FSI scholars produce research aimed at creating a safer world and examing the consequences of security policies on institutions and society. They look at longstanding issues including nuclear nonproliferation and the conflicts between countries like North and South Korea. But their research also examines new and emerging areas that transcend traditional borders – the drug war in Mexico and expanding terrorism networks. FSI researchers look at the changing methods of warfare with a focus on biosecurity and nuclear risk. They tackle cybersecurity with an eye toward privacy concerns and explore the implications of new actors like hackers.
Along with the changing face of conflict, terrorism and crime, FSI researchers study food security. They tackle the global problems of hunger, poverty and environmental degradation by generating knowledge and policy-relevant solutions.
Green Growth Policy in Korea: Its Leading Role in Addressing Climate Change
Since President Lee Myung-bak introduced the "Green Growth" policy in 2008, Korea has actively advocated it in every aspect of the society as a new engine of growth. The Presidential Committee on Green Growth was created as a control tower of the policy developments and green industries were identified, and along the same line of efforts, the Basic Law on Green Growth was enacted. Korea, among the developing countries under the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was the first to volunteer to reduce emissions by 30 percent of anticipated BAU by 2020. It also initiated the East Asia Climate Partnership through which 200 million USD was pledged to assist developing countries in the region to cope with climate change. The Lee administration has revealed its ambitious plans to launch Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) next year, which is presumed to play a catalyst role in inducing a low carbon economy. Furthermore, it is expected that Korea, as Chair of the G20 in 2010, will aggressively promote green finance and green technology.
Suh Yong Chung is Associate Professor in the Division of International Studies at Korea University and is an international expert on sustainable development law and policy. His research covers various emerging issues in the environment and sustainable development such as climate change, marine environment, and biodiversity both at global and regional level. His most recent works focus on internationalization of Green Growth policy, post-2010 climate change regime formation, and regional environmental institution building in Northeast Asia. He is a member of the Compliance Committee of the UN Basel Convention, and has participated in various activities of international organizations including the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), UNDP/GEF Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Project, UNEP’s Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP), and United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP). He has also advised on international law and policy issues in Korea for the Presidential Committee on Green Growth, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Knowledge Economy, Ministry of Environment and the Organizing Committee of the 2012 Yeosu EXPO.
Suh Yong Chung holds degrees in law and international relations from Seoul National University, the London School of Economics and Stanford Law School. He was a researcher at Shorenstein APARC and has continuously been involved in its activities as the Secretary General of the Stanford APARC Forum in Korea.
Philippines Conference Room
China in the 2000s: Reshaping the Party
The Stanford China Program in cooperation with the Center for East Asian Studies will host a special series of seminars to mark 60 Years of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Over the course of the winter and spring terms, we will have six leading scholars, each examining one of the six decades of the PRC's history. Our premise is that history matters. The speaker on each decade will characterize their decade, note shifts within that time, identify the pivotal events, and discuss how the decade shaped what happened afterwards.
Jospeh Fewsmith is the author of four books: China Since Tiananmen: The Politics of Transition (2001), Elite Politics in Contemporary China (2001), The Dilemmas of Reform in China: Political Conflict and Economic Debate (1994), and Party, State, and Local Elites in Republican China: Merchant Organizations and Politics in Shanghai, 1980-1930 (1985). He is very active in the China field, traveling to China frequently and presenting papers at professional conferences such as the Association for Asian Studies and the American Political Science Association. His articles have appeared in such journals as Asian Survey, Comparative Studies in Society and History, The China Journal, The China Quarterly, Current History, The Journal of Contemporary China, Problems of Communism, and Modern China. He is also a research associate of the John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Studies at Harvard University.
Philippines Conference Room
China in the 1980s: Tumultuous Transition
The Stanford China Program in cooperation with the Center for East Asian Studies will host a special series of seminars to mark 60 Years of the People's Republic of China (PRC). Over the course of the winter and spring terms, we will have six leading scholars, each examining one of the six decades of the PRC's history. Our premise is that history matters. The speaker on each decade will characterize their decade, note shifts within that time, identify the pivotal events, and discuss how the decade shaped what happened afterwards.
Andrew Walder is the Denise O'Leary and Kent Thiry Professor in the
Department of Sociology at Stanford, where he is also a Senior Fellow
in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He is
currently the Director of the Division of International, Comparative
and Area Studies in Stanford's School of Humanities and Sciences, and
in past years has served as Chair of Stanford's Department of Sociology
and Director of FSI's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.
A
political sociologist, Walder has long specialized on the sources of
conflict, stability and change in communist regimes and their successor
states. His current research focuses on changes in the ownership and
control of large Chinese corporations and the parallel emergence of a
new corporate elite with varied ties to state agencies. He also
continues his research interest in Mao-era China, with a focus on the
mass politics of the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1969.
Philippines Conference Room
Andrew G. Walder
Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall E301
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
Andrew G. Walder is the Denise O'Leary and Kent Thiry Professor at Stanford University, where he is also a senior fellow in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Previously, he served as Chair of the Department of Sociology, Director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, and Head of the Division of International, Comparative and Area Studies in the School of Humanities and Sciences.
Walder has long specialized in the sources of conflict, stability, and change in communist regimes and their successor states. His publications on Mao-era China have ranged from the social and economic organization of that early period to the popular political mobilization of the late 1960s and the subsequent collapse and rebuilding of the Chinese party-state. His publications on post-Mao China have focused on the evolving pattern of stratification, social mobility, and inequality, with an emphasis on variation in the trajectories of post-state socialist systems. His current research is on the growth and evolution of China’s large modern corporations, both state and private, after the shift away from the Soviet-inspired command economy.
Walder joined the Stanford faculty in 1997. He received his Ph.D. in sociology at the University of Michigan in 1981 and taught at Columbia University before moving to Harvard in 1987. From 1995 to 1997, he headed the Division of Social Sciences at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Walder has received fellowships and grants from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the Henry Luce Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. His books and articles have won awards from the American Sociological Association, the Association for Asian Studies, and the Social Science History Association. He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
His recent and forthcoming books include Fractured Rebellion: The Beijing Red Guard Movement (Harvard University Press, 2009); China Under Mao: A Revolution Derailed (Harvard University Press, 2015); Agents of Disorder: Inside China’s Cultural Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2019); and A Decade of Upheaval: The Cultural Revolution in Feng County (Princeton University Press, 2021) (with Dong Guoqiang); and Civil War in Guangxi: The Cultural Revolution on China’s Southern Periphery (Stanford University Press, 2023).
His recent articles include “After State Socialism: Political Origins of Transitional Recessions.” American Sociological Review 80, 2 (April 2015) (with Andrew Isaacson and Qinglian Lu); “The Dynamics of Collapse in an Authoritarian Regime: China in 1967.” American Journal of Sociology 122, 4 (January 2017) (with Qinglian Lu); “The Impact of Class Labels on Life Chances in China,” American Journal of Sociology 124, 4 (January 2019) (with Donald J. Treiman); and “Generating a Violent Insurgency: China’s Factional Warfare of 1967-1968.” American Journal of Sociology 126, 1 (July 2020) (with James Chu).
Political Violence and State Repression
Learn more
APARC's "Divided Memories and Reconciliation" featured in the Straits Times Singapore Newspaper
In April 2005, fierce anti-Japanese protests broke out in China.
Triggered in part by Japan's approval of newly revised history textbooks which glossed over the Japanese wartime abuses of six decades ago, the demonstrations were the most provocative upsurge of anti-Japanese unrest China had seen in years.
It was not the first time problems of the historical sort had sparked trouble between the neighbours in North-East Asia.
But researchers at Stanford University's Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Centre hope that their work will damp down future outbursts and open a path to lasting reconciliation.
Led by director Gi-Wook Shin and co-director Daniel C. Sneider, researchers are completing an ambitious three-year project to examine how the main players in North-east Asia - China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - along with the United States, form their views of the past, or what the scholars call "historical memories."
Entitled Divided Memories and Reconciliation, the project began in 2007 and is divided into three phases. The first stage involves comparing how shared historical events are depicted in history textbooks of the five societies, as history education plays a crucial role in shaping citizens' perspectives on the past.
The second stage, which began last year, looks at the treatment of the 1931-1951 wartime period in the films of China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US.
In the third phase, researchers will survey elite opinion makers in China, Japan, South Korea and the US for their views on historical issues.
The study, said Mr Sneider, stems from the understanding that unresolved historical issues are drivers of regional tension, and continue to bedevil relations to this day.
"The past is very much part of the present. Unresolved problems of the past feed mistrust and suspicion," he told The Sunday Times. "History issues also feed rising nationalism that can undermine government efforts to repair damaged relations."
Despite growing economic and cultural ties, wounds inflicted in the time of war and colonialism still fuel anti-Japanese sentiment in China and South Korea. The outcome of China's civil war resonates today in tension between the mainland and Taiwan.
The goal was not to forge a common historical account for the region or reach a consensus on specific events, said Mr Sneider. He noted that such attempts by historians and government committees have had limited success.
Stanford University historian Peter Duus explained: "Writing a common history is not feasible politically because the teaching of history in East Asian countries is tied to building and strengthening national identity."
Instead, Stanford researchers felt it was more fruitful to "try to recognise and understand how each society has developed its own distinctive memory of the past, and how that has affected its national identity and relations with others", commented Prof Shin.
Prof Duus and Prof Shin were writing in separate chapters included in a soon-to-be-published edited volume on the textbook study. Parts of the book were seen by The Sunday Times.
To facilitate the textbook study, researchers translated into English the most widely circulated high school history textbooks used in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the U.S.
Focusing on the period from the beginning of the Sino-Japanese war in 1931 until the formal end of the Pacific War with the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, the researchers selected eight historical issues for translation.
These included the Japanese capture and occupation of Nanjing, China in 1937 and the atomic bombing of Japan in 1945.
Researchers included the US in the textbook study because of its participation in the Pacific War, as well as its role in shaping post-war dynamics in the region.
Looking at the translated textbook excerpts side by side would allow people to compare how historical memory is shaped in the different school systems for the first time, said Mr. Sneider.
The team then brought together historians and textbook writers, including those from Japan and China, in a conference in February last year to analyse the treatment of history in thetextbooks, and their impact on regional relations.
The experts found that the region's history texts were far from objective.
"Textbooks have been written specifically to promote a sense of national identity, and the politics of nationalism invariably affects their writing," wrote Professor Shin.
Both Taiwan and mainland China textbooks, for example, play up the victory over colonialism and imperialism. But while "both agree the defeat of the Japanese army ended a century of humiliation and established China as an international power, the path to victory is described differently and so is the outcome," Professor Duus commented.
The deepest disagreements between the mainland and Taiwanese textbooks are about the nature and effectiveness of Chinese resistance to the Japanese. The Chinese texts played down the role of the Kuomintang, while the Taiwanese texts make scant mention of the Chinese Communist Party's guerilla bases.
Compared with the Taiwanese textbooks, the Chinese texts dwelled on the brutality of the Japanese military in more graphic detail.
American textbooks, in general, were better than the Asian textbooks at encouraging critical thought. "You have a debate over the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, or discussions of the events that led to Pearl Harbour, for example," Mr Sneider noted.
In contrast with Chinese and US textbooks, the tone in Japanese textbooks is "muted, neutral, bland", Prof Duus wrote. While they make no effort to conceal the brutality of Japanese forces towards occupied peoples, they do not give students much of an analytical construct to understand events, observed Mr. Sneider.
What the study made obvious was that the problem was not just with the Japanese historytextbooks, even though they have received most of the criticism. Experts point out that the textbooks which whitewashed wartime abuses are used in less than 2 per cent of Japanese schools.
"This is a problem for everybody," said Mr Sneider. "We are all participants in creating a divided, and to some degree, implicitly distorted understanding of the past."
The edited volume on the textbook study - which includes discussions from the February 2008 conference, and translated textbook excerpts - will be out next year. A teaching supplement based on the textbook study has been prepared for use by high school teachers in the US.
Mr Sneider said researchers hoped their work would show that "we need to take a dispassionate, comparative approach to history that recognises there is no single historical truth that everybody has to subscribe to".
He added: "There is room for discussion which can hopefully lead to reconciliation."
One Alliance, Two Lenses: U.S.-Korea Relations in a New Era
One Alliance, Two Lenses examines U.S.-Korea relations in a short but dramatic period (1992-2003) that witnessed the end of the Cold War, South Korea's full democratization, inter-Korean engagement, two nuclear crises, and the start of the U.S. war on terror. These events have led to a new era of challenges and opportunities for U.S.-South Korea (ROK) relations.
Based on analysis of newly collected data from major American and Korean newspapers, this book argues that the two allies have developed different lenses through which they view their relationship. Shin argues that U.S.-ROK relations, linked to the issue of national identity for Koreans, are largely treated as a matter of policy for Americans-a difference stemming from each nation's relative power and role in the international system.
Offering rich empirical data and analysis of a critically important bilateral relationship, Shin also presents policy suggestions to improve a relationship, which-after 50 years-has come under more sustained and serious criticism than ever before.
Recent reviews for One Alliance, Two Lenses:
"Based on solid research, One Alliance, Two Lenses is a jargon-free and interesting study of the alliance, offering useful policy insights on how to improve this ever-expanding partnership."
-Victor D. Cha, Georgetown University, former White House Asia advisor (2004-7)
"Shin's triple achievement is in offering exceptional depth in analyzing U.S-South Korean relations during a pivotal period, presenting the premier case study of how identity politics shape a bilateral relationship, and establishing a model in using the media to show how national identities are linked to perceptions of another state. This book sets a high standard for scholarship."
-Gilbert Rozman, Professor, Princeton University
"In a major contribution to the scholarship on the U.S.-Korea relationship, Shin unearths a fundamental mismatch in the ways Koreans and Americans see their relationship. Understanding the mismatch, which this sophisticated book meticulously documents, would help us better grasp, and hopefully improve, a relationship that remains vital to the region's peace and prosperity."
-J. J. Suh, author of Power, Interest and Identity in Military Alliances and director of Korea Studies Program at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University
Political Sociology and Social Movements
Until the 1970s, the study of social movements was firmly within a diverse sociological tradition that explored the relationship between social structure and political behavior, and was preoccupied with explaining variation in the political orientation of movements: their ideologies, aims, motivations, or propensities for violence. Subsequently, a breakaway tradition redefined the central problem, radically narrowing the scope of interest to the process of mobilization-how social groups, whoever they are and whatever their aims, marshal resources, recruit adherents, and navigate political environments in order to grow and succeed. Critics would later insist that the construction of meaning, the formation of collective identities, and the stimulation and amplification of emotions play vital and neglected roles in mobilization, but these alternatives did not challenge the narrowed construction of the problem itself. The resulting subfield has largely abandoned the quest to explain variation in the political orientation of movements. Researchers in related fields -- on revolution, unions, and ethnic mobilization -- have retained an interest in explaining political orientation, although they often view it primarily as a by-product of mobilization. Reviving theories about the impact of social structure on movement political orientation will require integrating insights from research on related but widely scattered subjects.
Pandemic Influenza and the Globalization of Public Health
When one can circle the globe in less than the time of incubation of most infectious pathogens, it is clear every country relies to some extent on the health systems of other countries to prevent and protect their citizens from global health threats. Therefore, creating and maintaining a good health system in one country requires attention to interregional and international cooperation. Domestic and international spheres of public health policies are becoming more intertwined and inseparable.
Striking the Right Balance: Economic Concentration and Local Government Performance in Indonesia and the Philippines
The relationship between economic concentration and governance remains controversial. While some studies find that high economic concentration strengthens collective action and reform cooperation, others stress dangers of rent-seeking and state capture. In this paper I argue that effects are neither strictly positive nor negative: they are best described as an inverted-u-shaped relationship, where better governance performance emerges with moderate economic concentration. Decentralization reforms in Indonesia and the Philippines – unprecedented in scope and scale – provide a unique opportunity to test this hypothesis. Subnational case studies and cross-sections, from both countries, indicate that moderately concentrated polities are accompanied by better service and lower corruption. The presence of ‘contested oligarchies’ – small circles of multi-sectoral interest groups – creates a situation where economic elites are strong enough to influence policymakers and, at the same time, diverse enough to keep each other in check. The results of this paper suggest that contested oligarchies compensate for weakly-developed societal and juridical forces and can become a stepping stone to good governance.
North Korea and Contending South Korean Identities: Analysis of the South Korean Media; Policy Implications for the United States
After North Korea’s nuclear test on 9 October 2006, the fate of South Korea’s engagement policy with North Korea seemed to hang in the balance. To many, the nuclear test stood as a clear indictment of the Sunshine Policy and its successor, President Roh Moo-hyun’s Peace and Prosperity Policy. After years of investment and aid to the North under these policies, South Korea appeared to have received little in return. Conservative lawmakers charged that the nuclear test amounted to the “death penalty” for the Sunshine Policy, and former president Kim Young-sam proclaimed that the policy “should be thrown into a trash can.” Roh’s unification minister apologized to the National Assembly.
But others did not see the nuclear test as a verdict on South Korean engagement of the North. To more progressive forces, including the Roh administration, this is not a story of inter-Korean cause and effect; engagement represents a much larger inter- Korean effort, while the nuclear issue is rooted in problematic U.S.-DPRK relations. In their view, the nuclear test occurred because the Bush administration has taken a hard line with North Korea, creating an environment—featuring “regime change” rhetoric and the preemptive-strike doctrine—that spurred the North to pursue weapons considered the ultimate guarantee of security. The Sunshine Policy cannot be held to account for ruinous U.S.-DPRK relations, though such a circumstance can hinder inter-Korean engagement. While Roh offered a careful, politically calibrated suggestion to the public in the wake of the nuclear test, saying he “would like to suggest that we take time to figure out the causal relationship between the engagement policy and the nuclear test,” former president Kim Dae-jung pressed the progressive perspective in no uncertain terms, offering a direct, clamant answer: “North Korea has never said it would develop nuclear weapons because of South Korea’s Sunshine Policy. It said that it was developing nuclear weapons as a last resort to survive, because the United States was hard on the country.”