The city of Cupertino, California, is only about 15km from Stanford University, where I teach and live. It is home to the headquarters of Apple, a global leader in the computer and smartphone industries. It is also home to many Indian and Chinese engineers who are essential to Silicon Valley's technological innovation. One can easily find a variety of Asian restaurants and shops along the palm tree-lined streets -- an interesting Californian scene with a distinctly Asian flavor.

Many Asians -- businesspeople, officials and experts -- visit Silicon Valley hoping to unlock its secrets, to learn why it is such a hotbed of innovation. One known "secret" here, often overlooked by Asian visitors, is the importance of cultural diversity. More than half of the area's startups, including Intel, Yahoo, eBay and Google, were established by immigrants, and these companies owe much of their success to the contributions of Chinese and Indian engineers. Cultural diversity can be found throughout the schools, stores and streets, as well as the enterprises, there.

In Israel, too

The circumstances are quite similar in Israel, another economy known for technological innovation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Israel admitted about 850,000 immigrants. More than 40 percent of the new arrivals were college professors, scientists and engineers, many of whom had abundant experience in research and development. These people played a critical role in promoting economic development and scientific and technological innovation in Israel. Many languages besides Hebrew can be heard on the streets of Tel Aviv, one of the country's largest cities.

It is no accident that Silicon Valley and Israel have become global high-tech centers. They opened their doors to a wide range of talented immigrants. Above all, an atypical sociocultural ecosystem -- a culture that respects and promotes the value of diversity -- is alive in both places.

In the United States, diversity is a key criterion in college admissions and faculty recruitment. Although "affirmative action" has disappeared in many parts of the country, diversity has come to play a key role in American university policies. Most American colleges, including Stanford, have a "diversity office" to promote diversity among students, faculty and staff. At Stanford, white students constitute less than 40 percent of the student body, and almost a quarter of the faculty come from minority groups. Similarly, only five of the 16 staff members at our Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center are Caucasian, with the rest from ethnic and national minorities.

 The same can be said of leading American corporations, many of which have institutionalized "diversity management" to capitalize on the range of individual differences and talents to increase organizational effectiveness. Of course, basic knowledge and skills are prerequisites. But Americans seem to firmly believe that having a variety of backgrounds and experiences can help hatch new ideas and innovative technologies. Perhaps this is why they say that culture accounts for 90 percent of the innovation in products from Silicon Valley, with technology claiming only 10 percent.

The power of diversity

Scott E. Page, professor of complex systems, political science and economics at the University of Michigan, shows in his book "The Difference" how "the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies." In his view, collections of people with diverse perspectives and heuristics outperform collections of people who rely on homogeneous ones, and the key to optimizing efficiency in a group is diversity. In this work, Page pays particular attention to the importance of "identity diversity," that is, differences in race, ethnicity, gender, social status and the like.

To be sure, Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea are different from settler societies such as the U.S. With the influx of foreigners, however, even such ethnically homogeneous Asian societies are becoming multiethnic. In addition to unskilled labor and foreign brides, the number of overseas students and professors is rising at Japanese and South Korean universities, while Japanese and South Korean companies are actively hiring foreign professionals. Both countries are opening their doors to foreigners, though in limited numbers, and have made multiculturalism a key policy objective.

Still, they fall far short of recognizing the value of diversity. While Japanese and South Korean institutes of higher learning have been trying to attract more foreign students, they have been doing so mainly to make up for the declining student population at home and because university ranking agencies use the ratio of foreign students and professors as a key yardstick for measuring internationalization. The approaches of these two countries to multiculturalism are also largely focused on assimilating foreigners into their own cultures and systems. People from abroad are seldom accepted as "permanent" members of their societies or regarded as valuable assets. Japan and South Korea may have become multiethnic, but they are not multicultural.

One of the biggest challenges facing foreign residents in Japan and South Korea is the lack of understanding of their religious and cultural beliefs. Indian engineers working in South Korea complain of the poor acceptance of Indians by the local population, and of an especially poor understanding of their religion and culture. Foreign professors teaching at Japanese universities tell me they live as "foreigners," never accepted into the "inner" circles. It is unlikely that these talented people would like to work long term for universities and enterprises that are unable to embrace differences in skin color and culture. Under these circumstances, even if some foreign professionals happen to be hired, they may not be able to realize the full potential of their abilities, let alone bring about innovation.

All these people with different ethnic and national backgrounds should no longer be regarded simply as "temporary" residents to fill particular needs. Rather, by promoting the cultural diversity of Japanese and South Korean society, they should be viewed as important assets and potential sources of innovation. It is an urgent but difficult task to institutionalize the value of diversity in societies long accustomed to the notion of a single-race nation.

Born on campuses

A country's global competitiveness can hardly be improved if its society is reluctant to respect differences and understand other groups. Universities, in particular, should help their students experience diversity through the regular curriculum and extracurricular activities. Foreign students can serve as excellent resources for promoting diversity. Universities are ideal settings for various groups of students to meet, generate new ideas and interact with one another. It is no accident that many of the innovative ideas associated with Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and Facebook were all born on American university campuses, where diversity is embraced.

Empirical research should be carried out to examine how cultural diversity can bring about technological innovation in Japanese and South Korean society. Based on such studies, governments and private enterprises should take into account diversity in personnel hiring, training, management and evaluation. These same institutions should also systematically work to create and support an organizational culture that values diversity.

Could those Indian and Chinese engineers working in Silicon Valley have brought about the same kind of technological innovation if they had remained in their own countries? Could they accomplish the same feat in Japan and South Korea? How can Asian countries create the kind of ecosystem necessary for promoting a flexible culture of accommodating a broad spectrum of talents? We first need to reflect deeply on these questions before trying to emulate the success of Silicon Valley.

Shin recently coauthored the paper, "Embracing Diversity in Higher Education: Comparing Discourses in the U.S., Europe, and Asia" with Yonsei University Professor Rennie J. Moon. It is one outcome of their research project, Diversity and Tolerance in Korea and Asia. This Nikkei Asian Review article was originally carried on Nov. 20 and reposted with permission.

Since Kim Jong Il’s death on Dec. 17, North Korea has a young new leader: Kim’s 28-year-old son Kim Jong Un. What does the new leadership hold in store for the future of the Korean Peninsula, U.S.-Korea relations, and the stability of Northeast Asia? David Straub, who attended the seventh U.S.-Korea West Coast Strategic Forum in Seoul just days before Kim’s death, shares highlights from the Forum and offers insight into the current North Korea situation.

Straub is associate director of the Korean Studies Program at Stanford University and a retired senior U.S. foreign service official with over 30 years of Northeast Asia experience.

The U.S.-Korea West Coast Strategic Forum is held semi-annually, alternating between Stanford and the Sejong Institute in Seoul.

The West Coast Forum opened with a discussion about the current situation in North Korea. After Kim Jong Il’s death, how much do you think that picture will change?

Most Forum experts believe there will be relative stability in North Korea for some time to come.

The reason Kim Jong Il chose Kim Jong Un as his successor is because he is the least controversial person in North Korea to succeed him. Anyone else would be the object of great suspicion and jealousy within the elite there.

North Korea has already had one succession—from founder Kim Il Sung to his son Kim Jong Il—and that went smoothly. The succession from Kim Jong Il to his youngest son Kim Jong Un is natural within that context—it is a dynastic succession. As with other dynastic successions, the easiest person to accept is normally someone who represents a continuation of the person in power.

Do you foresee possible areas for improvement in relations between North and South Korea or for negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program?

Apr. 15 is the 100th anniversary of Kim Il Sung’s birth, which is going to be a large celebration. North Korea probably will want to commemorate it without a lot of distractions. The North Korean leadership also wants to provide more food and supplies to its people, and provocations toward South Korea would make it harder to get international aid. 

A number of Forum experts are concerned that North Korea might conduct another nuclear or long-range missile test this year. Most tests so far have not been fully successful, so from a military and technology perspective they probably want to try again. North Korea has been slapped with international trade sanctions for its previous tests, but China has always stepped in to help. Sanctions will probably not deter the North Koreans from conducting future tests.

As far as inter-Korean relations are concerned, it is unlikely that North Korea will take any major new initiatives toward the South. The leadership does not like conservative South Korean President Lee Myung-bak because he came into office saying that he would not continue giving large-scale aid to North Korea until it abandoned its nuclear weapons program. That was contrary to the Sunshine Policy of his two progressive predecessors.

President Lee’s term is almost up, and South Korea will hold a hold a presidential election on Dec. 19 this year. North Korea probably hopes that the progressives will win the election and restore the Sunshine Policy.

Will North Korea be a major issue for debate in South Korea’s upcoming 2012 presidential election?

Current polling shows that North Korea is the top concern of only 8 percent of the South Korean electorate. As in the past, the main issues for voters there are the economy, their standard of living, and social welfare issues. North Korea will not be the top issue unless something very dramatic happens between now and the election. On the other hand, if the race is close, feelings about North Korea policy could help to decide the outcome.

Among South Korean citizens, is there more fear or hope—or maybe a mixture of both—about North Korea’s new leadership?

Recent opinion polls show that 80 percent of South Koreans feel that North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons. There is not much reason for optimism. That being said, most South Koreans are concerned about North Korea’s 2010 attack of Yeonpyeong Island and hope for improved relations. And, of course, Kim Jong Un is a different leader and most South Koreans hope he will move in a more positive direction. But they feel it is unlikely to happen in the next few years—if ever.

Does uncertainty over the future of North Korea have the potential to impact or strengthen any aspects of the U.S.-South Korea alliance?

This year, the U.S. and South Korean administrations will likely focus on managing the North Korean situation and continue to prioritize the U.S.-South Korea alliance. The two countries closely cooperate on North Korea policy.

The real question for the alliance in terms of North Korea policy will be who is elected as president in both countries. If a progressive South Korean candidate wins, that person will probably pursue some variation of the Sunshine Policy. Especially if a Republican is elected in the United States, we may see echoes of the difficult U.S.-South Korea relationship we had during the George W. Bush administration.

If President Obama is re-elected, another South Korean Sunshine Policy would also pose challenges. The administration has taken a very firm position that the United States will not significantly improve relations with North Korea until it gives up its nuclear weapons program. South Korea’s Sunshine Policy focuses on embracing North Korea in the hope that relations will improve over time and that North Korea will eventually voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons in that long-term context. 

China, the country in Northeast Asia with the most influence over North Korea, recently issued a statement in support of Kim Jong Un. Does this signify any major change in relations between these two countries?

The Chinese government has particular interest in North Korea. China is focused on developing its own economy, including the relatively poor northeastern area that borders North Korea. The last thing China wants is instability on the Korean Peninsula, which would detract from its economic development.

China does not believe it can force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons without risking instability. In the absence of progress in the Six Party negotiations over North Korea’s nuclear program, China has unilaterally increased economic and diplomatic support for North Korea. Its support is independent of who serves as the North Korean leader.

China tried very hard to get Kim Jong Il to open up the North Korean economy more, but did not succeed, primarily because Kim feared that doing so would also allow in more outside information and undermine his regime. China probably hopes that the younger Kim Jong Un may eventually have not only the power but also the desire to reform the economy.