-
The rise of China and India is unparalleled in human history because never before has the world witnessed the simultaneous and consistent takeoffs of two nations, accounting for more one third of the planet’s population, which have been consistently registering high growth rates for two decades. Their rise has profound implications for the world economy and world politics. Both China and India – the two new big kids on the block – have no difficulty with a rule-based world order, what they want is “a different set of rules”. 

The rise of China and India represents both challenges and opportunities for Europe. Rising powers like China and India are challenging the European Union. They will be in a position to shape and influence global agendas and decisions to a greater extent than at present. For both, Europe will remain an indispensable partner since it is a vital source of trade, advanced technology and foreign direct investment. China and India do pose challenges for Europe, but they also provide opportunities since their growth contributes to greater growth worldwide, which means more exports, especially to a swelling consumerist middle class, which will make more demands of European goods, technology, and services.

Rajendra K Jain is Professor of European Studies and Chairperson, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is Secretary-General, Indian Association for European Union Studies. He has been Visiting Professor at Leipzig and Tuebingen University and at the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. He is the author/editor of over two dozen books and has published 70 articles/chapters in books. He has most recently published India and the European Union: Building a Strategic Partnership (2007) (editor).

Philippines Conference Room

Rajendra Jain Professor, European Studies; Chairperson, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies Speaker Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Seminars
The rise of China and India is unparalleled in human history because never before has the world witnessed the simultaneous and consistent takeoffs of two nations, accounting for more one third of the planet’s population, which have been consistently registering high growth rates for two decades. Their rise has profound implications for the world economy and world politics. Both China and India – the two new big kids on the block – have no difficulty with a rule-based world order, what they want is “a different set of rules”.

European political elites seem to be indulging in a degree of scapegoating about the danger from “ChinIndia”, since the roots of European angst really lie, among others, in European difficulties in managing globalization, declining competitiveness, fear of change, and an unsustainable health, pension and social welfare system. The Europeans tends to perceive the Chinese juggernaut as a direct immediate threat to European jobs in some manufacturing sectors whereas India is seen as a latent and potential threat taking away service-sector jobs, though pressures would increase as both move up the value chain.

The European Union’s strategic partnership with China and India is essentially driven by trade and commerce. India has too much of catching up to do with China. India is clearly in the Commonwealth Games league whereas China is in the Olympic Games league.

The rise of China and India represents both challenges and opportunities for Europe. Rising powers like China and India are challenging the European Union. They will be in a position to shape and influence global agendas and decisions to a greater extent than at present. For both, Europe will remain an indispensable partner since it is a vital source of trade, advanced technology and foreign direct investment. China and India do pose challenges for Europe, but they also provide opportunities since their growth contributes to greater growth worldwide, which means more exports, especially to a swelling consumerist middle class, which will make more demands of European goods, technology, and services.

Rajendra K Jain is Professor of European Studies and Chairperson, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is Secretary-General, Indian Association for European Union Studies. He has been Visiting Professor at Leipzig and Tuebingen university and at the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. He is the author/editor of over two dozen books and has published 70 articles/chapters in books. He has most recently published India and the European Union: Building a Strategic Partnership (2007) (editor).

Philippines Conference Room

Rajendra K. Jain Professor of European Studies and Chairperson, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Speaker
Seminars
Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
%people1%, associate director for research at Shorenstein APARC, gives a few cautionary lessons on U.S.-Korea relations.
Earlier this month I visited Seoul as a member of “New Beginnings,” a study group of former American policymakers and experts on Korea, co-organized by the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford, and The Korea Society. We formed this group last year, anticipating that the upcoming Korean elections and the American presidential elections afterwards would offer an opportunity to embark upon a “new beginning” in our alliance.

After several days of meetings in Seoul, most importantly with President-elect Lee Myeong-bak and his senior advisors, we came away convinced that our hopes for a “new beginning” were more than justified. As President Lee takes office, it is clear that his administration is deeply committed to restoring the alliance to its previous place as the foundation of Korean foreign and security policy. Equally important, the new government is focused on the need to boost economic growth based on the free flow of trade and investment, and sees the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States as central to that goal.

For those of us who have long argued that a vibrant Korea is vital to America’s interests, these were welcome words. It is no secret that there was a perception in the United States that President Roh Moo-hyun, backed by a significant portion of the Korean people, no longer saw the alliance as a strategic imperative for Korea. Unfortunately, many Americans, particularly in Congress, had begun to share this view of the alliance, fueled by a mistaken belief that Koreans were “anti-American.”

This view of President Roh and of Korea was unfair and even distorted. President Roh deserves credit, particularly in the last two years, for taking important steps to improve alliance relations, not least his promotion of the negotiation of the FTA. He made unpopular decisions, such as the dispatch of troops to Iraq, in order to preserve a cooperative atmosphere. And as we saw demonstrated in the election, public opinion in Korea regarding the United States has shifted dramatically since the emotional days of 2002.

The Lee administration can anticipate a warm greeting in Washington, as is already clear in the preparations for his visit next month. The new President has sounded all the right notes – seeking closer cooperation on North Korea policy, restoring positive ties with Japan, America’s other vital ally in Northeast Asia, and building a broader strategic partnership with the U.S. beyond the Korean peninsula.

Amidst the renewed embrace of the alliance, it is worth however keeping a few cautionary lessons from the past in mind:

1. Not everything will be Smooth Sailing

Despite the welcome official rhetoric, it is no secret that the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea has never been entirely smooth. From its earliest days, born out of Korea’s liberation and the trials of the Korean War, the alliance has been marked by both close cooperation and by clashes over key policy goals. While bound together by strategic necessity, the national interests of Korea and the United States have not always been identical.

There is nothing unusual about such differences among allies. Look for example at the tensions that plagued U.S.-European relations over the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. Even with the best of intentions, there will be moments of conflict between Seoul and Washington. What is important is how governments manage those differences to protect the underlying relationship. Both Koreans and Americans need to remember the virtues of quiet diplomacy, trying to avoid negotiating their differences through the media.

2. All politics is local

Alliance relations can no longer be managed solely by diplomats or by friends meeting behind closed doors. Those ties are crucial but both Korea and the United States are democracies in which the issues that are at the core of the relationship – from trade to the alignment of military forces – are matters of public discussion. Domestic politics shapes policy decisions but both Koreans and Americans sometimes forget the pressures operating on the other side.

This is particularly important in an election year. The Korean National Assembly election in April is already having an impact, delaying ratification of the FTA. The U.S. election will mean FTA ratification by the U.S. Congress this year may be impossible. Presidential candidates are taking positions that they may adjust after gaining power. On another level, the new government in Seoul needs to remember that the Bush administration is a lame duck affair and begin to prepare for a new government in Washington.

3. Expect the Unexpected, particularly with North Korea

The limited progress on the nuclear negotiations with North Korea has temporarily brought closer coordination between Korea and the US. But it would be foolish to assume that this trend will necessarily continue. The negotiations are already facing a slowdown as negotiators grapple with much tougher problems. If they break down, both Seoul and Washington, along with their other partners in the 6-party talks, will face some hard questions about how to respond. Any attempt to pressure Pyongyang is likely to bring an escalatory response, not least to test the new government in Seoul.

It is possible that Seoul and Washington will once again be somewhat out of synch. Ironically, the Bush administration – and whatever follows it -- may favor greater concessions than the new administration in Seoul would prefer to make.

These differences are manageable. The key is real policy coordination between the US and Korea – and the inclusion of Japan in a revived trilateral coordination mechanism. If both sides keep that commitment, we will indeed have made a “new beginning” in our alliance.

Daniel Sneider is the Associate Director for Research at Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. A former foreign correspondent, Sneider covered Korea for the Christian Science Monitor.
All News button
1
Authors
Karen Eggleston
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Asia Health Policy Program of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center invites scholars from multiple disciplines to join the Asia-Pacific Health Policy Forum (APHPF) by creating your own account on our website.  Your information will be saved in our online database, searchable by name, country or region of focus, discipline, and topic.  

The mission of the Asia-Pacific Health Policy Forum (APHPF) is to serve as a resource for social science research, teaching, and evidence-based policymaking about health and healthcare in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Specifically, APHPF aims to

  • encourage collaboration among social scientists doing research on health policy in the Asia-Pacific region;
  • serve as a resource for teaching about health and healthcare in specific countries and regions within the Asia-Pacific;
  • provide analysis to inform policy, by offering a forum for rapid dissemination of policy-relevant research results, as well as by linking organizations, programs, conferences and white papers about specific health policy issues; and
  • raise awareness and foster dialogue among researchers, policymakers, and business about cross-cutting themes and global challenges of health and healthcare access, quality, and cost, within the specific historical and cultural contexts of the diverse nations of the Asia-Pacific. 

We encourage all researchers with an interest in health and healthcare in the Asia-Pacific to create an account and to submit information about upcoming conferences and sessions within larger disciplinary conferences that focus on any aspect of health policy in the Asia-Pacific to the Forum coordinator, Karen Eggleston

There are no membership dues, as the Forum is currently supported by the Asian Health Policy Program of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University.

The Asia-Pacific Health Policy Forum represents a multidisciplinary effort to build organizational linkages and work toward developing an Asia-Pacific parallel to the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy.

With your help, the APHPF can develop into a vibrant resource and networking support for all of us seeking to understand and improve health and healthcare systems in the region.

All News button
1
-

Conventional wisdom says that relations between China and Japan are fated always to be exceptionally wary, if not openly hostile -- and Japanese leaders' visits to the notorious Yasukuni have done nothing to undermine this view. Nor have Sino-Japanese standoffs over the disputed Senkaku islands. Meanwhile Beijing's opposition has been widely credited as the reason why Japan has failed in its reported aspiration to join the United Nations Security Council. Author and long-time Tokyo-based East Asia watcher Eamonn Fingleton argues that these issues have been grossly misunderstood in the West and that on closer inspection they say little if anything about the true state of Sino-Japanese relations. He insists that on a host of substantive issues overlooked by the press, Japan and China have been cooperating closely for decades. So much so that Japanese help has been one of the most powerful factors in China's rise.

A former editor for Forbes and the Financial Times, Eamonn Fingleton has been monitoring East Asian economics since 1985. He met China's supreme leader Deng Xiaoping in 1986 as a member of a New York Stock Exchange delegation. The following year he predicted the Tokyo banking crash and went on in Blindside, a controversial 1995 analysis that was praised by J.K. Galbraith and Bill Clinton, to show that a heedless America was fast losing its formerly vaunted leadership in advanced manufacturing to Japan.

His 1999 book In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity anticipated the American Internet stock crash of 2000. In his 2008 book In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony, he issues a strong challenge to the conventional view among Washington policymakers and think tank analysts that China is converging to Western economic and political forms and attitudes. His books have been read into the U.S. Senate record and named among the ten best business books of the year by Business Week and Amazon.com.

He was born in Ireland in 1948 and is a graduate of Trinity College Dublin. He was the recipient of the American Values Award from the United States Business and Industry Council in 2001.

Copies of Fingleton's newest book In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony - due March 4 by St. Martin's Press - will be for sale during the event.

Philippines Conference Room

Eamonn Fingleton author Speaker
Seminars
-

Rapid population aging in many Asian countries poses an increased burden of care for elderly people with disabilities. Traditionally, care for the disabled elderly was provided by family members co-residing or living nearby. However, declining fertility rates, eroding social norms, and growing rates of labor force participation among females have changed the overall picture of informal care. 

One important policy question is whether informal caregiving affects caregivers' labor force participation. This question is particularly relevant for rapidly developing economies including newly industrialized countries, because a shrinking working-age population is another major concern with population aging. Providing different answers to this question leads to different policy implications for long-term care policy and labor market policy. 

Most of the existing literature on this issue comes from the United States and Europe. Using data from the first wave of the "Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging", Do's research not only provides results from a less-studied Asian society, but also takes into account different patterns of living arrangements and labor force participation. His talk will deal with the methodological issue of endogeneity between informal caregiving and labor force participation, and explore gender and age group differences.

Young Kyung Do is currently completing his PhD in health policy and administration at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health. He has also earned both an MD and a master of public health degrees from Seoul National University (in 1997 and 2003, respectively). Young earned board certification in preventive medicine from the Korean Medical Association in 2004.

Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room

0
Postdoctoral Fellow in Asia Health Policy Program, 2008-09
Do.JPG MD, PhD

Young Kyung Do is the inaugural Postdoctoral Fellow in the Asia Health Policy Program at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. He completed his Ph.D. in health policy and administration at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health in August 2008. He has also earned M.D. and Master of Public Health degrees from Seoul National University (in 1997 and 2003, respectively). He earned board certification in preventive medicine from the Korean Medical Association in 2004. His research interests include population aging and health care, comparative health policy, health and development, quality of care, program evaluation, and quantitative methods in health research.

He received the First Prize Award in the Graduate Student Paper Competition in the Korea Labor and Income Panel Study Conference in 2007. He also is the recipient of the Harry T. Phillips Award for Outstanding Teaching by a Doctoral Student from the UNC Department of Health Policy and Administration in 2007. In May 2008, he was selected as a New Investigator in Global Health by the Global Health Council.

Date Label
Young K. Do Speaker
Seminars
-

Some observers of Japan have pointed to a dangerous rise in Japanese nationalism. Advocates of that idea claim that this is evident in a number of events, such as, the visits of former Prime Minister Koizumi to the Yasukuni Shrine; former Prime Minister Abe's plan for constitutional reforms and his statements regarding the comfort women; the adoption of "revisionist" history textbooks; the territorial disputes with countries such as China and South Korea; and Japan's efforts to strengthen the Japan-U.S. security arrangements.

However, such observations invite the following questions:

  • If there are such signs in Japan, do they reflect Japanese society as a whole? Japan has been strongly pacifistic since the war, avoiding any entanglement in military conflict. This seems to be deeply rooted in the minds of the Japanese people. Just what is the relationship between the purported rise in nationalism and these pacifistic tendencies?
  • Most commentators who warn of rising nationalism in Japan fear a return of the extreme nationalism of prewar Japan. However, are not today's political regime, economic institutions and social conditions, all vastly different from those of prewar Japan?
  • Even though a trend toward nationalism can be witnessed in some quarters of Japan, it doesn't necessarily mean that Japan has become a country that would take dangerous actions. Nationalistic emotions and movements are not directly linked to the actions of a country. Rather, are there not some intervening factors between them?
Minister Kitano will address three points in answering these questions. First he will examine the current situation of Japan by discerning the ‘goals' of Japanese nationalism. Second, he will evaluate the strength of the nationalist movement in Japan by comparing the contemporary movement with the movement in prewar Japan. Last, he will analyze the function of nationalism in different stages of nation states. Through this process, Minister Kitano will reveal the 'myth and reality' of Japan's nationalism.

Mitsuru Kitano currently serves as minister for public affairs at the Embassy of Japan to the United States in Washington, D.C. where he is in charge of outreach to press/media, intellectual exchanges, art and cultural exchanges as well as support for Japanese language education. Kitano has written a number of op-ed articles, including ones analyzing U.S. opinions about Japan in such papers as the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and the International Herald Tribune.

Minister Kitano is a career diplomat and has been posted in Tokyo, France, Geneva, China and Vietnam since joining Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1980. He has been professionally engaged in Japan's bilateral relationship with the U.S., China and Southeast Asian countries, and Japan's policies regarding the United Nations and other international organizations. He was active also in such areas as economic cooperation and nuclear energy issues.

His academic achievements include being a lecturer at Sophia University (Tokyo) and a senior visiting fellow at RIETI (Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry) in Japan. In 2007, he co-authored a book, Paburikku Dipuromashi: Seron no Jidai no Gaiko Senryaku (Public Diplomacy: Diplomatic Strategy in the Age of Public Opinion) (Tokyo: PHP Kenkyujo).

Minister Kitano received a B.A. from the University of Tokyo in 1980 and a M.A. in international relations from the University of Geneva in 1996.

Philippines Conference Room

Mitsuru Kitano Minister for Public Affairs Speaker Embassy of Japan in the United States
Seminars
-

Where is Japanese society and culture headed in the New Year? What social trends may shape Japan's future? From the latest pop culture developments to the changing Japanese attitude toward women and families, our panelists will provide an up-to-date view of Japanese society today and beyond.

Mariko Fujiwara is research director of Hakuhodo Institute of Life and Living (HILL). She is also a partner in the consultancy Business Futures Network (London), executive director of Mobile Marketing Inc., and serves on ministerial councils including the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Ministry of Finance, and the Supreme Court. She has published reports on Japanese consumers, Japan's post-war baby boom generation, second baby boom generation, changing roles of women and families, Japan's aging population and emerging trends among senior citizens.

Roland Kelts is the author of Japanamerica: How Japanese Pop Culture Has Invaded the U.S., published in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. He is a lecturer at the University of Tokyo, a columnist for The Daily Yomiyuri and an editor of the New York-based literary journal, A Public Space. His first novel, Access, will be published next year. His articles, essays, and stories have been published in Zoetrope; Playboy; Salon; DoubleTake; The Village Voice; Newsday; Cosmopolitan; Vogue; The Japan Times; among others.

Please visit events at www.usajapan.org or call 415-986-4383 for reservation.
2008 Year Ahead is made possible by the generous support of Union Bank of California

Delancey Screening Room
600 Embarcadero Street
San Francisco, CA 94107

Mariko Fujiwara Research Director Speaker Hakuhodo Institute of Life and Living
Roland Kelts author and journalist Speaker
Conferences

In the pursuit to assess high-tech regions' performance in and capability for innovation and entrepreneurship, a bewildering variety of data is published, including:

  • employment
  • total corporate sales
  • wages
  • venture capital funding
  • new company formation and growth of small firms
  • R&D spending
  • patents, and many more

However, on the basis of such heterogeneous indicators, it can be difficult or even impossible to compare regions. Some of this is inevitable given different perceived data needs in each region. However, perhaps a common core of data might be supplied.

To this end, the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship is bringing together scholars and researchers from the United States, Europe and Asia to present data from their own regions that would help with comparisons between regions and linkages among them, and to make the case for what they consider the most useful set of indicators.

There will be four workshop sessions: the first will be devoted to discussing a framework for looking at entrepreneurship and innovation regional indicators, and the remaining three will take a regional focus, proposing indicators closely related to innovative regions in the United States, Europe and Asia.

This event is part of the "The Shape of Things to Come" conference at the Fisher Conference Center at Stanford University, January 17-18, 2007.

» Presentations/Papers from the event

Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center

Workshops
Authors
George Krompacky
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

"The Shape of Things to Come," a conference presented by the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship on January 17-18, 2008, featured keynotes by John Hagel, co-author of The Only Sustainable Edge and Co-Chairman of the Deloitte Center for Edge Innovation, and Dr. Henry Chesbrough, Executive Director of the Center for Open Innovation at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley and author of Open Innovation.

The keynotes bookended Thursday's forum, "New Patterns and Paradigms in Global Innovation Networks," and were a prelude to Friday's academic workshop, "A Global Perspective on Regional Innovation Indicators." Hagel's talk focused on the need for a more explicit taxonomy of innovative collaboration and discussed the "huge need to define pragmatic migration paths"--routes that the average manager and company can take to reach the opportunities that normally are only accessible to cutting-edge companies.

The forum closed with a presentation by Dr. Henry Chesbrough, who provided an overview on the globalization of innovation in the Chinese semiconductor industry, which he sees as split into a "globally oriented, globally competitive" industry segment and a domestically-oriented segment with "backward technologies" and lacking access to capital. The question, he explained, is how China will shift its resources, now entrenched in the latter, to the former, competitive segment.

Chesbrough finished with a discussion of intellectual property rights (IPR) in China, looking at flows of knowledge and current IPR challenges; he mentioned some surprising developments--the rise of businesses to "promote the legal exchange of IP" and the growth of a domestic constituency for stronger IPR--and discussed future implications for IPR in China.

In between the keynotes, the forum featured sessions on innovation in internet services in China, the role of venture capital as a network builder, and discussions on two rapidly moving industries: cleantech and thin film transistor LCD displays.

Conference materials, including presentations and audio files, will be made available on the SPRIE website.

All News button
1
Subscribe to Europe