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

Demographic shifts worldwide have increased the number of older workers, and many economies are facing a critical question: Are their labor markets ready to support older workers?

Researchers have found that, in the United States, the surge of older workers has gone hand–in-hand with an increase in the number of “age-friendly jobs” – roles with working conditions more suitable for aging employees, such as placing fewer physical demands or offering greater scheduling flexibility. Yet it remains unclear whether comparable trends have taken hold in other aging economies.

A new study, published in the Journal of the Economics of Ageing, helps fill in this gap by examining the evolution of age-friendly jobs in South Korea (hereafter Korea), where the number of workers aged 50 and over increased by 165 percent from 2000 to 2023. Korea is now officially considered a "super-aged" society, and the government is doubling down on its efforts to bolster the workforce.

The study, co-authored by Hyeongsuk Kim and Chulhee Lee, both of Seoul National University, and Stanford health economist Karen Eggleston, the director of APARC’s Asia Health Policy Program, examines Korea’s workforce and economy to determine whether the nation significantly expanded its 50+ workforce by creating job opportunities favorable for older workers or if some other mechanism is at play. 

The co-authors examined the job characteristics experienced by older Koreans relative to their younger counterparts and U.S. older workers. Second, they analyzed data collected in 2020 about Korean workers, evaluating their jobs based on various parameters in the Age-Friendliness Index (AFI), a tool that measures the degree to which jobs are more suitable for older workers. The researchers considered AFI factors such as the requirement for heavy physical activity, the pace of the job, and the possibility of telecommuting. They also examined how the number of age-friendly jobs changed from 2000 to 2020.

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

• Learn more about Dr. Eggleston's related research project, "Innovation for Healthy Aging" >

  ---

The study finds that, while age-friendly jobs have increased in Korea, the number grew more slowly than in the United States, indicating that the U.S. market responded more quickly to changes in workforce demographics. Furthermore, the study indicates that older Koreans were not the main beneficiaries of age-friendly jobs. Instead, women and college-educated workers benefited more from these jobs, while non-college-educated men have seen fewer gains. “These results highlight the uneven adaptation of Korea’s labor market to demographic change and suggest that social norms and labor market frictions shape age-friendly job creation and who benefits from those jobs,” the researchers write.

The study also unveils that, in Korea, the working conditions of employees aged 50–61 differ significantly from those aged 62 or older. Despite the nation's high employment rates for those aged 65 and older, the researchers discovered that a third of working Koreans over the age of 62 held jobs requiring heavy physical activity and earned lower wages. Additionally, only a little over one-fifth of them had jobs that allowed for “mostly sitting.”

Labor Market Frictions

The study’s authors propose several explanations for why Korea’s economy, despite a significant increase in older workers, has not adapted as quickly as the United States in placing these workers in age-friendly occupations. One reason is Korea's comparatively low level of pension support, which forces workers to fill a disproportionate number of low-skilled, temporary, and day jobs. It may be that many older workers are forced to work, regardless of whether the jobs are friendly to their needs. Another reason may be the rigidities of the labor market, including strong protections against employees being laid off. Such protections are beneficial for workers, but they restrict companies' ability to restructure their workforce. Moreover, the role of chaebol, or large corporations, may also be significant. Although chaebol are producing and selling more, they have also increased automation and resorted to outsourcing instead of hiring additional workers.

Older workers in Korea are also facing competition from women for age-friendly jobs. The researchers noted significant gender-related changes in the country's education and employment levels. In 2009, the percentage of women enrolling in college surpassed that of men, and the percentage of women in the workforce increased by 2.5% from 2000 to 2023. Korean women are likely to have an even stronger preference for the flexibility of age-friendly jobs than American women because of gendered responsibilities for household production.

The study’s results, researchers said, reinforce key findings from previous studies: "that 'age-friendly' jobs appeal to many kinds of workers, not just older adults; and that labor market frictions shape who benefits from age-friendly jobs."

As governments grapple with rising life expectancies and shrinking traditional working-age populations, ensuring that older adults can continue working safely and with dignity is key to sustaining economic growth and social stability. According to the study, South Korea has made impressive strides in keeping older people in the workforce, but the next challenge is ensuring work itself evolves to meet their needs.

As the global geopolitical landscape shifts and the United States redefines its role on the world stage, Japan, its closest ally in the Asia-Pacific, faces mounting expectations and emerging opportunities. In recognition of this critical juncture, APARC’s Japan Program and the United States-Japan Foundation convened a timely symposium at Stanford University, Recalibrating U.S.-Japan Collaboration in a Time of Tumult. The event brought together scholars, policymakers, and practitioners to explore how U.S.-Japan relations are adapting to new global realities. Over the course of five thematic sessions, participants engaged in a dialogue that spanned foreign policy, international trade, social governance, civil society, and even the cultural diplomacy of baseball.

📄  Get the event highlights below

📹  Watch the symposium sessions on our YouTube channel >

🔗  Read Nikkei coverage of the event >

📧  Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our event invitations and guest speaker insights >

The opening session, “Global Democracy, Foreign Aid, and Regional Security: As the U.S. Pulls Back, Will Tokyo Step Up?,” featured Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow of Global Democracy at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute, Shinichi Kitaoka, former Japanese ambassador to the United Nations and past president of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), along with APARC Japan Program Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui. Together, they examined Japan’s potential to assume a greater leadership role in defending democratic norms and providing regional public goods in an era of American retrenchment. The discussion underscored both Japan’s growing capacity and its constitutional and cultural constraints.

In the second session, “How Tariffs and Trade Wars are Reshaping the Indo-Pacific,” Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute and Peter Wonacott of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability reflected on the disruptions facing global trade. Drawing on their experience in economic policy and journalism, respectively, they traced how protectionist policies and decoupling strategies are altering regional supply chains. Their analysis emphasized the importance of maintaining open trade flows while also reinforcing economic resilience across the Indo-Pacific.

The third session, “The Future of DEI, ESG, SDGs: Will Japan Follow the U.S. or Stay the Course?,” focused on evolving norms around corporate and social governance. Keiko Tashiro, deputy president at Daiwa Securities Group, joined Gayle Peterson of Oxford’s Saïd Business School and Stanford sociologist Patricia Bromley to evaluate whether Japan’s institutions will align with American trends or continue along a distinct trajectory. Panelists discussed Japan’s historically unique approach to equity and sustainability, noting the domestic implementation of global frameworks such as the UN-sanctioned Sustainable Development Goals.

The fourth session, “Redefining the Relationship Through Civil Society: Burden Sharing, Knowledge Sharing, Picking up the Slack,” included remarks from Mike Berkowitz of the Democracy Funders Network, Laura Deal Lacey of the Milken Institute, and Jacob M. Schlesinger, president and CEO of the United States-Japan Foundation, who explored how non-state actors are increasingly stepping in to fill voids left by governments. The conversation highlighted the growing role of philanthropic networks and think tanks in shaping bilateral cooperation, particularly in areas such as disaster response, democratic resilience, and public diplomacy.

Capping the day’s proceedings was the session titled “Diamond Diplomacy Redux: Baseball as a Bilateral Bridge.” Featuring Stan Kasten, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and Yuriko Gamo Romer, director of the documentary “Diamond Diplomacy,” the discussion viewed U.S.-Japan relations from a cultural diplomacy perspective. The two reflected on the enduring symbolism of baseball in forging people-to-people ties, illustrating how shared pastimes can foster mutual understanding even amid geopolitical uncertainty.

The symposium served as a vital platform for reassessing the U.S.-Japan alliance in a period marked by shifting global norms. As the international system undergoes profound change, the panelists indicated that the robust partnerships must evolve not only through diplomacy and defense but also across the realms of trade, governance, civil society, and cultural exchange.

China’s rise as a global power has ushered in a period of strategic flux marked by renewed great power competition, heightened geopolitical uncertainty, and intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. As China's economic and military capabilities have grown, so too have concerns about its long-term intentions, raising the stakes for states attempting to interpret and respond to its foreign policy behavior. In this volatile environment, the ability of states to credibly signal peaceful or aggressive intentions has become a central concern for policymakers and scholars alike. Misunderstandings can escalate into costly miscalculations, especially amid shifting power dynamics, unstable preferences, and growing competition for influence.

Understanding states’ signaling behavior is the research focus of Brandon Yoder, a 2024–25 Stanford Next Asia Policy Fellow at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). Yoder is a senior lecturer at the Australian National University’s School of Politics and International Relations and the Australian Centre on China in the World. He is also a non-resident research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Centre on Asia and Globalisation.

While at APARC, Yoder is working with the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL) on projects as part of its research track on shared and varying perceptions in U.S. relations with regional actors in Asia. His research investigates how states communicate their intentions under uncertainty and how these signaling processes shape the prospects for peace or conflict. Combining formal modeling with historical and empirical analysis, Yoder seeks to illuminate how credibility is constructed, interpreted, and contested in strategic interaction, focusing on Chinese foreign policy and U.S.-China dynamics.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive updates from our scholars >

When Theory Meets Practice: Modeling Signaling and Testing It Empirically

Much of Yoder’s research aims to bridge the gap between abstract theory and pressing policy questions. One focus is the ongoing evolution of great power competition and how China's behavior can be better understood through the lens of signaling theory. Yoder applies theoretical findings to Chinese foreign policy to examine “how China can credibly signal its intentions and how others can figure out China's intentions, with an eye toward managing great power competition.”

Yoder’s academic journey began with a long-standing curiosity about China. “I always had an interest in China dating back to high school. It was obviously important but not covered much, so I was curious about it,” he reflects. After college, a few years spent teaching English in China deepened that curiosity and helped build the language skills that would become instrumental in his research. Graduate school provided the theoretical structure for his inquiry, and the challenges of understanding credibility in international politics led him to formal modeling. “In grad school, I became interested in how China could credibly signal its intentions, which led me to game theory,” he recalls. “I essentially taught myself the method over a long period of trial and (tons of) error.”

Now, his work weaves together a rigorous theoretical approach to general questions with applications to specific, policy-relevant problems in U.S.-China relations. Despite the appeal of elegant theoretical models, the empirical realities of signaling are anything but simple. Yoder identifies three key challenges in studying the phenomenon.

“One is that you have to formalize your theories, or else you can't possibly keep straight the complexities of rational belief formation mechanisms,” he explains. This realization led him toward game theory.

A second issue is the gap between rationalist models and human behavior. “Actors are not fully rational in their beliefs, so real-world signaling deviates systematically from rationalist predictions. These psychological and rational mechanisms interact in complex ways,” he adds, noting that some of his work tries to integrate both perspectives.

The third challenge lies in measurement. “Beliefs are hard to measure, which makes empirical work very difficult. You can't just use a large-N dataset,” he explains. In response, his empirical approach blends historical case studies with experiments to evaluate how signaling works in specific instances and at the population level.

At SNAPL, Yoder has continued developing several key projects. One model examines how alliance politics are shaped by fears of abandonment or entrapment, concerns that can inhibit alliance formation altogether. Another investigates how rising powers, facing multiple international audiences, can credibly signal peaceful intentions through diplomatic statements, offering insight into the triangular dynamics between the United States, China, and Russia since World War II.

Yoder’s recent work broadens his empirical scope. One survey experiment explores how Australian national identity shapes public attitudes toward China. Another paper argues that war between the United States and China over Taiwan may be less likely than often assumed. A third project develops a model of how smaller Asian states can help moderate U.S.-China competition by avoiding firm alignment with either power. Across these diverse topics, the through line remains the same: understanding how intentions are communicated or miscommunicated between states.

Academic Community and Next Steps

Yoder describes his time at APARC as both intellectually stimulating and refreshingly collaborative. “Mostly just being around really good people, having engaging discussions, and getting feedback” has been a major boost to his research, he says. Conversations with scholars like Jim Fearon and Ken Schultz have sharpened his theoretical thinking, while connections with Center Fellow Oriana Skylar Mastro have deepened his understanding of cross-strait dynamics. He’s also enjoyed working closely with fellow SNAPL postdocs and visiting scholars, and credits their informal discussions as particularly energizing.

SNAPL, directed by Professor Gi-Wook Shin, is an interdisciplinary research initiative housed within APARC addressing pressing social, cultural, economic, and political challenges in Asia through comparative, policy-relevant studies. The lab cultivates the next generation of researchers and policy leaders by offering mentorships and fellowship opportunities for students and emerging scholars. These include two-year postdoctoral fellowships and one-year visiting fellowships, including for scholars from the Asia-Pacific region. Fellows collaborate with Stanford faculty, students, and other researchers to produce interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, and policy-relevant publications. The lab also offers research assistantships and a research workshop to foster academic exchange and mentorship. 

Yoder has been pleasantly surprised by the vibrancy of the intellectual community at APARC and FSI. “There are so many fantastic talks and events, it’s legitimately difficult to go to everything I want to,” he notes. The intersection of APARC, the Political Science Department, and the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) has created what he describes as a deeply interdisciplinary space, one that encourages both breadth and depth in academic inquiry and policy-relevant discussion.

Reflecting on academia, Yoder offers unflinching but thoughtful advice to early-career scholars. “It’s gonna get rough out there; hedge your bets,” he says. Success, in his view, depends on three things: genuine passion, persistence, and luck. “Plenty of talented, hard-working people don't get the breaks they need and their careers flounder,” he explains. For this reason, he encourages young scholars to pursue work they truly enjoy rather than trying to reverse-engineer success. “The process is the payoff, or it’s not worth doing. But be ready to shift to a different career path if it doesn’t work out.”

As he prepares to return to his position at the Australian National University in July, Yoder is eager to continue his work on signaling, great power politics, and Chinese foreign relations. A book project is a possibility, but not a priority — at least not yet. “I keep thinking of too many new articles I want to write,” he says, “so I’d rather do new stuff than expand my old stuff into a book.”

Through rigorous modeling, empirical grounding, and a deep engagement with contemporary strategic challenges, Brandon Yoder’s work offers essential insights into how states interpret signals, manage risks, and shape the evolving landscape of global power.

This interview first appeared in the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S.Paolo, on April 6. The following English version was generated using machine translation and subsequently edited for accuracy and clarity.

WASHINGTON — The tariff hike against all countries announced last week by President Donald Trump may bolster China's image, but that doesn't mean China or any other country is poised to replace the United States, says Thomas Fingar, Shorenstein APARC Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University.

Fingar, a former chief of the State Department's China Division, among other roles in the U.S. Foreign Service and national intelligence, believes that Trump's tariffs will be bad for all nations.

"I hesitate to predict how other countries will react, except that this has more or less given everyone an incentive to bypass the U.S.," he tells Folha.

Donald Trump announced tariffs this week against virtually every country. China has already announced retaliation, imposing a 34% tariff on American products. Are we facing a trade war?

I don't think the war metaphor works for me. I don't know what Trump is trying to do. One could say that this is a game of imposing an outrageous tariff in the hope that specific targets, which are basically all countries, might give in to what they say are their demands. In doing so, they would reduce barriers to trade with the United States. To me, it doesn't make sense with the vast majority of targets of the 10% tariffs.

Why?

I hesitate to predict how other countries will react, except that this has more or less given everyone an incentive to bypass the U.S., to make the U.S. a supplier of last resort, to hold the line, to have a kind of united front to compete with each other.

If the assessment is that the Dutch or the French or the Germans or the Brazilians or somebody else is talking about doing something to eliminate a 10% tariff to gain a comparative advantage in accessing the U.S. market, if that's the logic, then fine. Maybe there's something rational about that, but I think it's more likely that the targets of those low tariffs are just getting together.

My main trade competitor has the same or higher tariffs levied against them. Why should I give in if we are competing on a level playing field?

I think Trump is going to make the U.S. pay a huge geopolitical price. But what he thinks he will gain from this, I don't know. Is it likely that he will achieve anything really significant from it? I doubt it.

You mentioned a geopolitical price tag for the United States. What would it be?

The tendency of much of the world, most of the time, was to try to work with the United States, to the extent that they couldn't automatically do what Washington wanted, but they were inclined to cooperate because they saw it as benign, if not beneficial, to their interests. I think Trump has reversed that. This is going to lead to a disinclination to work with us, an incentive to try to bypass us. I think the inclination now is going to be: I'm not going to vote with the Americans, I'm going to look elsewhere first, for my investment, for my capital, for the market, for what I'm doing, for partners.

But I don't think that these measures are necessarily going to play in favor of any particular country. Maybe China in some places, the European Union in some places, Japan in some places. It's going to be a very different environment for the United States, for American companies and diplomats to operate in. It's going to be much more difficult.

This tariff strategy that you say is hard to understand is seen by some analysts as part of Trump's isolationist policy.

As my kids would say, this is so last century. This is really 19th century, the idea of bringing industries, manufacturing back to the United States. Very little manufacturing, I think, is going to come back to the United States. We have 4% unemployment. We can't fill the jobs that we have now, imagine bringing back manufacturing of basic commodities like shoes, toys, that kind of thing.

That left the United States a long time ago and went to Japan, moved from Japan to Taiwan, moved from Taiwan to South Korea, moved from South Korea to somewhere else, and then moved to China and then to Vietnam. Those things are not coming back here because there's not enough profitability to justify investing in robots and mechanizing those things to bring them back to the United States. Our workforce is small relative to the size of the economy. It's not coming back.

It's already moving from China because labor costs are so high. The fallacy in Trump's logic is that things like furniture, construction, textiles, clothing, and manufacturing would come back. And the people who would actually do the work are the people he's persecuting with his ridiculous immigration policies.

Trump has argued that he imposed the tariffs to curb alleged abuses against the United States that would benefit China. Is he containing Beijing with this move?

I don't think he really cares about containing China. But the answer is no. These moves boost China's image. Beijing has seized on the rhetoric of defending the open, globalized international trading order that the United States has attacked. They will take advantage of that as much as they can. I don't think the tariffs are part of the U.S. rivalry with China. China's rise has not disadvantaged the United States economically — it has done so to Japan, and, to some extent, South Korea and Taiwan, but not the United States. So Trump is using this argument with false, exaggerated, and distorted statements.

Could we witness a change in the world order, the end of the American era and the beginning of a Chinese era?

No.

Not even as a consequence of tariffs?

Absolutely not. Part of the problem is that China's economy is closed. One of the reasons is that it doesn't have a consumer society because people don't have enough income. That's because of the amount of wealth that the state extracts to pay for high-speed rail, military structures, and energy development. Some of that is good, some of it is excess.

U.S. tariffs won’t create a market that can rival the size and influence of the United States. It would have to be somewhere else that is very rich, and China is not very rich. China is barely in the middle-income category, it has a per capita income at a level that Mexico has been at for decades. It's not binary. So, the U.S. retreat from its leadership position in the world order, which I don't necessarily see as a bad thing, doesn't automatically hand that role over to China, Russia, the European Union, Japan, Brazil, the BRICS, or any other set of players.

Can China gain ground by investing more in countries that are affected by tariffs?

China has invested more in countries that are affected by tariffs, like Indonesia and Vietnam. These countries are very wary of Chinese investment for various historical reasons, and to some extent for ethnic reasons. But China is actually cutting back on its overseas investments because its own population is asking: Why are we giving money to countries that are richer than us? That is a reasonable question.

They have real problems meeting the expectations, demands, and needs of their own population, which is now largely urban. The cities have to function, you can't say, "Go back to the farm and do sustainable agriculture." That phase is long gone in China. So they have to spend more. Half of the population still has rural identity cards. That means they don't get free education beyond primary school. That means 50% of the future workforce won't have more than a primary school education. This is a country with enormous challenges. Can they manage them? Probably yes, but there is not much room for maneuver. Their own slowing economy will be hurt by these tariffs. I don't think that's Trump's intention, but it will hurt them.

What impact might the tariffs have on Brazil and Latin America? Do you think China will become more attractive?

I don't know specific commodities from specific places, but my general starting point is that a 10% distribution across Latin America won't have much of an impact on the price for consumers in those countries. You'll export the same amount; we'll pay more for whatever the commodity is, flowers from Colombia, grapes, wine from Argentina or Chile. Since the tariff is general, it doesn't give Chile an advantage on wine over Argentina, because they both have the same amount. Most of what Latin America exports to the United States doesn't go to China.

In short, what are the main consequences of tariffs in terms of the geopolitical landscape and the domestic landscape?

It destabilizes the international trading system that has benefited most countries for a long time. It will force adjustments, that is number one. And number two is that it undermines the image of the United States, and therefore its influence as a stabilizing, predictable, and broadly beneficial member of the international community. It disrupts economies and undermines American influence and attractiveness.

In the end, does anyone benefit from Trump's tariff policies?

No one. This is not a policy that works to anyone's obvious benefit. It upsets everyone. And there is no alternative to the United States, in the sense that the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. China is not that, and China does not want to be that.