Supported by Chinese officials and authoritative commentary, President Xi Jinping continued a moderate and cooperative posture toward Southeast Asia in early 2018, reaching a highpoint in Xi’s keynote address on April 10 at the annual Boao Forum for Asia in Hainan Province. Then, the posture switched dramatically to the surprise of many at home and abroad. On April 12, Xi appeared in military uniform addressing troops in the South China Sea participating in the largest naval review in China’s history. In an article for Comparative Connections, authors Robert G Sutter and (Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow) Chin-Hao Huang write that–in sending a signal to the United States, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, and others challenging Chinese activities in the South China Sea–the switch starkly showed the kind of power Beijing is prepared to use in pursuit of its national objectives.
A common assumption is that North Korea is a "Hermit Kingdom" that froze in time some decades ago. There are certainly many things about North Korea that have persisted, including the all-encompassing personality cult, the brutal repression, and the pervasive fear. In the last six years, however, since Kim Jong Un came to power and predictions of imminent collapse immediately followed, North Korea has changed in significant ways.
In the course of her reporting on North Korea, Anna Fifield , the 2018 Shorenstein Journalism Award recipient, has watched a leader who is much bolder and more audacious than his father ever was. Sometimes that boldness comes out in executions of family members and launching of missiles. But recently, it has manifested itself as summit diplomacy with enemy leaders. Kim Jong Un is now trying to re-position himself as a responsible, if nuclear-armed, global leader. He has adeptly accelerated the nuclear program and allowed a class of nouveaux riches to flourish.
An often-overlooked fact about North Korea, reports Fifield, is that life there has been getting slightly better for many people, in relative terms. Over the last several years, she has been struck by the number of North Korean defectors she met who have escaped not because they were starving, but because they were disillusioned.
Why have these and other changes occurred in North Korea? And how does the current diplomatic engagement with the North present an opportunity for us to help the country’s transformation?
On this panel discussion, celebrating the 2018 Shorenstein Journalism Award, the award winner, Anna Fifield, the Beijing bureau chief for The Washington Post , will consider these and other questions, drawing on her long career in journalism covering Asia and focusing on North Korea.
Anna Fifield is the Beijing bureau chief for The Washington Post , responsible for coverage of greater China. She joined The Washington Post in July 2014 as Tokyo Bureau Chief, writing about Japan and the two Koreas for four years, with a concentration on North Korea. She has been on 12 reporting trips to North Korea and regularly talks about North Korea on international television and radio, and at conferences.
Before joining The Washington Post , Fifield was a fellow at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, where she studied how change happens in closed societies. Previously, she was a correspondent for the Financial Times for 13 years, based in London, Sydney, Seoul, Tehran, Beirut, and finally in Washington D.C., where she was White House correspondent and covered the 2012 President election campaign.
Fifield comes from New Zealand and has a B.A. in English literature from Victoria University and a post-graduate diploma in journalism from Canterbury University.
Image
Andray Abrahamian is the 2018-19 Koret Fellow in the Korea Program at Stanford’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). Abrahamian has been Executive Director and Director of Research for Choson Exchange, a nonprofit that has trained over 2000 North Koreans in entrepreneurship and economic policy since 2010. His work for Choson Exchange and other projects has taken him to North Korea 30 times. He has also lived in Myanmar, where he conducted field research for his recent book, North Korea and Myanmar: Divergent Paths (McFarland, 2018), which asks why Myanmar came to end its isolation, while North Korea has not done so yet.
Abrahamian is an honorary fellow at Macquarie University, Sydney, and an adjunct fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute. He is a frequent contributor to 38North.org, a website focused on North Korea analysis, and is a member of the US National Committee on North Korea. He holds a PhD from the University of Ulsan and an MA from the University of Sussex in International Relations.
Barbara Demick is New York correspondent of the Los Angeles Times , formerly head of the bureaus in Beijing and Seoul. She is the author of Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea and Logavina Street: Life and Death in a Sarajevo Neighborhood . Demick has won Britain’s Samuel Johnson Award for best nonfiction, the George Polk Award and the Robert F. Kennedy Award, as well as the Osborn Elliot Prize for Journalism from the Asia Society and the Overseas Press Club, the American Academy of Diplomacy’s Arthur Ross Award and Stanford University’s Shorenstein Journalism Award for best Asia reporting. She has been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award. She was a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yong Suk Lee is the SK Center Fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Deputy Director of the Korea Program at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. Lee’s main fields of research are in labor economics, technology and entrepreneurship, and urban economics. Some of the issues he has studied include technology and labor markets, entrepreneurship and economic growth, entrepreneurship education, and education and inequality. He is also interested in both the North and South Korean economy and has examined how economic sanctions affect economic activity in North Korea, and how management practices and education policy affect inequality in South Korea. His current research focuses on how the new wave of digital technologies will affect labor, education, entrepreneurship, and productivity. Lee’s research has been published in both Economics and Management journals. He also regularly contributes to policy reports and opinion pieces on contemporary issues surrounding both North and South Korea.
Prior to joining Stanford, Lee was an assistant professor of economics at Williams College in Massachusetts. He received his PhD in Economics from Brown University, a Master of Public Policy from Duke University, and bachelor's degree and master's degree in architecture from Seoul National University.
About the Shorenstein Journalism Award:
The Shorenstein Journalism Award,which carries a cash prize of $10,000, honors a journalist not only for a distinguished body of work, but also for the particular way in which that work has helped readers to understand the complexities of Asia. The award, established in 2002, was named after Walter H. Shorenstein, the philanthropist, activist, and businessman who endowed two institutions that are focused respectively on Asia and on the press: the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) in the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University, and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In 2010, Shorenstein APARC re-envisioned the award in recognition of the fact that Asia has served as a crucible for the role of the press in democratization in places such as South Korea, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Since then the award has also recognized Asian journalists who, in addition to their professional excellence and contribution to knowledge of Asia, have helped defend and build a free media in Asia.
This report was produced for the Abe Fellows Global Forum 2017 symposiums on climate change, held in partnership with Stanford University's Walter H. Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center (Abe Global | Stanford, October 20, 2017) and the Asia Society Texas Center (Abe Global | Houston, October 18, 2017), respectively.
Energy-intensive production has been both a leading contributor to climate change as well as one of the keys to modern economic growth over the last several centuries. In the post-WWII era, the “economic miracles” of Asian growth—starting with Japan, and followed by South Korea, Taiwan, China, and now increasingly India—have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. At the same time, these “economic miracles” have created huge pollution problems which have adversely affected the health of millions of people while speeding up the effects of climate change.
Some early developers from this group—including Japan—have made efforts to clean up their air and water, created more energy efficient economies, lowered their carbon footprints and contributed to initiatives to slow global warming. The Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster forced Japan to take even more aggressive action to reduce energy consumption and lessen its impact on the global environment. In contrast, the United States, as a sizeable nation-state both in its geographic area and economy, is one of the world’s largest polluters and recently made recent headlines when it withdrew from the Paris Agreement negotiated at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21).
Putting into place effective measures to curtail climate change while creating sustainable societies requires international cooperation. The series of extreme weather events in the US in 2017 are only some the most recent disasters to remind us of climate change’s threat to our economy, our society, and our individual daily lives.
All Publications button
1
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Abe Fellowship Program and Social Science Research Council
In a new article for Contemporary American Review, Shorenstein APARC Distinguished Fellow Thomas Fingar examines how, twenty-five years after the demise of the Soviet Union, Americans are still struggling to understand and adjust to the costs and consequences of success. Since 1991, diplomats, military professionals, and others showed an inclination towards the same approach to international affairs that brought success in the Cold War. The result was a foreign policy both stable and predictable. Under the Trump administration, however, this no longer appears to be the case.
For much of the world, and for many in the U.S., recents changes are unsettling. Some hope that U.S. foreign policy will soon return to the status quo; others believe the present to simply be indicative of an inescapabe decline in U.S. leadership. Professor Fingar argues that American foreign policy will once again become stable and predictable, but that it will not "simply revert to the policies of a now byone era."
On May 4, 2018, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) President Jin Liqun delivered a talk titled “The AIIB After Two Years” to a Stanford audience of faculty, students, and community members. The event was sponsored by the China Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.
President Jin addressed the challenges of establishing the AIIB and shed light on the organization’s future goals. Following prepared remarks, President Jin conversed with moderator Thomas Fingar, before opening the floor to questions from the audience.
A recording of the event is now available online .
Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan’s Board of Trustees James Moriarty visited Shorenstein APARC on May 3rd for a seminar titled “The United States and Taiwan: An Enduring Friendship.” The former United States ambassador spoke about historical, contemporary and future U.S.-Taiwan relations and addressed the challenges and merits of democratic systems.
A recording of the event is avilabe below. A transcript of the proceedings is availabe below.
How does Southeast Asia incentivize a major power like China to exercise restraint, particularly in the ongoing dispute in the South China Sea (SCS)? Prof. Huang will argue that regional consensus, interactive deliberations, and insulated negotiation settings are most likely to induce China to shift its policy in the SCS toward supporting regional initiatives that it previously deflected, resisted, or opposed, and toward reevaluating the efficacy of using force. Conversely, regional disunity and fragmentation would render China more likely to practice power politics. Without joint influence, the states of Southeast Asia are unlikely to alter China’s preference for pursuing its interests in the SCS by coercive means intended to minimize the capabilities of other claimant states and thereby sustain its unilateral approach to maritime security.
A key question for this research is the extent to which confidence-building diplomacy based on voluntary cooperation between China and Southeast Asia can cultivate habits of avoiding conflict without the binding agreements and formal sanctioning mechanisms that have proven so hard to negotiate. Preliminary findings suggest the need for scholars and practitioners to be more creative, precise, and consistent in studying and suggesting how Southeast Asia can project and implement its security norms in ways that incentivize change in the foreign policy paradigm of an imposing external power.
Image
Chin-Hao Huang is an assistant professor of political science at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. His current book-in-progress, Power, Restraint, and China’s Rise, explains why and how China’s foreign policy might reflect restraint even as its material power increases at unprecedented rates. His latest publication is “China-Southeast Asia Relations: Xi Jinping Stresses Cooperation and Power—Enduring Contradiction?” (coauthored, Comparative Connections, May 2018). Earlier writings have appeared as monographs, in edited volumes, and in journals including The China Quarterly, The China Journal, and Contemporary Southeast Asia. Tri-lingual in Mandarin, Thai, and French, Prof. Huang lectures widely and has testified on Chinese foreign policy before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. His PhD and BS are respectively from the University of Southern California and Georgetown University
Chin-Hao Huang
2017-2018 Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow on Contemporary Southeast Asia
Even as Indian officials watch the rise of China and recent changes to its foreign policy with apprehension, they prefer to avoid having to choose sides between the United States and China.
That sentiment marked the keynote address by veteran journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, winner of the 2017 Shorenstein Journalism Award. Speaking on April 16 at the Award’s sixteenth anniversary panel discussion titled “India, the United States, and China: The New Triangle in Asia,” Varadarajan described a triangle where all three parties were in flux.
The award recognizes Varadarajan’s exemplary record of excellence in reporting on India’s domestic and foreign affairs in both traditional and new media. As founding editor of The Wire, Varadarajan combines innovative digital strategies with quality reporting that advances positive social, economic, and political change.
“Today we can see, across Asia as well as the United States, that journalism has been somewhat reinvigorated by… the growth of authoritarianism,” said Daniel Sneider, Shorenstein APARC visiting scholar, who chaired the noon panel. “I think we feel even more vindicated in hosting this award…and giving some attention to people who are making this kind of contribution.”
Thomas Fingar, a China specialist and a Shorenstein APARC fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute, and Nayan Chandra, the founder, former editor-in-chief, and current consulting editor of YaleGlobal Online magazine, joined Varadarajan on the panel.
The panelists addressed a host of questions related to Indian foreign policy under the geopolitical construct of a rising China and a retreating United States. Although the China-India-U.S. triangle has existed for some time, Varadarajan argued that present conditions make it an important topic for renewed discussion.
Pointing to recent internal changes by president Xi Jinping, India’s departure from the so-called Nehruvian consensus, as well as the unpredictability of U.S. foreign and trade polices under the Trump presidency, Varadarajan depicted a triangle comprised of shifting segment lengths and angles. He reviewed the India-U.S. and the India-China relationships and their evolution over the last decade-and-a-half; outlined significant changes in China’s foreign and economic policies over the last eight years; and elucidated the U.S.-India response to these changes.
Since 1998 and India’s declaration of its status as a nuclear power, U.S.-India relations have seen a succession of rises and falls under each presidency, with the present administration being no exception. “When the rest of the world was ambiguous, ambivalent, a bit worried about what the United States might do under Trump,” Varadarajan said, “Prime Minister Modi was one of the few world leaders to actually seek a doubling down of the relationship." Over the same period, India-China relations tended to follow a similar pattern of peaks and troughs, albeit in a reversed pattern. “If you look broadly at the India-China relationship,” Varadarajan summated, “it’s a textbook case of how improvements in economic relations and improvements in trade do not necessarily lead to improvements in political relations."
Image
Varadarajan closed his remarks by arguing against the existing viewpoint of the triangle as a zero-sum game. “You cannot, on the one hand, talk of the need for a free and open Indo-Pacific region and, on the other hand, create forums or architecture that in some ways are designed to keep the Chinese out… India's interests lie perhaps in an architecture that is genuinely inclusive.”
The Shorenstein Journalism Award, which carries a cash prize of $10,000, recognizes accomplished journalists committed to critical reporting on and exploring the complexities of Asia through their writing. It alternates between honoring recipients from the West, who mainly address American audiences, and recipients from Asia, who pave the way for freedom of the press in their countries. Established in 2002, the award honors the legacy of Mr. Walter H. Shorenstein. A visionary businessman, philanthropist, and champion of Asian-American relations, Shorenstein was dedicated to promoting excellence in journalism and deeper understanding of Asia.
Varadarajan called the award a “boost to those of us in India who are fighting the good fight of keeping independent journalism alive-and kicking under difficult circumstances.”
Watch Varadarajan’s keynote speech:
Hero Image
Siddharth Varadarajan, the 2017 Shorenstein Journalism Award winner, speaks to an audience of Stanford faculty, students and community members, part of the award's 16th anniversary, April 16, 2018. | Rod Searcey
We analyze the effects of early-life shocks with varying degrees of severity on mortality and human capital outcomes in the Philippines. We exploit variations in typhoon exposure and the introduction of a short-term post-disaster relief policy. Severe
typhoons are associated with increased mortality and adverse long-term outcomes. Before the disaster relief policy, mortality from in utero exposure to severe typhoons was 10 percent, and survivors exhibited similar levels of human capital as the unaffected.
Once implemented, the policy appears to have mitigated the mortality effect of severe typhoons, and survivors have lower human capital in the long term.
Although many public hospital physicians in Vietnam offer private service on the side, little is known about the magnitude and nature of the phenomenon of so-called dual practice, let alone the dynamics between the public and private health sectors. This study investigates how and to what degree public hospital physicians engage in private practice. It also examines the commitment of dual practitioners to the public sector. The analysis is based on a hospital-based survey of 483 physicians at 10 public hospitals in four provinces of Vietnam. Nearly half of the participants in the study sample reported themselves as dual practitioners. Various types of private practice were mentioned. Private practice at health facilities owned by the private sector was the most prevalent, followed by private practice delivered at health facilities owned by the dual practitioners themselves. Private practice inside public hospitals was also noted. Dual practitioners were likely to be senior and hold management positions inside their public hospitals. Substantial income differences were found between dual practitioners and those physicians practicing in only the public sector. The majority of dual practitioners, however, reported the willingness to give up private practice if certain conditions were met, such as a basic salary increase or non-pecuniary benefits. The main reasons dual practitioners gave for not leaving the public sector included a sense of public responsibility and opportunities to gain a broader professional network and more training. This study reiterates the significant challenges associated with dual practice, including its financial implications and possible effects on health care quality and access. The need for a high-quality workforce committed to the public sector is particularly critical, given the possibility of universal insurance coverage. Future research should address the need to improve data collection on physicians’ dual practice and incorporate the topic in policy debates on health reform.
Keywords: physician dual practice, public-private mix, Vietnam, human resources for health, hospital reform, health system research, low- and middle-income countries, universal health coverage.
