I am very happy to hold this workshop, inviting three overseas scholars active in the field of Asian studies. As organizer I would like to explain the issue of this workshop briefly.
　　　Since last year a study group called “The Potentials of Comparative Study” has been inaugurated with the purpose of “comparing regional phenomena in Asia from a fundamental standpoint,” taking up the three themes of ownership, contracts and markets. “Fundamental” might seem to imply that we have had in advance new hypotheses about the fundamentals characteristic of those regions, and. axes of comparison for them. Our intention is in fact the opposite: to discover common axes by comparing phenomena. Nor is our purpose the discovery itself of these axes, for we think that an operative concept that is better able to explain specific phenomena is enough. In sporting terms, this is like discovering the rules that underlie a game from the game's actual development, in order better to understand and enjoy it.
　　　This workshop is the fifth seminar of our group, and now we are halfway through a three-year program. We have already explained the prospectus of our group in the seminars and annual report, but today the panellists from abroad as well as Japanese participants may have questions about our issue: What shall come out of the comparison inside Asia; why did we choose such topics as ownership, contracts and markets; and finally, why an international workshop of comparative study in Japan?
　　　The first and second questions are closely connected in our perspective. The subjects we have chosen are all key concepts in the social sciences, and they have so far been regarded as basic to modern European society. You might think our attempt is to revise existing theory, or to propose a new theory of social sciences, paying attention to Asia. The answer is No.
　　　We chose these topics because they are fundamental problems when individual persons would act in the society of each region, China, Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, Africa and so on. What we are seeking is to discover the rules of the game, or society, from the actions of the individual players. This could be termed “methodological individualism.” The rules are of two types, local and universal. Also even a game conducted by the same rule can be expected to develop an individual character depending on differences in players and grounds. We have to ask what is a fair rule or a fair ground, when different teams in the world play against each other, just like the Olympic games.
　　　As for the third question, comparative study itself is neither new nor unique. Many journals, institutes, and associations have been founded for this purpose in the USA and Europe, although few in Japan. But Japan is in a good location for this comparative study, for the following two reasons. First, Japan itself had been, or is now becoming, more located at the mid-contact point between West and East, Euro-America and Asia, in terms of geographical and cultural location (maybe the same in Australia). The second reason relates to the organisation of Japanese scholarship. In Japan, most scholars and students belong to disciplinary divisions and also to associations organized according to geographical region. This double affiliation gives us a good comparative perspective. For example, in historical study, most departments of history in Japanese universities comprise specialists of three fields, Japanese history, Western history, and Oriental, or Asian, history. We are in a better position to know the research trends of each field than are scholars in Europe and the USA, where Asian history belongs to Oriental studies and is thus separated from the history of other regions.
　　　Due to the four seminars so far, we might have a common understanding about similarities and differences among the three regions, as I have sketched my personal picture of three regions concerning ownership, contracts and markets. Both pre-modern Chinese society and Islamic society possessed a common feature, in that they were what may be called “market societies” or “contract societies,” in the sense that individual private rights of ownership were traded freely by means of contracts. In contrast, the reports on Southeast Asia presented the view that private rights of ownership and the concept of contracts were foreign ideas (from either modern Europe or Islam). However, we have only a little evidence to support such assumptions, and no idea what caused such similarities and differences. This is the reason we invite scholars from abroad, with differing scholarly experience, to refresh our discussion.
　　　Here we would take note of the following point. Three problems are interrelated when generating social order of each region. Then we should not ask what was the reason of differences backwards, rather how the differences affected the features of social order formed in each region, in order to develop our discussion. Here you would ask what is Islamic in this seminar. We intentionally avoid to define it, rather taking an approach to assume Islam, or Islamic factor are “invisible ink” which can be read in circumstances outside, or in comparing these regions with the others having no Islamic factors.
　　　All three panellists had read our Seminar reports as written in English and sent us their papers beforehand. They have shown a deep understanding of how far we have come and are willing to address the important points and fill in any gaps in our discussion. Now we attend this meeting together, and among us there are a lot of differences, such as language, discipline, field, and gender, which might prevent common understandings. There is, however, no specialist of comparative study in the world, or rather, anybody can be one or can have the comparative perspectives to develop our specific study. I hope the three papers of the panelists, comments, and discussion today will bridge over individual points presented at the former seminars, for going farther toward our ambitious goal of comparative study.