International Development

FSI researchers consider international development from a variety of angles. They analyze ideas such as how public action and good governance are cornerstones of economic prosperity in Mexico and how investments in high school education will improve China’s economy.

They are looking at novel technological interventions to improve rural livelihoods, like the development implications of solar power-generated crop growing in Northern Benin.

FSI academics also assess which political processes yield better access to public services, particularly in developing countries. With a focus on health care, researchers have studied the political incentives to embrace UNICEF’s child survival efforts and how a well-run anti-alcohol policy in Russia affected mortality rates.

FSI’s work on international development also includes training the next generation of leaders through pre- and post-doctoral fellowships as well as the Draper Hills Summer Fellows Program.

Authors
Lisa Griswold
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Tokyo-based reporter Jacob Schlesinger will receive award for his journalistic work and achievements spanning three decades

Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) is pleased to announce Wall Street Journal reporter Jacob Schlesinger as the 2014 recipient of the Shorenstein Journalism Award.

Schlesinger has been selected for his excellence in reporting on Japan’s economy, trade and politics, over a more than three-decade career in journalism. A Japan watcher since the late 1980s, Schlesinger incisively covered the nation at its economic height, the ‘boom’ period, through its ‘bust,’ as the financial system collapsed in the 1990s, and now, into an era that has seen signs of economic revival.

Commenting on the selection of Schlesinger for the award, Professor Daniel Okimoto, one of the leading American experts on Japanese political economy and a former director of Shorenstein APARC, said:

 “Through the years, followers of Japan have had the benefit of being kept informed by a succession of first-rate journalists based in Tokyo, such as Bill Emmott (The Economist), author of “The Sun Also Sets,” and Gillian Tett (Financial Times), author of “Saving the Sun.” No foreign journalist has covered Japan longer, or understood its political economy more deeply, than Jacob M. Schlesinger (Wall Street Journal), author of “Shadow Shoguns.”

The Shorenstein Journalism Award, launched in 2002, is given to journalists who are outstanding in their reporting on Asia, and who have contributed significantly to Western understanding of the region. The award was originally designed to honor distinguished American journalists for their work on Asia, but since 2011, Shorenstein APARC re-envisioned the award to encompass Asian journalists who pave the way for press freedom, and have aided in the growth of mutual understanding between Asia and the United States. The award alternates between Western and Asian journalists.

The most recent award recipients were Aung Zaw, the founder of Burmese publication the Irrawaddy, and a pioneer of press freedom in that country, and Barbara Demick, the Los Angeles Times correspondent in Beijing and the author of ground-breaking studies of life in North Korea.

Schlesinger has covered Japan for the Wall Street Journal for nearly a decade. He is currently the Senior Asia Economics Correspondent and Central Banks Editor – Asia for the Journal, based in Tokyo. He came first to Japan as a reporter in the late 1980s, covering tech, trade and politics, and then reporting on Japan’s stock market crash and financial crisis, and the fallout that carried on through the mid-1990s, a period known as “the lost decade.”

Schlesinger then worked for 13 years in the Journal’s bureau in Washington DC, covering politics and the U.S. economy. He was part of the Journal’s team that was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for the “What’s Wrong” series about the causes and consequences of the late-1990s financial bubble.

Schlesinger returned to Japan as the Japan editor/Tokyo bureau chief in 2009, overseeing the coverage of the historic transfer of power to the Democratic Party of Japan, and the triple disaster of the massive earthquake of March 2011 and the tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster that resulted. He has since closely followed the return to power of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party, and its leader Shinzo Abe, and his administration’s economic stimulus policy, known as ‘Abenomics,’ as well as growing tensions within the region.

Schlesinger is the author of the book, “Shadow Shoguns: The Rise and Fall of Japan’s Postwar Political Machine,” widely recognized as one of the most important works on Japan’s politicians, parties and the dramatic changes in its political order. Published in 1997, the book was hailed by Foreign Affairs as “a fascinating and penetrating tale.” He wrote the book while a visiting fellow at Shorenstein APARC.

Schlesinger will receive the award at a special ceremony at Stanford’s Bechtel Conference Center on March 9. He will also lead a panel discussion earlier that day examining the coverage of Japan’s economy, from boom to bust and back again, with Susan Chira, a former Tokyo correspondent and now deputy executive editor of The New York Times and Professor Takeo Hoshi, a prominent economist and director of Stanford’s Japan Program.

Please click here for the full press release.

Contact: Lisa Griswold, communications coordinator at Shorenstein APARC, with any questions about the award or the March 9 events.

Hero Image
Wall Street Journal's Jacob Schlesinger (at Left) interviews World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at the 2012 Tokyo Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.
Wall Street Journal's Jacob Schlesinger (at Left) interviews World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at the 2012 Tokyo Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. | World Bank/Ryan Rayburn
All News button
1
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

Sony Pictures Entertainment was set to release a satirical comedy, “The Interview,” in late 2014, but a cyberattack hit the organization that leaked corporate information, leading the company to initially pull the film and opening up a string of theories over who was behind the attack and how to respond.

Speculation began to mount as a clearer picture of the unprecedented hacking, both comprehensive and large in size, began to emerge. The breach is thought to be retribution for Sony’s production of the film, which carries a plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Then, a threat was directed at movie theaters and moviegoers planning to screen and see “The Interview.” The message warned those against involvement ahead of the film’s Dec. 25 opening, indicating a “bitter fate” and alluding to the 9/11 attacks in the United States.

An unknown group, The Guardians of Peace “GOP,” claimed responsibility for the cyberattack. Media and those familiar with North Korea began to point blame on the country, which had already publicly condemned the film last June and has a history of cybercrime. Responding to accusations, top North Korean leadership rejected any involvement in the attack.

Image
rsd14 078 0248a

The White House responded as Sony canceled the film’s New York premiere and said it would discontinue distribution. Following his year-end press conference, President Barack Obama condemned the hacking, citing the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s conclusion that North Korea was behind the attack. The President said the United States would respond “proportionally,” and on Jan. 2, signed an Executive Order that put into action a series of sanctions imposed by the Department of the Treasury.

David Straub, a Korea expert at Stanford University, answered questions about the Sony hacking and its policy implications for the United States and North-South Korean relations. Straub is the associate director of the Korea Program at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. He formerly served as the State Department’s Korean affairs director.

What do we know about the Sony hacking? Who’s responsible?

Based on many types of evidence, including confidential information, U.S. government officials appear to be quite confident that North Korea did in fact conduct this operation. There’s still some disagreement in the media and among tech experts over who is responsible. They’ve cited a number of reasons but the main one is that the FBI’s official statement attributing the attack to North Korea provided evidence that they believe is far from conclusive. I myself am not a technical expert, but based upon my following North Korea for many years – the attack strikes me as being very likely to have been a North Korean operation. The FBI statement noted that the Sony attack is similar to an attack that the North Koreans conducted against South Korean banks and media outlets in March 2013. In that attack, many South Korean banks had their hard drives completely wiped clean. It was a hugely destructive attack and very similar to what happened to Sony.

Does North Korea’s response to the Sony hack coincide with past behavior?

In addition to the 2013 South Korean bank cyberattack, the North Koreans apparently sank a South Korean naval vessel in 2010, killing 46 sailors. In both instances, the North Koreans denied that they did it, expressed outrage over being accused, demanded that the South Koreans produce proof, said that they could prove that they didn’t do it, and then requested that the South Koreans conduct a joint investigation. These same demands are being made in response to the U.S. blaming Pyongyang for the Sony cyberattack. It couldn’t be more similar. More generally, the North Korean regime is very calculating. They know they can’t win an outright military confrontation with South Korea, much less the United States, so what they do is try to find a weak link and go after it in a way in which they have plausible deniability – a situation where it’s very difficult for the attacked party to prove who did it.

Describe North Korea’s hacking capabilities.

North Korea is a very secretive country, so it’s hard to be completely certain of their cyber capabilities. However, according to many accounts, the North Korean government has established professional hacking schools and units over the years, resulting in hundreds if not thousands of trained hackers. North Korea has engaged in a number of attacks in the past, the most prominent one was the attack on South Korean banks in March 2013. But also, a few years ago, North Korea conducted less sophisticated attacks on major U.S. government websites.

Why would they conduct an attack?

The North Koreans appear to have both the capability and the motivation to attack Sony. The nation’s entire political system rests on a cult of personality – now a cult of family, actually – that began with the founder of the regime, Kim Il-sung, and extends to his grandson today, leader Kim Jong-un, who has been in power since Dec. 2011. It’s the only thing holding the political system together at this point. The cult of personality is so strong that any direct criticism of the top leader is something that North Koreans will compete among each other to reject. From this standpoint, it seems very likely that they would feel they had to prevent the showing of a movie that features an assassination of Kim Jong-un. And, the hackers had plenty of time to prepare for and implement the attack because everyone knew well ahead of when the movie would be released.

The United States placed new financial sanctions on North Korea. What impact will the sanctions have?

President Obama made it clear that the U.S. government would respond at a time, in a place, and in a manner of its own choosing. Not all measures taken would be made public. So far, the first publically announced measure was the President’s Executive Order on Jan. 2 imposing additional sanctions on a number of North Korean agencies and officials. This in itself is unlikely to have major consequences because most of those entities were already sanctioned. But, the Executive Order states that the sanctions are being implemented not only because of the cyberattack against Sony, but more generally because of North Korea’s actions and policies, including its serious human rights abuses. So in a sense, the North Koreans got the United States to expand its reasons for sanctioning them.

 

President Obama addresses the Sony hacking, saying the United States will "respond proportionally," at his year-end press briefing on Dec. 19.

President Obama addresses the Sony hacking at his year-end press briefing on Dec. 19. Photo credit: WhiteHouse.gov

 

What other steps will the United States likely take?

President Obama left open the possibility that North Korea might be returned to the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, from which the nation was removed in 2008. I think it was a mistake to remove North Korea from that list in the first place. It was done to promote progress on the nuclear talks, which eventually failed, and ignored a number of terroristic actions that North Korea has committed in recent years. Another possibility, which is being pushed by Republicans in Congress, is to increase financial sanctions that mirror the type that were successfully implemented in Iran.

How will the U.S. response influence cybersecurity policy going forward?

The attack on Sony is a huge wakeup call to American businesses, and even to the U.S. government. It’s the first attack of this size on a company located in the United States. It got tremendous profile in the media and the President has been personally engaged in responding. Nearly everyone has heard about it, so U.S. companies are now going to be focused much more on cybersecurity because it has exposed some potential vulnerabilities – a “if North Korea can do it, presumably others can too” mentality. Moreover, if an attack can be executed on a film company, it could also be done to other businesses and even to elements of U.S. critical infrastructure.

How do you view North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s possible offer to meet with South Korean leadership this year?

Kim Jong-un said that he was open to the possibility of a summit with South Korea in his annual New Year’s address, although he made no specific proposal. He made clear that the summit would be conditional on actions to be taken in advance by South Korea. Among these, Kim demanded ending U.S.-South Korean military exercises and halting the flow of propaganda-filled balloons sent over the border into the North by non-governmental activist groups in the South. Moreover, North Korea has a history of expanding its conditions later, without any warning. So, I think one has to be skeptical. The signal is unfortunately less likely to be a sincere effort toward real, sustained dialogue, and more likely to be a North Korean propaganda effort devised to confuse, divert and divide international public opinion. That said, South Korea has acted entirely appropriately in welcoming the signal and reiterating its own offer of high-level talks. Let’s hope for the best.

David Straub also participated in an interview with Public Radio International on Jan. 1 about the prospect for North-South talks, the audio can be accessed on the PRI website.

Hero Image
reuters theinterview
"The Interview," a Sony Pictures film starring actors Seth Rogen and James Franco about a fictional plot to assasinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, releases in theaters. | Reuters/Kevork Djansezian
All News button
1
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe dissolved Japan’s lower house of parliament in November, and held an early election on December 14. The vote kept the status quo – the ruling Liberal Democratic Party retained its majority in the Diet, winning two-thirds of the seats.

In a Dispatch Japan Q&A, Daniel Sneider, associate director for research at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, discusses the election results and weighs the outcomes for the Abe administration.

“For Abe, this election was all about power, and retaining power.

“With this victory, Abe should have staved off any serious challengers, barring external events that dramatically change the perception of his government.”

Sneider said the question remains what Abe will choose to do with his ‘somewhat rebuilt’ political clout.

The full article is available on the Dispatch Japan blog, and in Toyo Keizai, a Tokyo-based economics/politics publication, in Japanese and English.

Hero Image
8510713280 c1ed18b698 o
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. | Flickr/CSIS
All News button
1

A climate of uncertainty marks the Xi administration’s second year in power. The unfurling of a nationwide anti-corruption campaign, including high-profile domestic and international targets, may have unintended effects on economic growth. But will these effects be short- or long-lived? Can this campaign build confidence, domestically and internationally, in the party’s governing capacity? Questions also swirl around the motivations for reviving Mao-era language in the political realm while maintaining a relentless urbanization drive in the social and economic realms.

-

Koret Distinguished Lecture Series: Lecture V

Image
photo kyung wook hur
During the past five decades, the South Korean economy has achieved stellar success. The country has been transformed from an impoverished, war-stricken, agrarian society into an industrial powerhouse. Today Korea has the world’s 14th-largest economy and per capita GDP of $28,000. Yet the economy is now at a crossroads. Korea is losing its dynamism and facing serious challenges, including a rapidly aging society, declining working age population, reduced potential growth rate, increasing demand for welfare expenditures, worsening inequality, and fewer decent jobs. Moreover, the prospect of unification poses not only opportunities but also challenges. Kyung Wook Hur will discuss Korea’s urgent need to find new engines of growth and take other steps to meet these challenges to the future of the Korean economy.

From May 2010 to May 2013, Kyung Wook Hur was Ambassador of the Permanent Delegation of Korea to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), where he also served as chair of the OECD Pension Budget and Reserve Fund Management Board, co-chair of the Working Group on OECD Development Strategy, and chair of the Informal Reflection Group on China. He was Korea’s Vice Minister of Strategy and Finance from January 2009 to May 2010 and Secretary to the President for National Agenda from March 2008 to January 2009. During a career in the Korean government that began in 1979, he focused on macroeconomic policies, international financial policy, economic policy coordination, and budget planning. Outside of the Korean government, he also worked for various international financial organizations, including the World Bank (as a Young Professional), the International Finance Corporation, and the International Monetary Fund.

Currently Ambassador Hur is a visiting professor at both the Korea Development Institute’s School of Public Policy and Management and Seoul National University’s Graduate School of International Studies, and an advisor to the ASEAN +3 Macroeconomic Research Office (AMRO). He is also a Chartered Financial Analyst. He received a BA in business administration from Seoul National University and an MBA from Stanford University. 

 

The Koret Distinguished Lecture Series is made possible through the generous support of the Koret Foundation.

 

   

Philippines Conference RoomEncina Hall, 3rd floor616 Serra StreetStanford University
Kyung Wook Hur, <i>former ROK Ambassador to OECD </i> Former ROK Ambassador to OECD
Seminars
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

A unified Korea is likely but it won’t come easily, said Stanford professor Gi-Wook Shin, in a recent interview with NK News. The most plausible scenario is reunification following a breakdown of the North Korean regime and eventual South Korean absorption of the North.

“Of course, I cannot predict the timing of such an occurrence, but it is likely that it will happen in the not-too-distant future,” said Shin, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, in a Q&A among a panel of experts on inter-Korean relations.

In the event of unification, Shin says he is convinced it will be on South Korean terms. He said he doubts that the North Korean government, led by leader Kim Jong-Un and the ruling Worker’s Party of Korea, would find a role in South Korea’s democratic system.

Shin heads a multiyear research project focused on understanding the domestic and global implications of North Korea’s future. Earlier this year, he coauthored a policy brief assessing the situation and policy context on the Korean Peninsula. The report recommends steps that the South Korean government can take to engage North Korea toward the ultimate goal of Korean unification and a sustainable security environment in Northeast Asia.

The full Q&A can be accessed on NK News online.

Hero Image
arch of reunification flickr davidstanley
The Arch of Reunification, located outside Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. | Flickr/David Stanley
All News button
1
Paragraphs

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) remains a potentially destabilizing element of the Korean Peninsula, making it difficult to construct a regional architecture that could help preserve peace and prosperity. “Korean Reunification: An American View” suggests that transformation of the North Korean regime may be a prerequisite for Korean reunification and a key factor in building a sustainable future in Northeast Asia. The United States, the Republic of Korea, Japan and others must find ways to engage the North, without rewarding misbehavior. Two suggested approaches include pushing for Chinese-style reforms and increasing incentives for the DPRK elite.

 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Authors
Thomas Fingar
-
Image
100611 050 copy

Stanford-Sasakawa Peace Foundation New Channels Dialogue 2015

"Innovation: Silicon Valley and Japan"

January 22, 2015

Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall, Stanford University

Sponsored and organized by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation (SPF) and the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) in Association with U.S.-Japan Council 
 

The Japan Program at Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University is continuing the "New Channels" dialogue which started in 2013 with support from the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. The project was launched to create new channels of dialogue between experts and leaders of younger generations from the United States, mostly from the West Coast, and Japan under name of "New Channels: Reinvigorating U.S.-Japan Relations," with the goal of reinvigorating the bilateral relationship through dialogue on 21st century challenges faced by both nations. 

Last year, in its inaugural year, the Stanford-SPF New Channels Dialogue 2014 focused on energy issues. This year's theme is innovation and entrepreneurship, which will take place on January 22 at Stanford University with participants that include business leaders, academia and experts from both the United States and Japan. On January 23, a closed dialogue among participants will be held at Stanford.

Shorenstein APARC will be tweeting about the conference at hashtag, #StanfordSPF. Join the conversation with the handle, @StanfordSAPARC.

 

Brief Agenda

9:15-9:30 
Welcome: 
Gi-Wook Shin, Director, Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University 
Yuji Takagi, President, Sasakawa Peace Foundation 
 

9:30-10:50 
Panel Discussion I: Current State of Silicon Valley Innovations

Chair: Kazuyuki Motohashi, Sasakawa Peace Fellow, Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University

Panelists: 
Richard Dasher, Director, US-Asia Technology Management Center, Stanford University 
Tak Miyata, General Partner, Scrum Ventures 
Patrick Scaglia, Consultant and Technology Advisor, Startup Ventures and former senior executive, Hewlette Packard 
Norman Winarsky, Vice President, SRI Ventures, SRI International 


11:10-12:30 
Panel Discussion II: Current State of Innovations in Japan

Chair: Kenji Kushida, Research Associate, Japan Program, Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University 

Panelists: 
Yusuke Asakura, Former CEO, mixi 
Takuma Iwasa, CEO, Cerevo 
Yasuo Tanabe, Vice President and Executive Officer, Hitachi Ltd. 
Hiroaki Yasutake, Managing Executive Office and Director, Rakuten

 

12:30-13:30 
Lunch

 

13:30-14:50 
Panel Discussion III: Taking Silicon Valley Innovations to Japan

Chair: Richard Dasher, Director, US-Asia Technology Management Center, Stanford University 

Panelists: 
Jeff Char, President, J-Seed Ventures, Inc. and Chief Mentor, Venture Generation 
Akiko Futamura, President and CEO, InfiniteBio 
Allen Miner, Founder, Chairman & CEO, SunBridge Corporation 
John Roos, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan 
 

15:10-16:30 
Panel Discussion IV: The Japanese Innovation Ecosystem and Silicon Valley: Bringing them Together (How Japanese firms can make use of SV?)

Chair: Takeo Hoshi, Director, Japan Program, Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University

Panelists: 
Robert Eberhart, Assistant Professor, Santa Clara University and STVP Fellow, Stanford University 
Gen Isayama, CEO and Co-Founder, WiL (World Innovation Lab) 
Naoyuki Miyabe, Principal, Miyabe & Associates, LLC 
Hideichi Okada, Senior Executive Vice President, NEC Corporation 
 

Innovation: Silicon Valley and Japan
Download pdf

Bechtel Conference Center
Encina Hall
616 Serra St., 1st floor
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

Conferences
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

In conversation with Shorenstein APARC, Yong Lee, the SK Center Fellow, discusses his initial draw to architecture and urbanism, and the nexus of public policy and economics. Lee highlights some of his recent research activities focused on international sanctions on North Korea and educational policy as it relates to migration and housing patterns in South Korea. 

Your background is quite multifaceted, including years working in architecture and a master’s of public policy in addition to a doctorate in economics. How do all of these areas fit together to inform your research?

It took a while for me to figure out what I wanted to pursue as a career. As a high school student in Korea I had to choose a track that focused on either the physical sciences or the humanities/social sciences. At that age, it’s hard to know what you want to be. Simply because my father was an engineer, I chose the physical sciences track. When it was time to apply for college (one actually had to determine a major when applying for college back then), I became interested in international relations and wanted to become a diplomat. But given my training in the hard sciences and the fact that one had to choose a major when applying, I had to decide on a science or engineering major. After browsing through the library a few architecture books caught my eye, and I opted for architectural engineering as my major. 

I truly enjoyed my six years of architectural training but after working for an architectural firm for several years in Seoul, I realized I was more interested in the abstract ideas of architecture and urbanism and less of the actual design process that goes on in an architectural firm. I searched for my next career, became interested in urban and development policy, and pursued a master’s of public policy at Duke University. However, then I realized that economics would allow me to rigorously analyze the policy questions I was interested in. Fortunately, Brown University accepted me as a Ph.D. student and I eventually became an economist. It was through this search process, that I developed an interdisciplinary interest in policy relevant questions. My personal choices constrained by education policy, comparatively experiencing Korea’s transition while living between Korea and the United States each decade since the 1980s, and my interest in architecture and cities have shaped my research interest in economic development and growth with a focus on education, firms and cities.  And now being at FSI, I can immerse myself in international studies, something I had wanted to pursue all along. By joining Stanford, I think I finally discovered what I had wanted to do.

One of your research streams looks at the effects of sanctions on domestic populations, looking at the case study of North Korea. How did you derive data about the closed-off regime? What are your key findings?

Research on North Korea is challenging because of the dearth of data. I had been interested in how sanctions impact the domestic population, but to examine this question one would need regional level data within in North Korea. I decided to use the satellite night-lights data, which in recent years has been used as an alternative means to measure economic activity. I found that sanctions actually increase urban-rural inequality. An additional sanctions index increases the urban-rural luminosity gap by about 1 percent. However, if I focus on the more central urban areas the gap increases to about 2.6 percent. Since urban areas are more than ten times brighter than rural areas, the results imply that the gap further increases by 1 to 2.6 percent with additional sanctions.  Furthermore, I find that the urban areas actually get brighter while the rural areas get darker.

Another of your research focuses on the impact of 1970s education policy in South Korea on intergenerational mobility and migration. Can you explain this phenomenon? Does the case of South Korea relate to reform experiences in other countries?

Students in South Korea traditionally had to take an entrance exam to enter high schools. After the exam, high schools would choose students based on the exam scores. Given the variation in school quality, a hierarchy of high schools had existed and students who performed well would enter the top tier high schools. This system was heavily criticized since wealthier families could tutor children to prepare for the entrance exam. Eventually in the mid-1970s, the South Korean government abolished the exam-based system and moved to a school district based system where students would attend high schools based on residential location. By moving away from an exam system to a district system, policymakers hoped that educational opportunities would alleviate the persistence of inequality. However, what I find is that, to the contrary, the district system generated substantial sorting of households by income. Now wealthier households could simply move to districts and cities with the prestigious high schools. Given that the purchase of housing is purely determined by income, school quality became even more segregated by income and actually exacerbated the persistence of inequality across generations. This transition is now happening in several Chinese cities and in the United States – the sorting across school districts by educational outcome has created highly segregated towns. The Korea experiment allowed me to examine not just an equilibrium outcome, but also the transition when the policy changed.

In the coming year, you’ll be teaching courses related to the economies of East Asia. Can you provide an outlook on this?

I’ll be teaching an International Policy Studies course titled, “Economic Growth, Development, and Challenges of East Asia,” in the spring. The course will focus on China, Japan, and Korea, but also draw on Southeast Asian countries, when relevant. I will cover the rapid economic growth in recent decades and development policies pursued. However, I will also cover the current major economic challenges these countries face, some of which are rising income inequality, entrepreneurship, and an aging workforce. I hope to add to our rich set of courses by providing an economics and empirical viewpoint.

Tell us something we don’t know about you.

I sometimes split my sleep. That is, I go to bed to sleep for a few hours and then wake up in the middle of the dark, do some reading or work, and then sleep for one or two hours before I start my morning routine. It started during my high school years and it has stuck with me for quite a while now. Don’t worry, though. I sleep fine most of the time. I just sometimes enjoy the dead of the night.

Hero Image
Portrait of Yong Suk Lee
Rod Searcey
All News button
1
Authors
Lisa Griswold
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Asia-Pacific leaders recently met in Beijing at the annual APEC summit, and after two days of discussion, concluded with some significant pledges and remarkable moments. President Xi Jinping of China and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan held a landmark meeting, and the United States and China discussed two agreements that are both symbolic, and lay groundwork for regional progress, say Stanford scholars.

High-level intergovernmental meetings are often more theatre than substance, but this year the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the oldest trans-Pacific regional organization, delivered important messages and may spur actions by member governments.

“Any summit is a ‘hurry up, get this done’ motivator,” says Thomas Fingar, the Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. “The head of state goes to the meeting – and generally speaking – he doesn’t want to arrive and say ‘my guys were asleep for the last year.’”

Fingar says the APEC summit prodded countries to work on “deliverables,” particularly the goals and projects on the agenda from previous meetings. He recently returned from Beijing, and shared his perspectives with students in the Asia-Pacific Scholars Program.

Writing for the East Asia Forum, Donald Emmerson, director of the Southeast Asia Program at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, said many of the commitments declared at the APEC summit, and at the subsequent meetings of the G20 in Australia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Myanmar, will have implications for global governance, particularly as China holds a more influential role in the region.

APEC countries account for over 40 percent of the world’s population and nearly half of global trade – and true to form, the grand vision of the summit is to advance regional economic integration.

Yet, “the ancillary things – things that went on in the margins – are in many ways more important,” Fingar says, referring to areas outside of the summit’s obvious focus, and what’s discussed on the sidelines of the public talks.

 

Image
apec economic leaders meeting cropped

 

Key outcomes from the 2014 gathering include:

  • The leaders of Japan and China met for the first time since coming into office, afterward acknowledging that the two countries have “disagreements” in their official statements. Of the Xi-Abe meeting, Fingar says, “it helps clear the way for lower level bureaucrats to go to work on real issues."

 

  • The United States and China announced a proposal to extend visas for students and businesspeople on both sides. While the immediate effects would be helpful, the change is symbolically superior. “You don’t give 5-10 year visas to adversaries,” he says, it shows that “‘we’re in [the relationship] for the long-term.’”

 

  • China proposed the development of a new “Silk Road,” pledging $40 billion in resources toward infrastructure projects shared with South and Central Asian neighbors. “It’s tying the region together and creating economy-of-scale possibilities for other countries,” he says. “A real win-win situation.”

 

  • The United States and China, the world’s two largest energy consumers, announced bilateral plans to cut carbon emissions over the next two decades. “It’s significant because those two countries must be the ones to lead the world in this area. Unless we are seen to be in basic agreement, others will hold back.”

 

  • China codified the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a global financial institution intended as an alternative to institutions like the World Bank. “China has been frustrated with its role in existing international institutions,” Fingar says, explaining a likely motivation behind the AIIB’s creation.

Emmerson said the outcomes of the APEC summit from the U.S.-China standpoint were better than expected, speaking to McClatchy News. The visa and climate deals, as well as their commitment to lowering global tariffs on IT products, will lessen chances of conflict between the two countries. 

However, the summit did leave some areas unsolved. One of the most important is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade pact proposed by the United States that includes 11 others countries in the region, but does not yet include China.

Leaders “made positive noises” coming out of the TPP discussions, Fingar says, but nothing was passed. The gravity and complexity of trade-related issues, especially agriculture and intellectual property, is likely to blame for slow action.

Hero Image
apec economic leaders meeting headline
Leaders pose for a group photo at the 22nd APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Beijing, China. | APEC/(Xinhua/Yao Dawei)
All News button
1
Subscribe to International Development