As the world becomes increasingly interconnected through digital infrastructure, the governance of critical technologies has emerged as a central issue in global politics. Once dominated by Western powers, the standard setting of emerging technologies such as 5G, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things  is tilting toward East Asia, particularly China and South Korea. Their expanding role in defining global technology rules raises questions: How do emerging powers influence international norms through transnational platforms? What role do multinational firms play in the competition to set technical standards? And how does the shift in international digital governance affect the global distribution of technological power?

These are among the core questions guiding the research of Yingqiu Kuang, a 2024–25 Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow on Contemporary Asia at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). The fellowship is now accepting applications for the 2026-27 cycle. 

Drawing on a mixed-method approach that combines a novel dataset of 5G standard proposals from more than 400 multinational enterprises with over 100 interviews conducted across China and elsewhere, Kuang’s research reveals how these firms strategically navigate and transform complex global rulemaking environments. By integrating perspectives from comparative political economy, international business, and non-market strategy, her work offers new insights into how emerging economies are reshaping the global technological order.

We spoke with Dr. Kuang about her ongoing research, her experience at APARC, and her reflections on the future of global digital governance. The conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' updates >

Tell us a bit about your research project

I am currently working on my first book manuscript, entitled A Mosaic of Mundane Innovations: Emerging Powers, Multinational Firms, and Global 5G Technology Rules. It investigates a pivotal transformation currently underway in the global order: China and other East Asian states are reshaping the governance of critical technologies, especially in 5G telecommunications. Through transnational standard-setting and rulemaking, they are playing a leading role in the new era of digital transformation.

The project asks two key questions: First, why are nearly half of the global 5G standards coming from multinational enterprises (MNEs) of emerging markets such as China and South Korea? Second, how are their engagements in the global technology competition different from those of traditional technological superpowers during earlier waves of disruptive innovation?

My research reveals the novel strategic repertoire of these emerging economy MNEs. By strategically orchestrating domestic and supranational institutions in technology rulemaking, they have transformed institutional complexity into a global competitive advantage and driven the ascent of China and other East Asian economies in the new global technology complex.  

The project offers two important implications. First, at a time when the world’s attention is focused on state-level geopolitical competition, my research highlights the crucial and often underestimated role of transnational private governance in shaping the outcomes of the global tech race. Second, by revealing a new and more complex pattern of state–business interplay, my research underscores the renewed importance of studying economic dynamism and governance in Asia and beyond in the digital age.

What initially drew you to study your current research topic?

My journey to this topic began not with a theory, but with a simple curiosity about what lies beneath the big numbers. When I was working as a policy researcher at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, I was involved in a multi-year project tracing two-way foreign direct investment (FDI) flows between Canada and Asia. But as I began to look more closely at the aggregated data and analyze their patterns, I found myself constantly wondering: What does each FDI project actually look like on the ground? How do multinational firms interact with local communities and governments? And most importantly, how does innovation really happen in these economies?

These questions drew me toward the firm-level dynamics that large datasets often obscure. As I dug deeper, I realized that in critical technology sectors, emerging economies such as China and South Korea were not just catching up but were beginning to lead, often leapfrogging established Western giants. And surprisingly, this ascent was being driven by the firms themselves, not merely by top-down government directives. This puzzle became the foundation of my book project.

What are some of the largest challenges you have identified in studying rule-making on transnational platforms and global technology governance more broadly?

There are two main challenges that I am still working to address in my research. The first is a fundamental disconnect between the actual practice of global technology governance and the public narrative surrounding it. On one hand, technology rulemaking has long been perceived as a mundane, apolitical process. It typically involves engineers debating minute technical parameters to find optimal solutions to concrete problems. On the other hand, the evolving U.S.-China rivalry has amplified the geopolitical implications of these very rules, capturing the attention of political leaders and the public.

This disconnect creates a fascinating challenge, which I encountered firsthand in my fieldwork: engineers focused on technical minutiae, while executives and policymakers debated grand strategy. Bridging this gap — understanding how technology should best be developed and governed — is a central intellectual task of my work.

The second major challenge is data availability. Because this work was historically seen as purely technical, many international organizations involved in global technology governance have maintained poor archival practices. A crucial next step for the entire field — and a personal passion of mine — is to develop new methods for archiving and analyzing the day-to-day activities of global rulemaking. This would not only expand the scope of my own research but also provide a foundational public good for other scholars seeking to understand this critical intersection of technology, business, society, and global politics.

How has your time at APARC aided your research?

At APARC, I have benefited from what at first seems like a paradox: a lively intellectual community and the rare luxury of a quiet working space. On one hand, the seminars, workshops, and events hosted at APARC and other campus organizations gave me countless opportunities to engage with scholars across disciplines. Their intellectual energy greatly broadened my perspective on Asia and the world. On the other hand, I was also fortunate to enjoy the quiet, friendly, and focused environment of the APARC office, which allowed me to both recharge and concentrate deeply on my research. 

Did you discover anything surprising while you were here?

What surprised me most was the balance between structure and spontaneity at APARC. On one hand, I learned a great deal from the Center’s formal events — seminars, fireside chats, and interdisciplinary workshops that brought together scholars of Asia from across Stanford and beyond. On the other hand, some of the most inspiring moments came in less expected settings: impromptu hallway conversations in Encina Hall, coffee chats in the lounge, lively exchanges over lunch or dinner, and even an afternoon walk with fellows around campus. These informal encounters often stayed with me and shaped my thinking in surprising ways.

What advice would you give to a young scholar in your field?

It’s more of my experience rather than advice, that is, to stay positive and open-minded. Research rarely follows the path you first imagine, but in my experience, the most exciting ideas often emerge when you adapt and embrace unexpected opportunities.

What is on the horizon for you? What's next?

I will continue working on my book manuscript and plan to conduct new fieldwork in Asia and Europe to enrich the qualitative side of the project. At the same time, I am excited to launch my second book-length project, which explores how emerging technologies are pushing states and firms to forge new strategic relationships to facilitate innovation and govern technological change.

The world’s health systems face a complex and interconnected set of challenges that threaten to outpace our capacity to respond. Geopolitical fragmentation, climatic breakdown, technological disruption, pandemic threats, and misinformation have converged to strain the foundations of global health.  Building resilient global health systems requires five urgent reforms: sharpening the mandate of the World Health Organization (WHO), operationalizing the One Health concept, modernizing procurement, addressing the climate–health nexus, and mobilizing innovative financing. Together, these shifts can move the world from fragmented, reactive crisis management to proactive, equitable, and sustainable health security.

Emerging and Escalating Threats

While the global community demonstrated remarkable resilience in weathering the COVID-19 pandemic, the crisis also exposed profound structural weaknesses in global health governance and architecture. Chronic underinvestment in health systems led to coverage gaps, workforce shortages, and inadequate surveillance systems. The pandemic also revealed a fragmented global health architecture, plagued by institutional silos among key agencies (Elnaiem et al. 2023).

Years later, the aftershocks of the pandemic still resonate worldwide, with the ongoing triple burden of disease—the unfinished agenda of maternal and child health, the rising silent pandemic of noncommunicable diseases, and the reemergence of communicable diseases. These challenges, combined with the persistent challenge of malnutrition, unmet needs in early childhood development, growing concerns around mental health, and the threat of other emerging diseases, as well as the rising toll of trauma, injury, and aging populations, have placed countries across the world under immense strain. Health systems face acute infrastructure gaps, critical workforce shortages, and persistent inequities in service delivery, making it increasingly difficult to address the complex and evolving health needs of their populations. Post-pandemic fiscal tightening has constrained health budgets with debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 70–80% in parts of the region (UN ESCAP 2023).

 Furthermore, climate change is fundamentally redefining the risk landscape. Rising temperatures, more frequent floods, intensifying storms, and shifting vector ranges for organisms like mosquitoes and ticks are disrupting food systems, displacing populations, and driving new patterns of disease transmission. Over the next 25 years in low- and middle-income countries, climate change could cause over 15 million excess deaths, and economic losses related to health risks from climate change could surpass $20.8 trillion (World Bank 2024). The cost of inaction has never been higher.

Meanwhile, deepening political polarization is amplifying conflict and weakening the global cooperation essential for scientific progress. The number of geopolitical disturbances worldwide is at an all-time high, displacing over 122 million people and eroding access to essential health services (UNHCR 2024). In 2023, false and conspiratorial health claims amassed over 4 billion views across digital platforms, compromising vaccine uptake and fueling health-related conspiracy theories. (Kisa and Kisa 2025). Furthermore, exponential technological advances in artificial intelligence are outpacing public health governance systems, creating new ethical and equity dilemmas. Global development assistance for health has significantly declined by more than $10 billion, with sharp cuts driven by the United States. This decline is likely to continue over the next five years (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation 2025).

Image

Note: Development assistance for health is measured in 2023 real US dollars; 2025 data are preliminary estimates.

Source: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation 2025.
 

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' updates >

Five Critical Reform Directions for Future-Proofing Global Health Systems

1.    WHO matters more than ever — but only if it sharpens its focus.

The World Health Organization remains the technical backbone of global health, with a mandate to set norms and standards, shape research agendas, monitor health trends, coordinate emergency responses and regulation, and provide technical assistance. COVID-19 underscored both its indispensability and its limitations. During the pandemic, WHO convened states, disseminated guidance, and spearheaded initiatives like the Solidarity Trial and COVAX to promote vaccine equity, illustrating why it remains vital as the only neutral platform where 194 member states can cooperate on pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, or climate-related health risks. Its work on universal health coverage, the “triple burden” of disease, and global health data continues to anchor policy across countries.

At the same time, the crisis exposed structural weaknesses: WHO lacks enforcement authority, relies heavily on voluntary donor-driven funding, and sometimes stretches beyond its comparative strengths. When it shifts from convening and technical guidance into direct fund management, logistics, or large-scale program delivery, it risks diluting its mandate and eroding trust. Critics argue this reflects a broader challenge of an expansive mandate and donor-driven mission creep, pushing WHO beyond what 7,000 staff and a modest budget can realistically deliver. The way forward lies in sharpening focus: leveraging its convening power and legitimacy, providing technical expertise and evidence-based guidance, coordinating emergencies under the International Health Regulations, and advocating for equity in access to medicines and care. Anchored in these core strengths, a more agile WHO can better lead during crises, sustain credibility, and ensure that global health standards are consistently applied across diverse national contexts.

2.    Animal Health as the Next Frontier

More than 70 percent of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin, with roughly three-quarters of newly detected pathogens in recent decades spilling over from animals into humans (WHO 2022; Jones, Patel, Levy, et al. 2008). The economic costs are staggering: the World Bank estimates that zoonotic outbreaks have cost the global economy over $120 billion between 1997 and 2009 through crises such as Nipah, SARS, H5N1, and H1N1 (World Bank 2012). The drivers of spillover are intensifying due to deforestation and land-use change, industrial livestock farming, wildlife trade, and climate change. These are further accelerating the emergence of novel pathogens. 

However, the governance of animal health remains fragmented. While WHO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) each hold mandates, they often operate in silos. The Quadripartite, expanded in 2021 to include the United Nations Environment Programme, launched a One Health Joint Plan of Action (2022–26), but it remains underfunded and lacks strong political commitment. 

There is an urgent need to move One Health from principle to practice. To fill this governance gap, the world should consider establishing an independent intergovernmental alliance for animal health with a clear mandate. This could strengthen global One Health response by augmenting joint surveillance, building veterinary workforce capacity, and integrating environmental data into early warning systems. Such an alliance should avoid creating new bureaucratic layers and instead leverage the Quadripartite as its operational backbone. Embedding One Health into national health strategies and cross-sectoral policies would enable animal, human, and environmental health systems to work in tandem and address risks at their source. Preventive investments are also very cost-effective; the World Bank estimates that annual One Health prevention investments of $10–11 billion could save multiple times that amount in avoided pandemic losses (World Bank 2012). Strengthening One Health is both a health and economic necessity. 

3.    Agile Procurement: The Missing Link in Global Health Security

COVID-19 revealed how vital procurement and financial management are to global health security. A system built for routine procurement was suddenly called upon to handle crisis response on a worldwide scale, and it struggled to keep up. When vaccines became available, strict procedures, fragmented supply chains, and export restrictions meant access was uneven and often delayed. Developed countries’ advance purchase agreements stockpiled most of the supply, leaving many low- and middle-income countries waiting for doses. Within the UN system and its partners, overly complex procurement rules slowed the speed to market, and the lack of harmonized regulatory recognition caused further delays. As a result, those least able to handle shocks faced the longest waits and highest costs.

Reform must begin by making procurement agile, transparent, and equitable. Emergency playbooks should be pre-cleared to ensure that indemnity clauses and quality assurance requirements can be activated immediately when the next crisis arises. Regional pooled procurement mechanisms, like the Pan American Health Organization’s Revolving Fund or the African Union’s pooled initiatives, should be expanded to diversify supply sources and anchor distributed manufacturing. End-to-end e-procurement platforms would provide real-time shipment tracking, facility-level stock visibility, and open dashboards to strengthen accountability. Financial management must be integrated with procurement so that contingency funds, countercyclical reserves, and fast-disbursing credit lines can release resources in tandem with purchase orders. Together, these reforms would ensure that in future health emergencies, these procurement systems act as lifelines rather than bottlenecks.

4.    Addressing the Health–Climate Nexus

Climate change poses severe health risks, disproportionately affecting women and vulnerable populations in developing countries through heatwaves, poor air quality, food and water insecurity, and the spread of infectious diseases. Climate-related disasters are increasing in frequency and severity worldwide, reshaping both economies and health systems. In 2022, there were 308 climate-related disasters worldwide, ranging from floods and storms to droughts and wildfires (ADRC 2022). These events generated an estimated $270 billion in overall economic losses, with only about $120 billion insured—underscoring the disproportionate burden on low- and middle-income countries where resilience and coverage remain limited (Munich Re 2023). Over the past two decades, Asia and the Pacific have consistently been the most disaster-prone regions, accounting for nearly 40% of all global events, but every continent is now affected, from prolonged droughts in Africa and mega storms in North America to record-breaking heatwaves in Europe (UNEP n.d.).

Meeting this challenge requires a dual agenda of adaptation and mitigation. Health systems must be made climate-resilient by hardening infrastructure against floods and storms, ensuring reliable, clean energy in clinics and hospitals, and building climate-informed surveillance and early-warning systems that can anticipate disease outbreaks linked to environmental change. Supply chains need redundancy and flexibility to withstand shocks, and frontline workers require training to manage climate-driven health crises. At the same time, health systems must rapidly decarbonize. This means greening procurement and supply chains, phasing out high-emission medical products like certain inhalers and anesthetic gases, upgrading buildings and transport fleets, and embedding sustainability into financing and governance. Momentum is growing. The 2023 G20 Summit in Delhi, supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), recognized the health–climate nexus as a global priority, and institutions such as WHO, the World Bank, and ADB have begun to advance this agenda. The next step is to translate commitments into operational change by embedding climate-health strategies into national health plans, financing frameworks, and cross-sectoral policies. Climate action, sustainability, and resilience need to be integrated into the foundation of health systems.

5.    Mobilizing Innovative Financing

Strengthening health systems and preventing future pandemics will require massive financing, but global health funding is in decline. Innovative mechanisms to mobilize new resources are essential. This requires stronger engagement with finance ministries, development financing institutions, and the private sector to design models that attract and de-risk investment while enabling rapid disbursement during emergencies. International financing institutions (IFIs) need to unlock innovative financial pathways to amplify health investments. They need to deploy blended finance initiatives, public-private partnerships, guarantees, debt swaps, and outcome-based financing tools to mobilize private capital for health. Over the past few years, IFIs have committed billions in health-related financing worldwide. This has included landmark support for vaccine access facilities, delivery of hundreds of millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses, and mobilization of large-scale response packages that combine grants, loans, and technical assistance. 

There is a need to broaden the financing mandate beyond investing in universal health coverage and mobilize capital for emerging areas, including the climate-health nexus, mental health, nutrition, rapid urbanization, demographic shifts, digitization, and non-communicable diseases. By leveraging their balance sheets, IFIs can generate a multiplier effect in fund mobilization and attract new financing actors. Innovative instruments are already demonstrating potential. For example, the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm), which issues “vaccine bonds” backed by donor pledges, has raised over $8 billion for Gavi immunization programs (IFFIm 2022; Moody’s 2024).  Debt-for-health and debt-for-nature swaps have redirected debt service into social outcomes. For example, El Salvador’s 2019 Debt2Health agreement with Germany channeled approximately $11 million into strengthening its health system, while Seychelles’ debt-for-nature swap created SeyCCAT to finance marine conservation, yielding social and resilience co-benefits for coastal communities (Hu, Wang, Zhou, et al. 2024). Similarly, contingent financing facilities—such as the Innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific (IF-CAP) and the International Financing Facility for Education (IFFEd)—also hold significant potential for health (IFFEd n.d.; ADB n.d.).  These examples demonstrate how contingent financing and swaps can expand fiscal space without exacerbating debt distress.

This can create a virtuous cycle of facilitating investments that create regional cooperation for sustainable and scalable impact. In this vein, the G20 Pandemic Fund is a beacon of catalytic multilateralism funding in a fragmented world. Launched in 2022 with over $2 billion pooled from governments, philanthropies, and multilaterals, it strengthens pandemic preparedness in low- and middle-income countries. Every $1 awarded from the Pandemic Fund has mobilized an estimated $7 in additional financing. The fund demonstrates that nations can still unite around shared threats, offering hope and a template for collective action on global challenges.

Equally important is the ability to deploy funds rapidly in emergencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, reserve and countercyclical funds, used by countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Lithuania, along with the Multilateral Development Bank’s fast-track financing facilities with streamlined approval and disbursement processes, provided urgent and timely financing support (Sagan, Webb, Azzopardi-Muscat, et al. 2021; Lee and Aboneaaj 2021). These mechanisms should be institutionalized in national financial management systems as well as IFIs to ensure rapid funding disbursement in future health emergencies

Moving Forward

Delivering on this reform agenda requires more than technical fixes—it demands political will, sustained financing, and cross-sectoral collaboration. Member states must empower WHO to lead within its comparative strengths, while reinforcing One Health through stronger mandates and funding. Governments, IFIs, and the private sector should jointly design agile procurement and financing mechanisms that can be activated at speed during crises. Embedding health into climate policies and climate resilience into health strategies will ensure that future systems are both sustainable and resilient to shocks. Above all, reform efforts must be anchored in equity, so that the most vulnerable are protected first.

The opportunity before the global community is to reimagine health as the backbone of resilience and prosperity in the 21st century. A whole-of-systems approach is necessary to clarify mandates, integrate animal and environmental health, develop agile and fair procurement systems, embed climate action into health systems, and mobilize innovative financing. The steps taken in the next few years can lead to a more connected, cooperative, and future-ready global health architecture. 

Works Cited

ADB (Asia Development Bank). n.d. “IF-CAP: innovative Finance Facility for Climate in Asia and the Pacific.”

ADRC (Asian Disaster Reduction Center). Natural Disasters Data Book 2022. 

Elnaiem, Azza, Olaa Mohamed-Ahmed, Alimuddin Zumla, et al. 2023. “Global and Regional Governance of One Health and Implications for Global Health Security.” The Lancet 401 (10377): 688–704. 

Hu, Yunxuan, Zhebin Wang, Shuduo Zhou, et al. 2024. “Redefining Debt-to-Health, a Triple-Win Health Financing Instrument in Global Health.” Globalization and Health 20 (1): 39. 

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. 2025. “Financing Global Health.” 

IFFEd (International Financing Facility for Education). n.d. “A Generation of Possibilities.” 

IFFIm (International Finance Facility for Immunisation). 2022. “How the World Bank Built Trust in Vaccine Bonds.” October 21. 

Jones, Kate E., Nikkita G. Patel, Marc A. Levy, et al. 2008. “Global Trends in Emerging Infectious Diseases.” Nature 451: 990–93. 

Kisa, Adnan, and Sezer Kisa. 2025. “Health Conspiracy Theories: A Scoping Review of Drivers, Impacts, and Countermeasures.” International Journal for Equity in Health 24 (1): 93.  

Lee, Nancy, and Rakan Aboneaaj. 2021. “MDB COVID-19 Crisis Response: Where Did the Money Go?” CGD Note, Center for Global Development, November. 

Moody’s. 2024. "International Finance Facility for Immunisation—Aa1 Stable” Credit opinion. October 29. 

Munich Re. 2023. “Climate Change and La Niña Driving Losses: The Natural Disaster Figures for 2022.” January 10. 

Sagan, Anna, Erin Webb, Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat, et al. 2021. Health Systems Resilience During COVID-19: Lessons for Building Back Better. World Health Organization and the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 

UN ESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific). 2023. “Public Debt Dashboard.” 

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). n.d. “Building Resilience to Disasters and Conflicts.” Accessed September 1, 2025. 

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2024. Global Trends Report. Copenhagen, Denmark. 

WHO (World Health Organization). 2022. Zoonoses and the Environment. 

World Bank. 2012. People, Pathogens and Our Planet: The Economics of One Health.  

World Bank. 2024. The Cost of Inaction: Quantifying the Impact of Climate Change on Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Washington D.C. 

This opinion piece was first published by Project Syndicate >

STANFORD/LOS ANGELES – It is tempting to frame the Sino-American economic rivalry as a clash between engineering doers and lawyerly naysayers, as the Chinese-Canadian analyst Dan Wang does in his new book Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future. But this is a false dichotomy, because law is a crucial feature of US capitalism.

We have heard the lawyers-versus-engineers argument before. Forty years ago, Japan’s economic rise induced similar anxieties, most famously articulated in the American sociologist Ezra Vogel’s book Japan as Number One: Lessons for America. Commentators fretted that America was mired in lawsuits while Japan’s best minds were solving problems and driving their country’s meteoric growth. Yet over the ensuing decades, the United States, with its mammoth legal industry, outperformed Japan by a wide margin.

Today’s panic about an Asian economic challenger is equally unwarranted and counterproductive. Invoking national security and the competition with China, Donald Trump’s administration is pursuing increasingly anti-capitalist and legally dubious interventions into private industry, with potentially high costs for American dynamism.

Continue reading at Project Syndicate >

We are pleased to share the publication of a new volume, Cold War Refugees: Connected Histories of Displacement and Migration across Postcolonial Asia, edited by the Korea Program's Yumi Moon, associate professor in Stanford's Department of History.

The book, now available from Stanford University Press, revisits Cold War history by examining the identities, cultures, and agendas of the many refugees forced to flee their homes across East, Southeast, and South Asia due to the great power conflict between the US and the USSR. Moon's book draws on multilingual archival sources and presents these displaced peoples as historical actors in their own right, not mere subjects of government actions. Exploring the local, regional, and global contexts of displacement through five cases —Taiwan, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan — this volume sheds new light on understudied aspects of Cold War history.

The book's chapters — written by Phi-Vân Nguyen, Dominic Meng-Hsuan Yang, Yumi Moon, Ijlal Muzaffar, Robert D. Crews, Sabauon Nasseri, and Aishwary Kumar — explore Vietnam's 1954 partition, refugees displaced from Zhejiang to Taiwan, North Korean refugees in South Korea from 1945–50, the Cold War legacy in Karachi, and Afghan refugees.

Purchase Cold War Refugees at www.sup.org and receive 20% off with the code MOON20.

The world stands at a critical juncture. Today, about 2.3 billion people are living with moderate or severe food insecurity worldwide (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO 2024). By 2050, our planet will be home to nearly 10 billion people, requiring at least a 50% increase in food production from 2011 levels (FAO 2017). This challenge is not simply about producing more food. It is about doing so on degraded land, with less water, under extreme weather conditions in the face of climate change. 

The traditional, resource-intensive farming that sustained the global human population for decades is no longer a viable path forward. Reliance on labor inputs and intensive use of resources cannot meet these complex, interconnected challenges. We must transform our agricultural systems into climate-smart, high-tech agriculture—driven by data and Industry 4.0 technologies, such as AI, robotics, remote sensing, and big data. These tools hold the promise of a “quantum leap” in sustainable food productivity. Yet this transformation cannot happen without investing in agricultural education and training.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, institutions such as the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, USAID and its precursors, and multilateral development banks made significant global investments in agricultural research, education, and training. These investments laid the foundation for the Green Revolution, demonstrating that human capital and agricultural research and development (R&D) are as critical as physical inputs in driving productivity growth and food security. Since then, however, global public investment in agricultural education and R&D has declined or stagnated, except in a few countries, such as China (Ruane and Ramasamy 2023). For example, in the United States, public agricultural R&D spending—adjusted for inflation—fell by nearly one-third between its 2002 peak and 2019, returning to levels last seen in the 1970s. 

Why Investing in Agricultural Education Is a Global Necessity

There is now an urgent need for a renewed commitment to build agricultural human resources that can lead the next transformation. This is not just about teaching farming. It is about cultivating a new generation of innovators, scientists, policymakers, and agro-entrepreneurs who can lead the Green Revolution 2.0. Here are seven compelling reasons why investing in agricultural education is a global necessity.

1. The times call for a quantum leap in sustainable productivity

The first Green Revolution helped avert mass famine through high-yield varieties, but at great environmental cost (see, inter alia, Tilman 1999 and Yang 2024). Now, we need a  Green Revolution 2.0 to drive a "quantum leap" in food production. This next revolution must be “smart” and sustainable. Agricultural education is the engine of this revolution. It will educate scientists, policymakers, and high-tech farmers, enabling them to develop new climate-resilient crops and adopt sustainable practices. Furthermore, the digital technologies driving the Green Revolution 2.0 can improve market access and help ensure fair prices for smallholder farmers.

2. Innovation adoption must be accelerated

Innovation is meaningless if it does not reach those who need it most. However, farmers, especially smallholders (e.g., small-scale and family farmers) and those with limited education, are often risk-averse in adopting new practices. Worse, the traditional systems supporting technology adoption have become ineffective. Government extension services struggle to keep up with the latest technologies, while farmers increasingly rely on commercial vendors for advice. Recent studies suggest that newer approaches, like social networks and farmer-to-farmer learning, have proven far more effective. Investing in education helps create "agropreneurs" who can champion innovation within farming communities, thereby accelerating the adoption of new technologies.

3. The agriculture workforce needs upskilling

The nature of work in agriculture is rapidly changing—vertical farms, AI-driven analytics, automated systems, and climate-resilient practices are redefining food production. Farmers need new skills in data, systems management, digital operations, and climate-resilient methods. Without education, millions risk being left behind, especially in developing countries, resulting in worsening inequality. Investment in upskilling enables farmers to collaborate with technology, thereby avoiding a poverty trap.

4. Empowering smallholder and family farmers will create opportunities and aid their survival

Unlike past mechanization that favored large farms, today’s advances in precision and digital agriculture can empower smallholders. And it creates new opportunities for smallholder farmers to serve growing niche, diverse markets. With supportive policies and education, smallholders can become key drivers of inclusive agricultural transformation.

5. Agriculture needs new, young blood

Farmers are aging worldwide, while youth are leaving rural areas to seek careers in other fields. Traditional agricultural curricula and programs fail to spark their interest. By integrating robotics, AI, biotechnology, and data science into agricultural education, coupled with the use of app-based market-access solutions, we can redesign agricultural systems and make farming an attractive, future-oriented career. Investing in high-tech agricultural education is the key to filling the labor gap with skilled, motivated, next-generation farmers

6. Greenhouse gas reduction

Agriculture is the second-largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and consumes 70% of global fresh water. Climate-smart farming practices can reduce emissions, store carbon, and build resilience against droughts, pests, and diseases. Education is the gateway to equipping farmers with the knowledge to implement such solutions at scale.

7. Agricultural investment boosts national prosperity and global collaboration

The benefits of investing in agricultural education extend far beyond farms. Past investments in the 1950s–70s powered the Green Revolution, saving over a billion people from starvation, reducing rural poverty, and fueling industrial development. A notable example of a successful investment is the US-funded Seoul National University (SNU) Minnesota Project (1954–1962). Under the project, the University of Minnesota helped rebuild SNU’s College of Agriculture and train a generation of agricultural scientists. These scientists not only transformed Korea from a food-deficit to a food-secure nation, but are today contributing to agricultural advancements globally. Replicating such initiatives worldwide could deliver similar results in today’s food-insecure countries.

Moving Forward

Momentum for significant investments in agriculture is building. The G20 has committed to food security, emphasizing investment in sustainable productivity. The World Bank has invested $45 billion in food and nutrition security programs since 2022, exceeding its target of $30 billion. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) pledged $40 billion (2022–2030), including $26 billion in new financing. It is encouraging that more than 50 countries have launched programs to nurture young and next-generation farmers, recognizing their vital role in food security, as well as in ensuring the future sustainability and competitiveness of the agricultural sector (although the outcomes of these programs remain mixed). Countries are also stepping up their investment in agricultural education and training. For example, Bangladesh is developing a $150 million project with ADB and the Korean Eximbank to upgrade its agricultural tertiary education, while Thailand is developing a $120 million investment project in agricultural technical and vocational education.

However, to avert a coming food crisis, these efforts need to be scaled, and to achieve that, concerted global action is necessary. One such initiative, now being proposed by ADB in partnership with a consortium of agricultural universities, is the establishment of a global climate-smart, high-tech agricultural education network to mobilize public and private investments, accelerate knowledge sharing and technology adoption, and prepare the next generation of agriculture leaders and entrepreneurs globally.

The challenges are immense, but so are the opportunities. Investing in agricultural education and training is not just about farming—it is about building a sustainable, food-secure, and climate-resilient future.
 

Works Cited

FAO. 2017. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges.

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. 2024. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2024—Financing to End Hunger, Food Insecurity and Malnutrition in All Its Forms.

Ruane, John, and Selvaraju Ramasamy. 2023. Global Investments in Agricultural Research: Where Are We and Where Are We Going? Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Tilman, David. 1999. “Global Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Expansion: The Need for Sustainable and Efficient Practices.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (11): 5995-6000.

Yang, Yi, David Tilman, Zhenong Jin et al. 2024. “Climate Change Exacerbates the Environmental Impacts of Agriculture.” Science 385 (6713).
 

As the U.S.-China competition unfolds in areas ranging from trade to technology to the military, the rival-making discourse surrounding this great power competition was the focus of the conference Beyond a New Cold War, organized and hosted by the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL).

Held on August 14, 2025, the event showcased SNAPL research illuminating how U.S. political leaders and the media shape narratives concerning China and how citizens in young democracies perceive these narratives. Serving as discussants were experts from Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, the Hoover Institution (represented by a former National Security Affairs Fellow), and the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

The studies presented and discussed at the conference are part of SNAPL’s U.S.-Asia Relations research track, one of four research streams the lab pursues. Housed at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and founded by sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the lab aims to generate evidence-based policy recommendations and promote transnational collaboration with academic and policy institutions to advance the future prosperity of Asia and U.S.-Asia relations.

“This conference provided an excellent opportunity to engage the policy community with our research findings,” says Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and the director of APARC and the Korea Program. “The lab will continue to foster ongoing dialogue between academic and policy circles.” 

The conference builds on previous SNAPL forums and meetings with policy and academic communities in Washington, D.C., held in September 2024. These policy engagement activities are made possible thanks to a grant from FSI. 

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' updates >

Dynamics of American Elite Discourse on China

At the first conference panel, Research Fellow Xinru Ma shared a study that unravels who leads elite discourse on U.S.-China relations – whether Congress, the White House, or the media. While prior research suggests that each of these actors could have distinct agenda-setting capacities, their relative influence and its directionality in foreign policy discourse remain empirically underexamined.

The study addresses this question by investigating China-focused discourse and framing by the U.S. legislative and executive branches as well as the media. Using computational and causal inference methods, the study analyzes social media data from the legislative and executive branches alongside major U.S. media outlets across two periods: the 116th Congress (January 3, 2019 – January 3, 2021) and the 118th Congress (January 3, 2023 – January 3, 2025).

The analysis reveals that, both in terms of issue attention and framing, the media tends to follow the lead of Congress and the President. The findings also indicate that Republican lawmakers exert greater influence on setting the China agenda in the media. In contrast, Democratic lawmakers are stronger predictors of how the media frames the issues at stake. Moreover, the findings suggest that presidential influence on China discourse weakened sharply in the 118th Congress, and that there is an overall shift toward party-driven, rather than institutionally mediated, communication among elites. 

Policy Implications
 

• Media Weakness: The reliance of media outlets on partisan cues from political elites on foreign policy issues increases the risk of incomplete or skewed public understanding of China and U.S.-China relations. The risk is especially disconcerting as U.S. reporters face limited access to China.
• Partisan Echo Chambers: Communication flows primarily within partisan networks rather than across institutions, with the separation of powers becoming less effective as a system of checks and balances. The splintering of political discourse into parallel echo chambers risks eroding opportunities for cross-party dialogue and democratic deliberation on complex foreign policy issues.
• Fragmented Messaging: Divergent partisan messaging on China signals inconsistency to both domestic and international audiences who might draw contradictory conclusions about U.S. intentions. This dynamic gives rise to strategic miscalculations abroad and a fragmented public understanding of China policy at home.
• Declining  Institutional Voices: The decline of institutional power over shaping U.S. discourse on China has created a growing vulnerability. As individual political figures gain sway, personalized narratives often prioritize short-term visibility over a coherent, long-term strategy.

Democracy vs. Autocracy: A View from Young Democracies

Despite their deep divisions on most issues, there is one topic Republicans and Democrats converge on: China. Both parties increasingly frame the intensifying U.S.-China tensions as a strategic competition between democracy and autocracy. But is the value diplomacy this approach begets effective in promoting liberal values in young democracies?

At the second conference panel, Visiting Scholar Gidong Kim presented a study that addresses this question. “This study challenges the effectiveness of the value-laden U.S. diplomacy in young democracies and presents a more nuanced explanation of democracy's role in forming public opinion on foreign policy,” says Kim, formerly a postdoctoral fellow with SNAPL and currently an assistant professor of political science at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS).

The study hypothesizes that in young democracies, where democratic histories are relatively short and legacies of authoritarian rule endure, citizens tend to understand democracy in terms of electoral institutions rather than liberal values. Similarly, in the context of the U.S.-China competition, citizens in these countries tend to perceive China’s threats to electoral institutions more seriously than its threats to liberal values.

To test this proposition, the study uses a country-level, cross-national analysis and an original survey experiment in South Korea. The findings support the hypothesis.

Policy Implications
 

• Context Matters: U.S. policymakers must acknowledge the limits of value-driven diplomacy. Washington should diversify its foreign policy toolkit and adapt it to regional contexts: in Western Europe, liberal values rhetoric can reinforce alliances, but in young democracies, the design and strength of electoral institutions carry greater weight.
• A Crisis of Credibility: For China, there is an equally clear lesson about the need to rethink its approach to diplomacy. Without addressing suspicions of election interference in democratic countries, Beijing will struggle to gain traction with the publics in young Asian democracies and dissipate anti-China sentiments in those countries, even if it increases its soft power through liberalization policies.

SNAPL’s studies presented at the conference underscore the crucial role that narratives and public perceptions play in international relations. They suggest that great power competition is not just about power. Rather, it is also about persuasion, which, in turn, depends on how different audiences — at home and abroad — perceive the story.

When Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin left his home country of South Korea in 1983 to pursue graduate studies at the University of Washington, he was certain he would return to Korea upon graduation. More than 40 years later, Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, is still in the United States. 

Yet he does not consider himself a case of brain drain for Korea. Shin, who is also the founding director of the Korea Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and APARC director, has continuously contributed to Korea by leading transnational collaborations, researching and publishing on pressing issues in Korean affairs, and otherwise engaging in diverse intellectual exchanges with the country.

Shin’s experiences sparked his interest in the sociological patterns of mobile talent and a central question: How do countries attract, develop, and retain talent in a globalized world? His new book, The Four Talent Giants (Stanford University Press, 2025), explores that question regarding transnational talent flows from a comparative lens by examining how four strikingly different Asia-Pacific nations – Japan, Australia, China, and India – have become economic powerhouses.

We interviewed Shin about his book – watch:

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars’ research updates >

The book’s main idea, Shin explains, is that how countries manage talent is key to their strength and future success. He calls the four Asia-Pacific nations the book examines “talent giants” because each has used a distinct talent strategy that has proven critical to national development. Three of these nations – China, Japan, and India – are among the top five economies in the world in terms of GDP, and Australia, despite its relatively small population size, is third in terms of wealth per adult.

In The Four Talent Giants, Shin investigates how these four nations have become global powers and sustained momentum by responding to risks and challenges, such as demographic crises, brain drain, and geopolitical tensions, and what lessons their developmental paths hold for other countries.

A New Framework for Studying Human Resource Development 

Asia’s robust economic growth over the past forty years is nothing short of a remarkable feat. The Asia-Pacific today continues to be the world's fastest-growing region, despite global economic uncertainty. How did this phenomenal ascendance come about?

The existing literature has emphasized common “recipes” of success among Asia-Pacific powers. Endeavoring to find one-size-fits-all formulas that could be replicated in other countries seeking rapid development, it has overlooked the distinct developmental journeys of Asian nations. “We need a new lens, or framework, to explain their successes, while also accounting for cross-national variation in development and sustainability,” writes Shin. 

In his book, Shin examines talent – the skilled occupations essential to a nation’s economy – as a key driver of economic development. While all countries rely on human resources for development, their talent strategies vary based on historical, cultural, and institutional factors. Shin introduces a new framework, talent portfolio theory (TPT), inspired by financial portfolio theory, to analyze and compare these national approaches.

“TPT views a nation’s talent development, like financial investment, as constructing a ‘talent portfolio’ that mixes multiple forms of talent – domestic, foreign, and diasporic – adjusting its portfolio over time to meet new risks and challenges,” he explains. Just as an investor may select different financial products in a mix of assets, countries can create talent portfolios by picking from various strategies.

Shin identifies four main strategies by which a country can harness talent – what he calls the four B's: 

• “Brain train” signifies efforts to develop and expand a country’s domestic talent or human capital.
• “Brain gain” refers to attracting foreign talent to strengthen the domestic workforce.
• “Brain circulation” involves bringing back nationals who have gone abroad for work or study.
• “Brain linkage” means leveraging the global networks and expertise of citizens living overseas through transnational collaboration.

Shin uses TPT as an analytical framework to examine how each of the four talent giants has constructed its distinct national talent portfolio and how this portfolio has evolved. As in an investment portfolio rebalancing, a nation can maintain diversification across the four B's and within each B. TPT therefore offers a holistic framework for understanding the overall picture of a country’s talent strategy, and how and why it may “rebalance” its talent portfolio.

Throughout the book, Shin shows that, while Japan has relied on the brain train strategy, Australia, whose population was too small for such an approach, emphasized brain gain. China used brain circulation: it first sent students and professionals abroad to learn, then implemented policies to encourage them to return. India, by contrast, established linkages among its diaspora and used them to develop its economy.

New Geopolitics of Global Talent: Lessons and Policy Implications

The case studies of the four talent giants reveal that there is no single path to talent-driven development. Each of the four Asia-Pacific countries has built its unique talent portfolio, balancing human and social capital, homegrown and foreign-educated individuals, and domestic and diasporic talents. While the talent giants use all four B's to some extent, each emphasizes them differently, reflecting diverse strategies and development paths. The core findings of these studies offer valuable insights for countries aiming to design effective talent policies. 

The four B's were instrumental in the economic rise of the four Asian nations, and they will be equally critical in addressing new challenges facing all economies, from demographic crises to emergent geopolitical tensions. For the United States, one such challenge is its sprawling competition with China, where the battle for talent is heating up in the race for technological supremacy.

Shin warns that the advantage the United States has long held in technological innovation, driven by its ability to attract skilled foreign talent, is now at risk from the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies, pressures on universities, and cuts to research funding. “Immigrants have not just filled jobs,” he emphasizes. “They have created new industries and helped the US and their home countries. If the US makes it harder for talent to come in and stay, it risks hurting its long-term success.”

The Four Talent Giants is an outcome of Shin’s longstanding project investigating Talent Flows and Development, now one of the research tracks he leads at the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL), which he launched in 2022. Housed at APARC, the lab is an interdisciplinary research initiative addressing Asia’s social, cultural, economic, and political challenges through comparative, policy-relevant studies. SNAPL’s education mission is to cultivate the next generation of researchers and policy leaders by offering mentorships and fellowship opportunities for students and emerging scholars.

Shin notes that the SNAPL team illustrates all four B’s in his talent portfolio theory, as some members are U.S.-born and trained, some come from Asia and, after working at the lab, return to their home countries, whereas some stay here, promoting linkages with their home countries. “In many ways, this project shows what is possible when we invest in talent and encourage international collaboration.”

In the Media

Stanford Scholar Reveals How Talent Development Strategies Shape National Futures
The Korean Daily, July 13, 2025 (interview)
- English version
- Korean version