Economic Affairs
-

One of the most important scholarly issues in political economy during the last decade has been economic globalization.

A powerful case for the penetrating power of globalization on the nation states was the Asian financial crisis in 1997, which drove South Korea, once an exemplary success case of state-led economic development, to the brink of national bankruptcy.

The economic crisis and the following structural reform process of South Korea seem to clearly demonstrate the limit of state-centric developmental model and the converging effect of neoliberal capitalism even on a nonliberal state-led economy.

While recent scholarly discussions on the "globalization and the state" thesis have mostly focused on changes in the non-state actors or the state-market relationship, Ms. Jung draws our attention to the transformation of the state bureaucratic institutions.

In her talk, she uses South Korea as a critical case and traces the dramatic institutional changes of the Economic Planning Board (EPB) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) between 1994 and 1999. Ms. Jung unpacks the black box of why and how specific decisions on key bureaucratic institutional changes were made in Korea, tests how globalization affected the transformation process, and then analyzes the consequences of such changes for the role and authority of the South Korean state in economic development and reform.

Buffet lunch will be provided to those who RSVP to Jasmin Ha at jaha@stanford.edu by Tuesday, April 12.

Philippines Conference Room

Joo-Youn Jung PhD Candidate Stanford University
Seminars
-

The panelists will discuss the history and future of India-Pakistan relations, focusing on the most persistent conflict between the two neighboring countries, Kashmir. Since 1947 both countries have defied numerous international attempts at resolution and in 1998 entered its most dangerous phase when both India and Pakistan became nuclear powers.

Rafiq Dossani, senior research scholar at Shorenstein APARC, is responsible for developing and directing the South Asia Initiative. Dossani earlier worked for the Robert Fleming Investment Banking group, first as CEO of its India operations and later as head of its San Francisco operations. He has also been the Chairman and CEO of a stockbroking firm on the OTCEI exchange in India, the Deputy Editor of Business India Weekly, and a professor of finance at Pennsylvania State University. His most recent book is Telecommunications Reform in India, published in spring 2002 by Greenwood Press.

Dossani holds a B.A. in economics from St. Stephen's College, New Delhi, India; an M.B.A. from the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, India; and a Ph.D. in finance from Northwestern University. He is currently undertaking projects on business process outsourcing (with the support of the Sloan Foundation), innovation and entrepreneurship in information technology in India, the institutional phasing-in of power-sector reform in Andhra Pradesh, and security in the Indian subcontinent.

Henry S. Rowen, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, is Professor Emeritus of Public Policy and Management at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and a member of Stanford's Asia/Pacific Research Center. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the U.S. Department of Defense from 1989 to 1991. He was also Chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 1981 to 1983. Rowen served as President of the RAND Corporation from 1967 to 1972 and was assistant director, U.S. Bureau of the Budget, from 1965 to 1966. He is a member of the Defense Department's Policy Board.

Rowen is an expert on international security, economic development, Asian economics and politics, as well as U.S. institutions and economic performance. His current research focuses on economic growth prospects for the developing world, political and economic change in East Asia, and the tenets of federalism.

This is the first lecture in ICC's CURRENT AFFAIRS series presented in collaboration with Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley.

India Community Center
555 Los Coches Street
Milpitas CA 95035

No longer in residence.

0
R_Dossani_headshot.jpg PhD

Rafiq Dossani was a senior research scholar at Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) and erstwhile director of the Stanford Center for South Asia. His research interests include South Asian security, government, higher education, technology, and business.  

Dossani’s most recent book is Knowledge Perspectives of New Product Development, co-edited with D. Assimakopoulos and E. Carayannis, published in 2011 by Springer. His earlier books include Does South Asia Exist?, published in 2010 by Shorenstein APARC; India Arriving, published in 2007 by AMACOM Books/American Management Association (reprinted in India in 2008 by McGraw-Hill, and in China in 2009 by Oriental Publishing House); Prospects for Peace in South Asia, co-edited with Henry Rowen, published in 2005 by Stanford University Press; and Telecommunications Reform in India, published in 2002 by Greenwood Press. One book is under preparation: Higher Education in the BRIC Countries, co-authored with Martin Carnoy and others, to be published in 2012.

Dossani currently chairs FOCUS USA, a non-profit organization that supports emergency relief in the developing world. Between 2004 and 2010, he was a trustee of Hidden Villa, a non-profit educational organization in the Bay Area. He also serves on the board of the Industry Studies Association, and is chair of the Industry Studies Association Annual Conference for 2010–12.

Earlier, Dossani worked for the Robert Fleming Investment Banking group, first as CEO of its India operations and later as head of its San Francisco operations. He also previously served as the chairman and CEO of a stockbroking firm on the OTCEI stock exchange in India, as the deputy editor of Business India Weekly, and as a professor of finance at Pennsylvania State University.

Dossani holds a BA in economics from St. Stephen's College, New Delhi, India; an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, India; and a PhD in finance from Northwestern University.

Senior Research Scholar
Executive Director, South Asia Initiative
Rafiq Dossani
0
FSI Senior Fellow Emeritus and Director-Emeritus, Shorenstein APARC
H_Rowen_headshot.jpg

Henry S. Rowen was a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a professor of public policy and management emeritus at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and a senior fellow emeritus of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC). Rowen was an expert on international security, economic development, and high tech industries in the United States and Asia. His most current research focused on the rise of Asia in high technologies.

In 2004 and 2005, Rowen served on the Presidential Commission on the Intelligence of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. From 2001 to 2004, he served on the Secretary of Defense Policy Advisory Board. Rowen was assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs in the U.S. Department of Defense from 1989 to 1991. He was also chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 1981 to 1983. Rowen served as president of the RAND Corporation from 1967 to 1972, and was assistant director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget from 1965 to 1966.

Rowen most recently co-edited Greater China's Quest for Innovation (Shorenstein APARC, 2008). He also co-edited Making IT: The Rise of Asia in High Tech (Stanford University Press, 2006) and The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2000). Rowen's other books include Prospects for Peace in South Asia (edited with Rafiq Dossani) and Behind East Asian Growth: The Political and Social Foundations of Prosperity (1998). Among his articles are "The Short March: China's Road to Democracy," in National Interest (1996); "Inchon in the Desert: My Rejected Plan," in National Interest (1995); and "The Tide underneath the 'Third Wave,'" in Journal of Democracy (1995).

Born in Boston in 1925, Rowen earned a bachelors degree in industrial management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1949 and a masters in economics from Oxford University in 1955.

Faculty Co-director Emeritus, SPRIE
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Henry S. Rowen
Lectures
Authors
Rafiq Dossani
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
Y2K was shorthand for the potentially disastrous failure of computer systems at the turn of the millennium. The problem: Many old software systems might read "00" as 1900--not 2000--a glitch that could lead to a cascade of errors and malfunctions. Year two thousand came, and nothing happened--well, not much anyway. A credit card mistake here. A satellite blackout there. But no lives lost. No global economic catastrophe. Monday, January 3 was just another workday. Yet with the benefit of hindsight the economic impact of Y2K on America was far greater than the $100 billion-plus government and business spent on fixing the computer glitch. Chris Farrell reports.

Chris Farrell: Remember the dot-com boom of the 1990s? It seemed as if every entrepreneur with a good idea and a PC could challenge established companies for customers. Brick-and-mortar companies jumped on the e-commerce bandwagon. The demand for digital workers soared. Long-time computer professionals hopped from job to job, pulling down more money with every employer. Newly minted college graduates juggled multiple job offers. But when the Y2K problem emerged in the latter part of the '90s business and government quickly realized there still weren't enough IT workers on hand to find and repair the computer glitch. The quick fix? Hire computer professionals overseas. And that temporary solution permanently changed the global economy.

Paul Saffo: Y2K was huge in getting the ball rolling on offshoring.

Farrell: Paul Saffo is director of the Institute for the Future, a high-tech think tank in Silicon Valley.

Saffo: But once they went overseas, they discovered it's not just a matter of cost. These programmers overseas are often better than the best you can get in the United States.

Farrell: Ireland, the Philippines, and Israel were among the more popular destinations for offshoring Y2K programming fixes. But India became the offshore capital. It had plenty of high-tech companies staffed with well-educated English speaking digital workers. Thanks to India's steep import barriers in the 1980s, no one could afford new computer systems. So Indian tech workers were the world's leading experts in the older software languages that needed upgrading. Suhas Patil is chairman emeritus of semiconductor maker Cirrus Logic.

Suhas Patil: And they were listening to their customers and what their needs were, and as the recognition came that systems had to be upgraded to not have the problem based on the Y2K issues, that's how they got their break.

Farrell: And made the most of the opportunity. AnnaLee Saxenian is Dean of the School of Information Management and Systems at the University of California, Berkeley.

AnnaLee Saxenian: I think the importance of Y2K was overwhelmingly about establishing Indian companies' reputation among US customers and helping begin a set of customer supplier relationships that have simply taken off in the last four years.

Farrell: Of course, Y2K contracts ended in 2000. Yet many Indian companies took advantage of their now sterling programming reputations to negotiate for more sophisticated work. Research. Software development. Accounting services. Long-distance medical advice. Rafiq Dossani is a senior research scholar at Stanford University.

Rafiq Dossani: India is now growing at 70-80 per cent a year in offshored services ... services which are maintaining an accounting system, maintaining an HR system, doing claims processing, that's growing easily at 70 per cent, maybe even higher.

Farrell: Offshore also came onshore during Y2K. The town of Mountain View lies at the heart of California's Silicon Valley. Housed in one of the many nondescript low-rise office buildings that crowd the region's business avenues is the Indus Entrepreneur, or TIE. It is a networking base for the Indian high-tech Diaspora.

Shankar Muniyappa: Y2K was a big opening as early as 98.

Farrell: Shankar Muniyappa is director of information systems for TIE. He came to America for Y2K-and stayed.

Muniyappa: Myself and many of us believe still believe this is the place where you need to be if you want to be middle of innovation.

Farrell: Some 30,000 Indian IT professionals now live and work in the Valley. Rafiq Dossani of Stanford University:

Dossani: At least 25 per cent of the start ups have Indian employees at fairly senior levels working for them. And ... there's a whole infrastructure therefore being built around them because it's a substantial number now, so you see shopping malls you see business services and so on catering to this particular immigrant community.

Farrell: That community is adding vitality to the American economy. Still, many American high-tech workers are threatened by the offshoring of white collar jobs. The numbers are murky, but according to Mark Zandi of Economy.com 370,000 non-manufacturing jobs moved overseas over the past fours years-with most of the information technology jobs going to India. Salaries are down too. Still, the big factor behind the loss of 1.5 million jobs lost since Y2K is improved business efficiency or productivity - not offshoring. And Y2K also played an important role in boosting business efficiency.

Economists initially looked at Y2K as a productivity killer.

Imagine a town threatened by a rising river. Every able-bodied person in town is put to work stacking sandbags. It's necessary work to save the town - but it's unproductive work. Nothing gets built. No food gets grown.

With the Y2K bug, programmers, chief information officers, project managers, and other digital workers were getting paid to do unproductive work - stacking sandbags of silicon. No innovative investments. No new productivity enhancing software.

But economists were wrong. Y2K wasn't a flood. Instead, think of it as clearing a path choked with underbrush. Once the trail is open, it is much easier to zip from point A to point B. Y2K gave companies an excuse to clean up their software and hardware underbrush - a critical factor in today's improved business productivity. Paul Saffo:

Saffo: A lot of companies said well, gosh, if we're going to have to spend all this money to fix our software let's also see what else we can do at the same time, so it was an invitation to replace a whole bunch of stuff. ... So it forced people to ask hard questions about how they were using things and in the best instances people really did become more efficient.

Farrell: The result? Companies used the new systems they installed to cut costs and work smarter - and hire fewer workers.

[Voice of Leonard Nimoy: "Do you have hard copies of all your important documents ... such as bank statements."]

That's Leonard Nimoy, Mr. Spock from Star Trek. He's narrating the Y2K Family Survival Guide video - one of thousands of products peddled by prophets of doom. Y2K did bring home how reliant we all are on computers. Many of us still don't back up critical data at home. The same isn't true for business and government. Many learned from Y2K just how vulnerable information systems are to a malicious attack or unforeseen disaster. Case in point: Y2K actually helped some businesses survive 9/11.

[News broadcast of President George W. Bush: "I've directed the full resources of intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice."]

The attack on the World Trade Center stopped trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Against the odds, that citadel of capitalism opened six days later.

John Koskinen: The reason the markets, securities markets, were able to open the Monday after the Tuesday of 9-11 was they still had the test scripts that had been developed in 1998 and 99.

Farrell: John Koskinen credits preparations for Y2K. He was President Clinton's Y2K czar.

Koskinen: ... they were able to in effect take all of those Y2K scripts and make sure that all the transactions with all of the major players would close. Without that they never would have been able to do it in the time frame with the confidence they had.

Farrell: A record 2.4 billion shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange the day it reopened.

Y2K was a unique economic event. Earlier jolts to the economy, like the 1973 oil price hike and the 2001 attack of 9/11, were shocks. But the Year 2000 arrived right on schedule. The surprise was how little immediate impact the much-feared transition had on the economy. Yet we're still living and working with the economic impact of Y2K five years later.

For Marketplace and American RadioWorks, I'm Chris Farrell.

All News button
1

The Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) at the Stanford Institute for International Studies is hosting a conference on North Korea.

With the distraction of the U.S. Presidential election behind us and uncertainty over the direction of a second Bush Administration before us, this conference will attempt to take stock of what is happening in North Korea as of 2005 and to get a snapshot of how the United States, South Korea and other interested parties now view this particularly enigmatic and problematic country.

For this conference, we will bring together specialists in security, economics, politics and human rights to encourage a broad-based inquiry as well as facilitate a sharing of ideas among those who may not normally come into contact.

Bechtel Conference Center

Conferences

This two-day research workshop at Stanford University aims to bring together experts to explore the nature of the connections between universities/research institutes and industry in the United States , Taiwan , and Mainland China . Within this national and international context, the workshop will focus on several leading cases, including Stanford University , Tsinghua University in Beijing , and the Industrial Technology Research Institute in Hsinchu Science-based Park. The workshop will facilitate exchange of data and ideas among leading scholars and practitioners from several disciplines, institutions, and countries. Workshop proceedings will be published and distributed by SPRIE as part of its Greater China Networks program.

In recent years, the rise of the Knowledge Economy has underscored the essential role technological innovation has played in economic development. As key institutions in the innovation process, universities and public research institutes have become the center of many theoretical and empirical studies, most of which have focused on the various roles of academia in national innovation systems and their linkages with industry in fulfilling these roles.

Okimoto Conference Room

Symposiums
Authors
Michael H. Armacost
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
What might we expect of the Bush administration in its second term? APARC's Michael Armacost considers the road ahead.

President Bush has claimed a renewed mandate, and has begun to reshuffle his national security team. Condi Rice will move to State; Steve Hadley will move up at the NSC. Rich Armitage and Jim Kelly, who have borne much of the day-to-day responsibility for U.S. policy in Asia, are leaving along with Colin Powell. What might we expect of the Bush administration in its second term?

Generally speaking, continuity rather than change is likely to be the watchword in foreign policy. Above all, the Middle East and South Asia are likely to remain the principal preoccupations of American concerns. In Iraq, Washington will seek to acquit its commitments - to hold elections, train Iraqi security forces, and accelerate reconstruction projects - with whatever measure of dignity and honor it can muster in the face of excruciatingly difficult choices. With Yassar Arafat's death, American engagement in Israeli-Palestinian issues is destined to increase. And Iran's bid for nuclear weapons will continue to challenge the United States and Europe.

Thus Asia will not have pride of place on the Bush agenda. Yet it will continue to command Washington's attention. Why? Because it is in Asia that the interests of the great powers intersect most directly. Asia is the world's most dynamic economic area, and it is becoming more tightly integrated. Washington cannot afford to neglect South and Southeast Asia, for in these areas Islam presents a relatively moderate face. And North Korea, of course, poses a direct and growing challenge to the administration's nonproliferation policy.

Fortuitously, the United States is better positioned in Asia than in most other regions. Our military presence remains sizable and retains mobility and flexibility. Our economy continues to generate solid demand for Asian exports and is a robust source of direct investment. While criticism of American policy is widespread in the region, it is not expressed with the virulence that is seen in Europe and the Middle East. Above all, Washington has cultivated the Asian great powers assiduously, and has managed to improve relations with Tokyo, Beijing, Moscow, and New Delhi - a substantial accomplishment. It remains to be seen whether it can work in concert with others to ameliorate the sources of discord on the Korean Peninsula and over the Taiwan Straits.

The United States, to be sure, confronts some daunting challenges in Asia. If the U.S.-Japan alliance is in excellent condition, defense cooperation with Seoul remains troubled by the sharp divergence in U.S. and Korean perspectives on North Korean aims and strategy. Nor have we found a solid basis for pursuing with Pyeongyang's neighbors a coordinated approach to the six-nation talks. Regional economic cooperation is taking shape along pan-Asian rather than trans-Pacific lines. Developments in the Middle East threaten to "Arabize Islam" in Southeast Asia. And the "Johnny One Note" quality of American diplomacy - i.e. its preoccupation with international terrorism - often plays poorly against Beijing's more broadly based effort to provide regional leadership.

Nor is America unconstrained in its policy efforts in the region. Our military forces are stretched thin globally, impelling some downsizing of deployments in Asia. Huge fiscal deficits loom, and with growing bills falling due in both Iraq and Afghanistan, resources available for policy initiatives elsewhere are likely to be tight. The president has succeeded in pushing negotiations with North Korea into a multilateral framework, yet Washington is being pressed by its negotiating partners to adopt a more conciliatory posture. The democratization of Asian nations, while welcome, does not automatically facilitate U.S. diplomatic objectives. Recent elections in South Korea and Taiwan were decisively shaped by a new generation of voters. Governments in Seoul and Taipei are increasingly accountable, yet viewed from the United States, they are not extraordinarily sensitive to Washington's views, let alone deferential to its lead.

With these considerations in mind, one should expect President Bush and his foreign policy team to continue cultivating close ties with the Asian powers. Whether Washington can effectively utilize those relationships to roll back North Korea's nuclear program and avert crises in the Taiwan Straits will depend heavily on its relationships with the governments in Seoul and Taipei. And at the moment South Korea appears determined to expand economic ties with the North virtually without reference to Pyeongyang's nuclear activities. Taipei remains preoccupied with efforts to assert its own identity while counting on American protection.

In the end, of course, foreign policy rarely sees carefully laid plans bear fruit. Someone once asked a new British prime minister, Harold MacMillan, what would drive foreign policy in his government. He answered without hesitation, "Events, dear boy, events." I expect the same may be true for Mr. Bush.

All News button
1
Authors
Wena Rosario
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

This two-day research workshop at Stanford University aims to bring together experts to explore the nature of the connections between universities/research institutes and industry in the United States , Taiwan , and Mainland China . Within this national and international context, the workshop will focus on several leading cases, including Stanford University , Tsinghua University in Beijing , and the Industrial Technology Research Institute in Hsinchu Science-based Park. The workshop will facilitate exchange of data and ideas among leading scholars and practitioners from several disciplines, institutions, and countries. Workshop proceedings will be published and distributed by SPRIE as part of its Greater China Networks program.

In recent years, the rise of the Knowledge Economy has underscored the essential role technological innovation has played in economic development. As key institutions in the innovation process, universities and public research institutes have become the center of many theoretical and empirical studies, most of which have focused on the various roles of academia in national innovation systems and their linkages with industry in fulfilling these roles.

To date, most studies have been based on the experience of industrialized countries such as U.S. and Japan . Few scholars have examined these issues in newly industrialized or developing economies, such as Taiwan and Mainland China . Linkages between universities and commerce vary greatly among countries, among universities within countries, among academic fields within universities, and among industries. American universities have a long history of involvement with commerce and many Chinese ones have been actively engaged with it since economic liberalizing began 25 years ago. In Taiwan , universities have played a less direct role by comparison with its research institutes.

The nature of the linkages varies greatly. How? Why? With what impact? In broad terms, American universities (including often their faculty members) make money from licensing ideas created in them but, with few exceptions, these universities do not directly own companies. The practice is very different in Mainland China . Its leading universities, including Tsinghua, own and operate many companies. (Its Academy of Sciences has also been a major source of high tech companies.) In Taiwan , the pattern has been mainly for research institutes to spin out companies.

That these institutions can make large economic contributions to society is not in doubt, nor that linkages with commerce can be financially rewarding to them. The focus of this workshop is in the policies and methods they use for generating ideas that have potential commercial and technological value, and how these policies and methods balance commercial-related activities with the teaching and research missions of universities. More detailed analysis and greater understanding of the policies, institutions, and practices on university-research institute-industry relations in the U.S. , Taiwan , and Mainland China is.

As the trend of globalization of science and technology continues, academic communities (including public research institutes and universities) in Greater China will increasingly become important partners in a global innovation system. Therefore, the academia-market interface in these economies not only can shed new light on the ongoing debate, but also because the evolution of such relationships will impact the global innovation system. In addition, university-research institute-industry linkages in Taiwan and Mainland China offer unique cases to study the evolving institutional relationships between academia and industry, such as the roles of ITRI or Chinese universities have played in the growth of high-tech industries in Taiwan and Mainland China . A careful examination of these cases and a comparison of them with leading cases in the U.S. , such as Stanford University , will offer insights into the driving factors and implications of the interactions of these institutions in the process of technological development.

Some of the questions addressed in the workshop:

  • What is the current state of linkages between universities/research institutes and industry in the selected regions? What factors are responsible for the observed patterns?
  • What have been the benefits and costs of these linkages to the universities/research institutes? How are they seen from the industry side?
  • What is the evidence that such linkages create more commercially useful ideas and/or speed them to market? What mechanisms or institutional relationships have worked, failed or yet to be judged?
  • What are the rules under which universities and research institutes operate? What are the pitfalls to avoid in fostering such linkages? Is there agreement on best practices in each region?
  • Where are these relationships heading? Will the boundaries between academic and research institutions and companies become further blurred in the 21 st century or will actions be taken to strengthen the boundaries between them?
All News button
1
-

William Brown (Bill) is an economist and senior research analyst with CENTRA Technology, Inc. of Northern Virginia, specializing in North Asia-area economics. He is also a member of the adjunct faculty of George Mason University's graduate school of public policy where he teaches courses on Asian economic development and international trade.

Bill has extensive experience as an economic analyst in the US government, having worked in the Chief Economist's Office of the Commerce Department, as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Economics in the National Intelligence Council, and as an eco-nomic analyst in the CIA's Office of Economic Research where he focused on his research on the North Korean and Chinese economies. He served for two years in the US Embassy in Seoul and has traveled extensively in the region, including a trip last summer across the DMZ into North Korea.

Mr. Brown writes occasionally for the Chosun Ilbo in Seoul and speaks on Korean and Chinese issues to a number of Asian and US audiences. He holds an M.A. in economics from Washington University, Missouri with most of his Ph.D. work completed, and a B.A. in International Studies from Rhodes College, Tennessee. He grew up in Kwangju, South Korea as the son and grandson of Presbyterian missionaries and speaks and reads some Korean and Chinese.

Hosted by the Walter H. Shorenstein Forum as part of its ongoing seminar series on North Korea.

Philippines Conference Room

William Brown Economist and Senior Research Analyst CENTRA Technology, Inc. of Northern Virginia
Seminars
-

East Asia is on the move. Diverse national strands are being woven into a distinctive regional fabric. No longer are regionalism and regionalization projections of specific national models. Such models are being drawn upon to create something new and different that is much more than any one national paradigm writ large. Prof. Katzenstein will describe and explain this development with particular reference to East Asia as a distinctively porous region in the American imperium.

Peter J. Katzenstein is a 2004-2005 fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He has written many books, including Norms and National Security (1996), Small States in World Markets (1985), and Corporatism and Change (1984), and edited many others, including Network Power: Japan and Asia (1997) and The Culture of National Security (1996). In 1993 he received a Cornell University award for distinguished teaching and shared (with Nobuo Okawara) the Ohira Memorial Prize. His degrees are from Harvard University (PhD), the London School of Economics (MSc), and Swarthmore College (1967).

Okimoto Conference Room

Peter J. Katzenstein Professor of International Studies Cornell University
Seminars
-

China's rapid growth and increasingly close integration with world markets is transforming Northeast and Southeast Asian regional production and trade. Southeast Asia's relatively resource-abundant economies are expected to lose comparative advantage in low-skill, labor-intensive manufacturing activities while gaining comparative advantage in natural resource products. The latter shift will increase incentives to exploit and export the products of forestry, fisheries, and agriculture.

What are the implications for long-run growth and welfare, particularly in the poorest and least industrialized economies, including Indonesia and Vietnam? How will this trend interact with the other major phenomenon sweeping through Southeast Asia, i.e., decentralization? With reduced national authority and minimal local accountability, the potential for disastrous rates of resource exploitation is high. A race to liquidate natural resource assets, if sufficiently pronounced, could expose parts of the region to a new variant of the "natural resource curse" - the idea that resource-abundant economies grow more slowly than others.

Ian Coxhead is an economist and serves as director of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His specialty is the economic development of Southeast Asia. His many publications on trade, development and the environment include The Open Economy and the Environment: Development, Trade and Resources in Asia (2003, with Sisira Jayasuriya). Prof. Coxhead's current research features the impacts of globalization, regional growth, and domestic policy reforms on the structures of production and employment, issues of poverty and the environment, and the exploitation of natural resources in Vietnam and the Philippines.

Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room

Ian Coxhead Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Wisconsin, Madison
Seminars
Subscribe to Economic Affairs