In early 2014, Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) launched a new organization structured to further increase the research support of our faculty and their teaching objectives. That group, called Centers and Initiatives for Research, Curriculum and Learning Experiences (CIRCLE), supports areas of academic focus including social innovation, entrepreneurship, value chain, data and analytics, and corporate governance, in addition to China-related work.
With staffing and a facility now grounded in Beijing, the GSB is transitioning management of our China initiatives to CIRCLE led by Wendy York-Fess, Assistant Dean and Executive Director. Within CIRCLE, Frank Hawke, located in Beijing, is the director of GSB China-related activities designed to continue the focus on building a bridge between China and Silicon Valley.
Going forward, updates on China programs will be communicated through other GSB online channels. Content hosted on this site will remain available, and we encourage you to engage with our rich library of videos, podcasts, and stories.
China 2.0 originated from within the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SPRIE), which was active from 1998 through fall 2013. Led by faculty co-directors William F. Miller and Henry S. Rowen, with Associate Director Marguerite Gong Hancock, SPRIE was dedicated to the understanding and practice of innovation and entrepreneurship in leading regions around the world. SPRIE fulfilled its mission through interdisciplinary and international collaborative research, seminars and conferences, publications, and briefings for industry and government leaders.
“We are grateful to have made our home at two remarkable parts of Stanford, the Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center until 2011 and then the Graduate School of Business,” said Henry Rowen. William Miller added, “The impact of SPRIE’s work among leaders around the world has been made possible through wonderful relationships with faculty colleagues across the university and beyond, active Advisory Board members, generous donors, engaging alumni and students, strong corporate and government partners, and extraordinary staff.”
Under the direction SPRIE faculty co-directors William F. Miller and Henry S. Rowen, Marguerite Gong Hancock launched and led China 2.0 from 2010 to June 2014. Important contributors to the development of the program included faculty from across campus, a distinguished and active Advisory Board, generous donors and sponsors, as well as GSB staff, including China 2.0 team members Yan Mei and Rustin Crandall. During this time, it has grown into a platform for convening thought leaders in China and Silicon Valley, supporting cutting-edge research and curriculum development by faculty, and organizing programs to educate students as next-generation leaders.
Through conferences at Stanford University and in Beijing, to date China 2.0 has engaged with more than 100 speakers, dozens of media, and more than 2,500 Stanford faculty, students, and alumni. China 2.0 seminars have enhanced student educational experiences and facilitated cross-campus faculty and student interaction. China 2.0 content has become part of our classrooms, online resources, and also reached hundreds of thousands of viewers in English and Chinese.
As part of the GSB reorganization, we are pleased to announce that Marguerite Gong Hancock is now the director for a new CIRCLE research effort called Stanford Project on Emerging Companies 2.0 (SPEC 2.0), where she will focus on supporting faculty research on entrepreneurship, as part of the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
While our organization has changed, Stanford Graduate School of Business remains committed to bringing together executives, entrepreneurs, investors, policy makers, academics and students through a number of existing and emerging programs related to innovation and entrepreneurship around the world.
Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, urged Korea to embrace diversity in order to achieve broader social integration in a keynote speech delivered at the Korea Forum 2014 in Seoul. Korea needs to shift its orientation to “respecting differences while maintaining shared goals," he said.
Hero Image
A reminder to vote in South Korea's regional elections on June 4, one that was said to act as a referendum and encourage reform.
Mari Tanaka1, a Ph.D. candidate in economics at Stanford, has been named the Shorenstein APARC Predoctoral Fellow in Contemporary Asia for 2014–15. She will join the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center this fall, examining the effects of enterprise development and international trade in low-income countries.
The fellowship supports a Stanford predoctoral student researching topics related to contemporary political, economic and social change in the Asia-Pacific region.
Tanaka’s dissertation focuses on the impact of Myanmar’s recent trade opening on local manufacturing firms. She is interested in how trade with the United States, European Union and Japanese buyers affects firms’ management practices and working conditions, particularly safety and health standards.
By analyzing data collected in about 400 firms in 2013–14, Tanaka plans to compare the evolutions of those measures in garment plants, an industry heavily affected by trade opening, to processed food plants, an industry little affected because of strict food regulations imposed by developed countries.
Tanaka is a fourth-year Ph.D. student in economics at Stanford. She holds a master’s degree in economics from the University of Tokyo and a bachelor’s degree from the International Christian University, Japan.
South Korea held their regional elections on June 4th, not long after the Sewol ferry capsized and claimed the lives of many school-aged children. The ballot was largely viewed as a referendum on President Park Geun-hye’s response to the ferry tragedy. In the Economist, Shorentein APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin says Ms. Park will likely take the poll results as an opportunity to reform.
The Obama administration’s policy of “re-balance” toward Asia, that began as early as 2009, is now increasingly under stress, as those in the region question American staying power and China emerges as a challenger to U.S. dominance. As the territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas in recent months have demonstrated, China’s relations with the region and the United States have become visibly strained, bringing the U.S. re-balance policy into question and raising concerns about security tensions and the danger of conflict.
U.S.-China relations are heading, for the foreseeable future, into “a very scratchy time,” predicted Kenneth Lieberthal, a respected senior China scholar at The Brookings Institution, in his keynote speech delivered at the annual Oksenberg Lecture on June 3 at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.
Lieberthal told a standing room audience in Encina Hall that while the U.S. attempt to temper its relations with China and others has “worked quite well over time,” now, “at a geostrategic level, we seem to be sliding with increasing speed toward an inflection point in U.S.-China relations.”
The discussion was part of the Oksenberg Lecture, an annual dialogue that functions as a policy workshop on U.S.-Asia relations, named in honor of late professor and senior fellow Michel Oksenberg (1938–2001). Oksenberg was a noted China specialist, who served as a senior member of the National Security Council and is credited as the architect of the normalization of relations with China under the Carter administration in the late 1970s.
Points of tension in the U.S.-China relationship have been increasingly visible. Senior American officials have assailed China for its aggressive actions toward its neighbors over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and in South China Sea, including its latest altercations with Vietnam and the Philippines. The United States recently indicted five members of China’s People’s Liberation Army for carrying out cyber espionage against U.S. technology companies.
Incidents like these have prompted both countries to throw harsh words at each other, leading to a situation of brinkmanship. However, Lieberthal pointed out that tense relations between the United States and China are certainly not new. Most notably, relations took a nosedive in 1989 when China cracked down on democratization protests at Tiananmen Square, in 1999 after the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, and in 2008, in response to the global financial crisis.
The U.S.-China relationship has been riddled with periods of distrust in the past. But now, “the speed and scale of China’s economic growth, especially over the last two decades, has also increased concerns, on all sides, that the evolving distribution of power may create new frictions and suspicions,” Lieberthal said.
Yet, refusing to work with each other is not an option, the senior scholar, who also served in the Clinton administration, told the audience. Without the United States and China in conversation, progress in multilateral areas such as climate change and trade would falter, he argued. Given the two countries’ position as the world’s largest economies, the international system would effectively be constrained if the two were entrenched in long-term bitterness.
Lieberthal recognized the common admonition, “if we treat China as an enemy, it will surely become one,” saying this warning could be applied to both sides. China and the United States must make greater efforts to manage and mitigate tensions.
“The question is whether we can prevent bad things, not only specific conflicts, but the political tensions and politics that make cooperation on major issues very, very difficult at best.”
He then outlined a few steps that could help China and the United States sort out their disputes. His recommendations began with the need for strong determination on the part of top political leaders to move things forward and the importance of clear, consistent use of vocabulary when discussing issues.
As a final point, but one that was offered as a contingent factor to success, Lieberthal said U.S.-China relations and both countries’ roles in greater Asia will depend on “how effective each of us is in dealing with domestic reforms,” because, “that will determine how dynamic, how vibrant, how innovative, and how secure we feel.”
During the lecture, Ret. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry shared his observations from the Shangri-La Dialogue, an inter-governmental security forum held from May 30 – June 1 in Singapore. The Dialogue has in recent years become a gathering of premiere defense ministers to discuss security issues in Track I and “quasi-track” meetings.
Afterward, Eikenberry talked with Shorenstein APARC about key highlights and implications that emerged from the Dialogue:
Shangri-La Dialogue
Photo credit: Flickr/The International Institute for Strategic Studies
Media reported a tense environment overlaid the Dialogue. What was the general atmosphere there?
The remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue by Japanese Prime Minister Abe and U.S. Defense Secretary Hagel on the one hand, and Chinese General Wang Guanzhong, made clear very different views on the causes for tension surrounding various maritime sovereignty claims in the East and South China Seas. Still, if you read the full text of all three speeches and the Q&As that followed, there is still great emphasis placed on dialogue and common interests. And in the many meetings that took place between national delegations on the margins of the conference events, the emphasis was on cooperation.
What revelations at the Dialogue were surprising?
I think the degree to which dissatisfaction with China’s assertive behavior in pursuing its maritime claims was expressed by many of the participants – not just the United States and Japan. Vietnam, the Philippines and India were explicit. Analysts have said the only China (through threatening behavior) could contain China by catalyzing a counterbalancing response. From the results of the Dialogue, I think this is correct.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe emphasized values and international law throughout his keynote speech. What is your take on this?
The Prime Minister did emphasize both democracy and rule of law during his prepared remarks and answers to questions from conference participants. He was drawing an obvious distinction between Japan’s and China’s political systems and commitment to approaches to resolving territorial disputes. I think the Prime Minister is trying to establish Japan as a leader in East and Southeast Asia, and wanted to make clear what he views as important differences between the Japanese and Chinese “models.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel referenced China’s suspension of the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group. What direction do you think the cybersecurity dialogue will go now?
It was unfortunate that China suspended its participation in the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group after the U.S. Government’s indictment of five People’s Liberation Army officers for alleged cyber theft. The U.S. Government has been providing the PRC Government with evidence of cyber theft being conducted by entities in China and has failed to receive any meaningful response so the indictments seem warranted. It would seem that the Cyber Working Group is precisely the forum to discuss this matter and the many related to managing the cyber domain with agreed rules and procedures. Working Groups provide a forum to address disagreement and disputes. I think China’s response was counterproductive and hope the government will indicate a willingness to resume the dialogues in the near future.
Where do you see the regional security conversation heading next?
The risk is that security dialogues will be divided into two camps – one led by the United States and its close allies and partners, and the other by China – somewhat isolated at this time but seeking to entice Asian nations to bandwagon to its side. Perhaps further regional economic integration can facilitate a more common approach to security, but this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue is perhaps a warning that trends, for now, are not heading in a positive direction.
Hero Image
Kenneth Lieberthal of The Brookings Institution delivered the keynote speech at the annual Oksenberg Lecture on June 3.
Nearly forty-four percent of Indonesia’s population is living on less than $2 a day, making it near impossible for some to seek proper health treatment. One way to improve this situation is through Indonesia’s conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs, Margaret Triyana says.
The CCT program, first piloted by the World Bank in 2007 and expanded from 2009–10, encourages Indonesia’s most destitute to pursue health-seeking behaviors by reducing barriers to health care through cash incentives. Payment is given for receiving treatments at a local clinic. Essentially, the poor are reimbursed simply for “showing up” for health services.
Image
Triyana, a Jakarta native and postdoctoral fellow in the Asia Health Policy Program, has been in residence at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies studying the effects of the CCT program on Indonesia’s poor. She has been evaluating the household CCT program’s two-year implementation, focusing on the maternal and child health initiatives.
She plans to produce multiple papers that focus on issues related to CCT interventions and its impact on mothers and children. Triyana will continue this research after leaving Shorenstein APARC this July, accepting an academic teaching position at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.
Recently, Triyana discussed her research with Shorenstein APARC.
What types of health initiatives does the CCT program sponsor, and for whom?
The CCT program targets Indonesia’s most poverty-stricken by selecting approximately the bottom 30 percent of the poorest households, with preference toward households with pregnant women or school-aged children. Eligibility depends on socioeconomic factors per district such as expenditure, education and asset ownership. The program stretches the rural-urban divide, covering people in and off Java (this is the main island where 60 percent of the population resides). Many initiatives in the household CCT program are focused on child and maternal health. For mothers, they include a series of prenatal care visits, an iron tablet prescription, childbirth assistance and postnatal care. For children, they cover vaccinations, monthly height and weight measurements at the clinic and vitamin A pills. Overall the CCT program is a combination of poverty reduction and human capital investments, attempting to induce good behavior that instills long-term health in low resource settings.
Who is the typical primary care provider in Indonesia?
The primary care provider is often a midwife. This is because Indonesia doesn’t have enough trained doctors to support the growing demand. Clinics operate at the sub-district level, which comprise of 10-15 villages each. Every village is assigned one midwife. Midwives can perform most procedures just short of surgery. For example, midwives offer typical delivery services but refer patients to a district-level hospital for a Caesarean section. This system, for the most part, functions well, but midwives do have an expanded scope of care that can be unsettling. Children have their cuts taken care of by midwives; adults can get antibiotics through them. This diffused system is perhaps more efficient, but it can call into question the legitimacy of their authority. Midwives receive only three years of training for their certification. This is something the Indonesian government intends to inspect and will likely restructure.
What behavior changes do you see as a result of the CCT program?
My initial findings show there is increased utilization of health care programs. The CCT program incentivizes certain behaviors – attending the clinic for a test or retrieving medication – which then, in theory, leads to better health. “Showing up” doesn’t automatically correlate with improved health, but if we think about the population at hand, it would in most cases. People who weren’t using health services before now are. Everyone that was offered the program signed up. Monthly attendance to CCT-linked programs is reported at a rate of 85 percent. In particular to maternal health, I noted a 10 percent increase in delivery fees. This trend follows what we would expect to see – because of increased utilization, there is a natural rise in price for the service. On the demand-side, I found a 40 percent increase in the use of midwives, and a rise in fees paid to providers for maternal and child services. These factors indicate with a high level of certainty that the CCT program lowers barriers to health care.
Since health is effectively its own market, will increased demand for services cause a rise in price?
Yes, health care is its own market so the supply-demand relationship is relevant. My research looks at the local market because it depends upon the price being offered at the local clinic. Indonesia’s health care system is a public-private mixture, therefore public fees are regulated while private fees are less so. Indonesia now offers universal care, but people can pay a few for services beyond basic coverage. I saw a change in the private domain in terms of demand for services. The “demand shock” caused a bit of a higher price for services. It costs about $80 to meet all of the program requirements. Payment to midwives increased, while a slight decrease occurred for traditional birth attendants. I find no significant change in birth outcomes, and the quality provided by midwives does not appear to be affected by the program. These outcomes are exactly what we’d expect to see; it is consistent with the puzzle in the literature and economics, showing more women and children in the CCT program are seeking care from health care providers, but no change in health outcomes.
Can we expect increased utilization of health services in the long-run?
I anticipate there will be long-term increased utilization. The CCT program seeks to create habit formation by focusing on youth and pregnant mothers. For example, we can see this when expectant mothers attended the clinic for prenatal care, delivery assistance and postnatal care. With cost and travel barriers eliminated or reduced, participants should find it easier to initially come and then return. I did see repeat visits in my research as a positive outcome of the CCT program. A technique used to encourage commitment is a public education program as part of the program. Participants get a group briefing on how the program works, so that they are fully introduced to the incentives and guarantees of the program.
Does Indonesia plan to extend this into a national program?
Yes, the CCT program is planned to go national later this year. The research shows that the benchmark of high attendance was met, program participants did “show up.” Next steps are to analyze health outcomes in maternal and child health, and then look at policy implications. Indeed, the Indonesian government is seeking ways to better target and deliver health services; it will be interesting to see the long-term effects of this program.
Hero Image
Nursing students are trained in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, part of the World Bank's Health Professional Education Quality Project.
Sociologist Xueguang Zhou is no stranger to Stanford. He studied here as a doctoral student and returned to campus in 2006. He is now the Kwoh-Ting Li Professor in Economic Development and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Zhou says it is a joy to be teaching in the very place he himself was intellectually trained. Recently, he spoke with the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center about his route to the Farm and his research focus on China’s urbanization and bureaucracy.
How did you come to Stanford and the Center?
I completed my PhD in sociology at Stanford so it was a very easy and natural decision to come back as a professor. After graduating, I went to Cornell University and Duke University as well as spending two years in Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, but I always missed the exciting intellectual environment at Stanford. I have a lot of admiration for the faculty and research that takes place here. In 2006, the sociology department and Shorenstein APARC recruited me. I began to focus on China as a major research area after I had completed my Ph.D. My dissertation was actually centered on American universities. My joint appointment as a professor and as a senior fellow at Shorenstein APARC has been very complimentary. I teach in my trained area of sociology and explore my substantive interests in Chinese bureaucracy. I combine my teaching and research nicely to bridge the two sides. Additionally, this year, I will teach a summer graduate seminar at Stanford Center at Peking University.
What are the most pressing issues of China’s urbanization?
Urbanization processes in China have been underway for the last 10-20 years, in particular, the government is pushing very hard to accelerate this process. Suddenly, people have been pushed from rural to urban areas. Many are being forced to abandon their land and assume a new life away from their farming activities. This process raises many important questions, and is a main area of what I study. Chinese culture (way of life, organization, problem solving) is heavily drawn from rural tradition. Inherently urbanization has created tensions between tradition and the modern idea of Chinese society. Now we see a lot of contentious politics in China. Resistance, revolt and social movements are in part caused by this disruption of the social norms and tradition that had historically held the Chinese society together. Patterns of interaction between social groups have changed. So, what does this mean for society? And further to that, what is the new governance structure that emerges out of this? In rural China, governance in the past was based on kinship and local institutions, but the future is unclear. We need to research and understand the emergent governance structure in China.
What impact has recent bureaucratic restructuring had on Chinese society?
Right now, it is hard to say what effects the recent changes put forth at the Third Plenum will have on society. It is too soon to see any major effects on the long-term trend. My research focuses on the fundamental basis of Chinese structures and bureaucracies. Over the past two years, I have pursued analyzing Chinese bureaucracy through a historical lens. If we take a step back and observe these recent policy shifts in a greater timeline, we can see that local-level fluctuations are only temporary phenomena. For example, China’s new leadership recently launched a huge anti-corruption campaign. As a result, people in local-level bureaucracies have suddenly become much more careful about their behavior. But, how long will this behavior last? It is unlikely to last for very long. If we look at it from a longer perspective, we can see clear policy rhythms between centralization and decentralization over time. There may be short-term policy efforts to strengthen the central authority, but systematic institutional shifts are less likely.
Can you tell us about your methods and approach to your research on Chinese personnel structures?
I analyze archival data and conduct fieldwork in China to understand changes in bureaucracy. A primary way I conduct my fieldwork is participatory observations in a township-level government in China. When I visit this township government, I stay in a guestroom in the government building, and interact with local officials on a daily basis, observe their work and eat meals with them. Basically, I get to know them, their views and way of life. I also go to the nearby villages to interact with locals to gather their opinions about bureaucracy and the policy implementation processes. I also meet with other Chinese colleagues who conduct research on government behaviors, and we share and discuss our observations. Often times, they take me to different localities to visit government bureaus and to chat with local officials. All of these interactions give me great opportunities to learn about the Chinese bureaucracy. Close observations are key for me to identifying current issues in governance and bureaucratic structures, which I then compare to the historical legacy. This line of research is also connected to a project in collaboration with graduate students, analyzing the flow of bureaucrats in an entire province using public data.
Tell us something we don’t know about you.
One aspect of my personal experience that I cherish is that, like many in my generation, I was sent to work in rural China after high school during the Cultural Revolution. There I became a “team leader” in a village, responsible for organizing collective activities of over 200 villagers (about 50 households) and several hundreds “mu” of farming land, when I was only 17. This experience gave me a much deeper understanding of rural life in China.
The Faculty Spotlight Q&A series highlights a different faculty member at Shorenstein APARC each month giving a personal look at his or her scholarly approaches and outlook on related topics and upcoming activities.
Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center faculty and scholars have published a variety of publications in early 2014, covering topics from the Japanese fiscal condition to disability policy in North Korea.
Publications are often products of long-standing research projects led by Center affiliates. New Challenges for Maturing Democracies in Korea and Taiwan, coedited by Shorenstein APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin and Center on Democracy, Development and Rule of Law Director Larry Diamond, emerged from the Stanford Korea Democracy Project, which seeks to understand social movements in South Korea.
Postdoctoral fellows who reside at Shorenstein APARC for a year of vigorous study and engagement in Center activities also support research publications. Former visiting scholar Dominik Müller, now at Goethe-University Frankfurt, published Islam, Politics and Youth in Malaysia: The Pop-Islamist Reinvention of PAS. Müller examined the religious bureaucracy of Malaysia at Shorenstein APARC in 2013.
Shorenstein APARC manages an active publishing program with Stanford University Press and the Brookings Institution Press. Center affiliates also publish extensively in external peer-reviewed academic journals and books, as well as in a working paper series led by the Asia Health Policy Program.
The volume is a collection of 22 articles that span the course of Aoki’s 45-year academic career. The essays cover a wide range of topics from the comparative perspective including corporate governance, institutional change and mechanism design in Japan, China and South Korea. The articles suggest policy responses for industry and governments.
Comparing the European and Asian legacies, the book provides insight into the influence that World War II continues to have on contemporary politics and attitudes. The collection gathers a variety of perspectives that compare how Europe and Asia handle memories and reflections of guilt, and how wartime experiences are reinterpreted and used for domestic and international purposes.
The article examines the fiscal regime of Japan and considers if the country can withstand its high debt to GDP ratio. The paper shows that Japan’s fiscal situation is unsustainable through various simulations, and suggests that sufficiently large tax increases and/or expenditure cuts would put government debt on a sustainable path.
Indonesia has changed dramatically in recent decades, and a wealth of literature highlights divergent interpretations and perspectives surrounding those dynamics. The article considers the demise of liberal democracy, the rise of President Sukarno in 1959, and the latter’s replacement by General Suharto in 1965. The essay is part of the larger volume, Producing Indonesia: The State of the Field of Indonesian Studies.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster was a critical event that shook Japan’s political economy, society and national psyche, as well as the world’s perspectives on nuclear energy policy. The article examines how the nuclear disaster unfolded and analyzes the response undertaken by the Democratic Party of Japan under Prime Minister Naoto Kan. Kushida is the Takahashi Research Associate at Shorenstein APARC.
The paper describes current relations between South Korea and Japan, recognizing that their relationship has noticeably deteriorated in recent months. While the United States has attempted to promote dialogue, its hesitant intervention is unlikely to change the overall dynamic of the Japan-Korea relationship. Sneider suggests that a more active U.S. mediation role could encourage reconciliation and normalization of relations.
The working paper details the environment that people with disabilities face in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. Despite its reputation as a repressive, closed society where human rights are routinely abused, there are in fact a number of institutions that work to address the needs of the disabled. Zellweger writes from a perspective of a senior aid worker with over thirty years of experience in Asia; she was the Pantech Fellow at Shorenstein APARC from 2011–13.
To view the full listing of publications, as well as reviews and purchasing information, please consult the Publications page on Shorenstein APARC's website.
Hero Image
Shorenstein APARC affiliates frequently produce and disseminate research.
Ambassador Kathleen Stephens, the Koret Fellow at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, has been named the United States’ chargé d’affaires to India. Stephens was asked to step in to replace retiring Ambassador Nancy Powell at a critical moment, with the formation of a new government in India following the sweeping election victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party led by Narendra Modi.
Stephens will assume the position in June and remain until a new ambassador is nominated and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the State Department said in a press briefing.
“I look forward to being in India during a momentous and promising time, and to working to deepen the relationship between the United States and India. My time at Stanford allowed me to engage with extraordinary colleagues and students at APARC and beyond, and will stand me in good stead as I take on new challenges in India,” Stephens said.
Stephens served as acting under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in 2012. She was the U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 2008 to 2011, and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs between 2005 and 2007. Her connection to Asia began in the 1970s when she was a Peace Corps volunteer in South Korea.
She has been in residence at Shorenstein APARC for the academic year, conducting research and participating in projects related to U.S.-Korea relations and greater Asia. Stephens also taught a course for Stanford students while here.
Shorenstein APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin said Stephens’ appointment reinforces the Center’s tradition of scholarship and promotion of bipartisan interaction with governments.
“We’re delighted by the news of Kathy’s appointment. Her long-standing ties with Asia and foreign affairs experience will serve her well in this important position. Kathy’s presence greatly enhanced our Center’s work and research agenda, and we wish her well as she heads to India,” Shin said.
Hero Image
Ambassador Kathleen Stephens pictured with Shorenstein APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin.
Shangri-La Dialogue
“
“
“
“
“
