interdependence. The United States, in particular, has supported Japan's industrialization by offering its huge market, and Japan contributed to the American economy with export of capital and capital goods. No doubt the apparition of ADEs and the realization of the X Zone plan can be attributable to the flying wild geese development in the Asia-Pacific region.

### 2. Latin America and Southeast Asia

## I ndustrialization in Latin America

Many multinational corporations advanced into Latin American countries before World War II. According to R. Vernon, 56 out of 467 overseas manufacturing subsidiaries of U.S.-based multinational enterprises were in Latin America in 1929.(Table.1) The new technology-oriented product lines introduced in this region increased in the 1930s, and then from 1940 through 1950. Needless to say, the advance of multinational enterprises contributed to local industrialization. Vernon has said that local subsidiaries of American companies purchased a large part of total production elements from the domestic market as early as in 1957, mentioning the fact that their local purchases of raw materials and other production elements exceeded 50% of their sales.(Table.2) Such a high ratio of local procurement as this has