Stanford University

Governance

FSI's research on the origins, character and consequences of government institutions spans continents and academic disciplines. The institute’s senior fellows and their colleagues across Stanford examine the principles of public administration and implementation. Their work focuses on how maternal health care is delivered in rural China, how public action can create wealth and eliminate poverty, and why U.S. immigration reform keeps stalling. 

FSI’s work includes comparative studies of how institutions help resolve policy and societal issues. Scholars aim to clearly define and make sense of the rule of law, examining how it is invoked and applied around the world. 

FSI researchers also investigate government services – trying to understand and measure how they work, whom they serve and how good they are. They assess energy services aimed at helping the poorest people around the world and explore public opinion on torture policies. The Children in Crisis project addresses how child health interventions interact with political reform. Specific research on governance, organizations and security capitalizes on FSI's longstanding interests and looks at how governance and organizational issues affect a nation’s ability to address security and international cooperation.

The Foxy Art of Herding Dragons: How Sly Asian Leaders Pulled off Politically Difficult Economic Reforms

-

Major economic reforms are often politically difficult.  They may cause pain to voters and provoke unrest.  They may be opposed by politicians whose time horizons are shortened by electoral cycles.  They may collide with the established ideology and long-standing practices of an entrenched ruling party.  They may be resisted by bureaucrats who fear change, and by vested interests with stakes in the status quo.  Obstacles to major economic reform can be daunting in democratic and autocratic polities alike. 

And yet, somehow, past leaders of today's Asian dragons did manage to get away with critical and creative economic reforms.  Sly political foxes nudged their countries onto high-growth paths toward global renown as economic dragons.  What lessons can be learned from their experiences?  Are tactics that worked in authoritarian systems applicable to democratic ones, and vice versa?  Can one identify a set of stratagems that would amount to an equivalent, for economic reformers, of the advice Machiavelli gave political princes? 

Arroyo will recount the crafty political maneuvers used by leaders of economic reform in Asia during these pivotal eras:  China under Deng Xiaoping; India in the 1990s; Thailand under General Prem Tinsulanonda; Vietnam's Doi Moi; South Korea under Park Chung Hee; Malaysia under Mahathir Mohamad; and Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew.  Arroyo's remarks will be drawn from the paper he has been writing at Stanford on "The Political Economy of Successful Reform: Asian Stratagems," which he describes as "a playbook of useful maneuvers for economic reformers."

Dennis Arroyo is presently on leave from his government post as a director of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) of the Philippines.  He has held consultancies with the World Bank, the United Nations, and the survey research firm Social Weather Stations, and has written widely on socioeconomic topics.  His critique of the Philippine development plan won a mass media award for "best analysis."  He has degrees in economics from the University of the Philippines.  

Philippines Conference Room

Dennis Arroyo

0
Shorenstein APARC/Asia Foundation Visiting Fellow
Dennis.jpg

Dennis Arroyo is a corporate affiliate visiting fellow at Shorenstein APARC for 2007-08. Prior to joining Shorenstein APARC, he worked as the Director of National Planning and Policy Staff at the National Economic and Development Authority in the Philippines. Arroyo also formerly worked as a consultant for the World Bank in Washington DC and the World Bank office in Manila. Arroyo has spent much of his career in survey research with Social Weather Stations (SWS), which is a prominent organization in the World Association for Public Opinion Research (WAPOR).

Hide publication sections
Off
Date Label
Dennis Arroyo 2007-2008 Shorenstein APARC/Asia Foundation Visiting Fellow Speaker Shorenstein APARC
Seminars
Southeast Asia Program

Sneider: Cautionary lessons for U.S.-Korea relationship

Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
%people1%, associate director for research at Shorenstein APARC, gives a few cautionary lessons on U.S.-Korea relations.
Earlier this month I visited Seoul as a member of “New Beginnings,” a study group of former American policymakers and experts on Korea, co-organized by the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford, and The Korea Society. We formed this group last year, anticipating that the upcoming Korean elections and the American presidential elections afterwards would offer an opportunity to embark upon a “new beginning” in our alliance.

After several days of meetings in Seoul, most importantly with President-elect Lee Myeong-bak and his senior advisors, we came away convinced that our hopes for a “new beginning” were more than justified. As President Lee takes office, it is clear that his administration is deeply committed to restoring the alliance to its previous place as the foundation of Korean foreign and security policy. Equally important, the new government is focused on the need to boost economic growth based on the free flow of trade and investment, and sees the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States as central to that goal.

For those of us who have long argued that a vibrant Korea is vital to America’s interests, these were welcome words. It is no secret that there was a perception in the United States that President Roh Moo-hyun, backed by a significant portion of the Korean people, no longer saw the alliance as a strategic imperative for Korea. Unfortunately, many Americans, particularly in Congress, had begun to share this view of the alliance, fueled by a mistaken belief that Koreans were “anti-American.”

This view of President Roh and of Korea was unfair and even distorted. President Roh deserves credit, particularly in the last two years, for taking important steps to improve alliance relations, not least his promotion of the negotiation of the FTA. He made unpopular decisions, such as the dispatch of troops to Iraq, in order to preserve a cooperative atmosphere. And as we saw demonstrated in the election, public opinion in Korea regarding the United States has shifted dramatically since the emotional days of 2002.

The Lee administration can anticipate a warm greeting in Washington, as is already clear in the preparations for his visit next month. The new President has sounded all the right notes – seeking closer cooperation on North Korea policy, restoring positive ties with Japan, America’s other vital ally in Northeast Asia, and building a broader strategic partnership with the U.S. beyond the Korean peninsula.

Amidst the renewed embrace of the alliance, it is worth however keeping a few cautionary lessons from the past in mind:

1. Not everything will be Smooth Sailing

Despite the welcome official rhetoric, it is no secret that the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea has never been entirely smooth. From its earliest days, born out of Korea’s liberation and the trials of the Korean War, the alliance has been marked by both close cooperation and by clashes over key policy goals. While bound together by strategic necessity, the national interests of Korea and the United States have not always been identical.

There is nothing unusual about such differences among allies. Look for example at the tensions that plagued U.S.-European relations over the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. Even with the best of intentions, there will be moments of conflict between Seoul and Washington. What is important is how governments manage those differences to protect the underlying relationship. Both Koreans and Americans need to remember the virtues of quiet diplomacy, trying to avoid negotiating their differences through the media.

2. All politics is local

Alliance relations can no longer be managed solely by diplomats or by friends meeting behind closed doors. Those ties are crucial but both Korea and the United States are democracies in which the issues that are at the core of the relationship – from trade to the alignment of military forces – are matters of public discussion. Domestic politics shapes policy decisions but both Koreans and Americans sometimes forget the pressures operating on the other side.

This is particularly important in an election year. The Korean National Assembly election in April is already having an impact, delaying ratification of the FTA. The U.S. election will mean FTA ratification by the U.S. Congress this year may be impossible. Presidential candidates are taking positions that they may adjust after gaining power. On another level, the new government in Seoul needs to remember that the Bush administration is a lame duck affair and begin to prepare for a new government in Washington.

3. Expect the Unexpected, particularly with North Korea

The limited progress on the nuclear negotiations with North Korea has temporarily brought closer coordination between Korea and the US. But it would be foolish to assume that this trend will necessarily continue. The negotiations are already facing a slowdown as negotiators grapple with much tougher problems. If they break down, both Seoul and Washington, along with their other partners in the 6-party talks, will face some hard questions about how to respond. Any attempt to pressure Pyongyang is likely to bring an escalatory response, not least to test the new government in Seoul.

It is possible that Seoul and Washington will once again be somewhat out of synch. Ironically, the Bush administration – and whatever follows it -- may favor greater concessions than the new administration in Seoul would prefer to make.

These differences are manageable. The key is real policy coordination between the US and Korea – and the inclusion of Japan in a revived trilateral coordination mechanism. If both sides keep that commitment, we will indeed have made a “new beginning” in our alliance.

Daniel Sneider is the Associate Director for Research at Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. A former foreign correspondent, Sneider covered Korea for the Christian Science Monitor.
All News button
1

Bringing students to China helped demystify process of field research, Oi says

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Sometimes doing field research involves dodging cow pies in an actual field. At least, that was the case for a group of Jean C. Oi's students.

Oi discussed the importance of taking students beyond the classroom in a March 6 talk titled "Cow Pies and Democracy: Teaching in the Field," presented as part of the Center for Teaching and Learning's "Award-Winning Teachers on Teaching" lecture series.

Michele Marincovich, associate vice provost of undergraduate education and director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, introduced Oi, calling "Cow Pies and Democracy" the "most colorful title" in the lecture series.

Oi, the William Haas Professor in Chinese Politics, began her talk by laughingly apologizing for her word choice. "I still can't believe I chose that title, but I think it aptly describes what I do with my students," she said.

Oi teaches courses on political change in China, and much of her research has focused on village elections. Though China has been a single-party state since the Communist Party took control in 1949, the country has held direct elections for village officials since the 1980s, a move that has been greeted by some as a possible first step toward a more democratic state.

In 2001, Oi taught a course about village elections for Sophomore College, a three-week summer seminar for incoming sophomores.

Although the class was "very successful," her students kept saying, "I wish we could do this in China," Oi recalled. She agreed.

Without leaving Stanford's campus, "I think it's difficult to convey the different world [the Chinese] are living in," Oi added.

The year after she first taught Sophomore College, Oi had the chance to take students abroad for a class as part of the Overseas Seminar Program.

They spent two weeks at Peking University learning about village elections and China's political situation. They heard guest speakers from the country's Ministry of Civil Affairs, and the students designed research projects requiring them to interview villagers and village officials.

In the third week of the program, Oi and her students took a bus to Heilonjiang, a northeastern province on China's border with Russia. As the bus approached the village, the road became blocked by a long line of carts delivering corn to the local dairy farm. Oi had all the students get off the bus, and they walked through fields and pastures to get the rest of the way to the village.

"This is where we had to dodge the cow pies," Oi explained.

Oi characterized what she did with her students as "demystifying" the process of doing research. Students learned how to interview people in the field.

"When we got to the village, I said, 'OK! Go!' and they all just scattered," Oi said. "If you set your expectations high, students are going to produce."

Oi's students got to witness a village election. Villagers lined up to mark paper ballots to elect a village committee head. The votes were tallied on a chalkboard, and the winner got 509 votes, just a few more than the runner-up.

Many of the villagers that greeted the students had never seen Americans before, Oi said. "Russians were the only foreigners they had ever seen," she said.

One student was a 6-foot-7-inch Olympic gymnast who drew crowds wherever he went.

"I've seen them on TV, but I'd never seen a real one," one awestruck observer said, marveling at the tall athlete.

Oi said her students felt like they had earned "bragging rights" after their trip to China. "They felt like they had done something none of their peers had done," she said.

One even changed her career plans after the seminar.

"Her parents were very worried about what would happen to her in China, and maybe they should have been," Oi quipped. The student had been planning to go to medical school, but she instead decided to declare a major in political science and study rural China.

"I think I did change some student lives," Oi said.

Oi is also a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the director of the Stanford China Program.

Hero Image
oilogo
All News button
1

Justice or Farce? The Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia

-
The UN and the Cambodian government have finally established a “hybrid-style” tribunal in Phnom Penh to begin prosecuting senior leaders from the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime that caused the deaths of 1.7 million Cambodians more than thirty years ago. This tribunal is widely viewed as one of the most important experiments in transitional justice in a post-conflict society. Prof. Hall will show, however, that the hybrid structure mixing international and local lawyers, judges, and staff is deeply flawed. Cambodia’s legal system is notoriously corrupt, inefficient, and politically controlled. Predictably, the UN-sponsored tribunal has been plagued by accusations of corruption, opacity, distrust, and woeful human resource management. Against this backdrop, the international lawyers and judges at the tribunal continue their up-hill battle to forge a venue that meets minimum international legal standards.

John A. Hall specializes in international law and human rights. His controversial 21 September 2007 op ed in the Wall Street Journal (“Yet Another U.N. Scandal”) helped focus international attention on corruption and mismanagement at the Khmer Rouge tribunal. In addition to writing widely on Cambodia, he has worked for Legal Aid of Cambodia in Phnom Penh and the Public Interest Law Center in the Philippines. He holds a doctorate in Modern History from Oxford University, graduated from Stanford Law School in 2000, and before going to law school was a tenured professor of history.

John Ciorciari is Senior Legal Advisor to the Documentation Center of Cambodia, a leading NGO dedicated to accountability for the abuses of the Khmer Rouge regime. He holds a JD from Harvard Law School and a PhD from Oxford University.

Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room

John Hall Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Global Trade & Development Speaker Chapman University School of Law
John Ciorciari Discussant - 2007-2008 Shorenstein Fellow Commentator
Seminars
Southeast Asia Program

March 2008 Dispatch - A Short Honeymoon for South Korea's New President

Authors
Nae Young Lee
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

South Korea’s new President, Lee Myung-bak, was inaugurated on February 25, 2008. President Lee, a conservative former businessman and popular mayor of Seoul, was elected with a wide margin in last year’s December election. During his inaugural address at the plaza of the National Assembly, President Lee declared that Korea is now on the path to becoming an advanced nation. Advancement means reaching the rank of the world’s top countries, both in terms of economic strength and cultural standards. To achieve this task, he called on Korea to move beyond the “age of ideology,” and to enter the “age of pragmatism.” He also pledged to pursue economic revival, to strengthen the alliance with the United States, and to end a protracted stand-off over North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

Since Lee’s landslide victory ended ten years of rule by Korea’s progressive government, he was widely expected to maintain his momentum and to enjoy a long honeymoon, at least during his first year in office. But the reality was quite different, and Lee’s term got off to a rough start. In fact, there are some signs that his honeymoon may soon be over. His approval ratings were in the 70 percent range in the wake of his election, but had fallen to the 50 percent range by the time of his inauguration.

Public sentiment toward President Lee slumped to lukewarm levels mainly because he and his staff mismanaged the two-month transition period between election and inauguration. Hasty announcement of unpopular policies by a transition committee and, more significantly, poor and reckless choices in his cabinet lineup angered the Korean public. The almost daily allegations of wrongdoings by many nominees for minister-level positions raised the serious doubts about the moral standard of a Lee government. Furthermore, his cabinet and top advisers—which consist of people mainly from Seoul and Lee’s native Gyeongsang Province—provoked a sense of alienation among Koreans from other regions of the country.

President Lee’s shaky popularity will be tested in earnest in the upcoming parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for April 5. Until recently, it was predicted that Lee’s ruling Grand National Party would easily take over the majority in parliament, mainly because the April election will be held during the new president’s presumed honeymoon period. As the Korean public has become increasingly disenchanted with the Lee administration, however, the April election will be a tough battle for the ruling party candidates. In fact, the United Democratic Party, the main opposition party that was demoralized and divided by internal rivalry after December’s humiliating defeat, has shown renewed vigor and has taken the offensive against the Lee government. Without a resounding victory in the parliamentary election, President Lee’s governing leadership will be substantially undermined—if not in jeopardy—and he will be plagued further with factional rivalry within the ruling party.

The economy is the most crucial issue facing the Lee presidency. The Korean economy has lost its vitality in recent years, with a GDP growth rate that has stagnated at less than 5 percent since 2003. Though President Lee has pledged to revitalize the economy as his government’s most critical task, current economic circumstances are not favorable for the new president. The Korean economy, heavily reliant upon foreign trade, has been further slowed by the sluggish cycle of the world economy. The new finance minister, Kang Man-soo, has forecast that the Korean economy will again grow less than 5 percent this year, falling short of the 7 percent that Lee pledged during his campaign. Without a visibly improved economic outlook and new job creation, it is highly likely that high public expectation for an economic recovery under President Lee will instead become a major disappointment.

Dealing with unpredictable North Korea is another daunting task for the new government. President Lee has declared his skepticism of the engagement policy pursued by the two liberal governments that preceded him, and accordingly has announced a new North Korea policy initiative: the “Denuclearization Opening 3000 Initiative.” Through this initiative, President Lee showed his commitment to assist North Korea opening its economy, once it gives up its nuclear programs completely. According to President Lee’s vision and as a result of this economic opening, North Korea will be able to upgrade its per capita income to $3000 over the next ten years. The Denuclearization Opening 3000 Initiative clearly shows that President Lee seeks to revamp South Korea’s approach to North Korea, shifting from a policy of unilateral appeasement to a strategy of reciprocity. North Korea has not yet revealed its response to the new policy. But many experts remain unconvinced that the new initiative will succeed in abolishing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and its nuclear ambitions.

Since its transition to democracy in 1987, one of the key features of Korean politics has been its recurring cycle of high expectation and subsequent disappointment. Every president has begun his term with high approval ratings and ended with lame duck status, due to various scandals and declining popularity. At this point, it is too early to determine whether the Lee presidency prove the exception to this cycle. Perhaps the administration’s rough start will serve as a wake-up call for President Lee and his staff, who must now realize that the Korean public is demanding and tough to satisfy. Korean voters, who overwhelmingly supported President Lee in the December election, are now eager to scrutinize his policies and performance, and have their enthusiasm justified.

All News button
1

Shorenstein APARC announces new Shorenstein Fellows for 2008-09

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Shorenstein APARC is pleased to announce the winners of the 2008-09 Shorenstein Fellowship. Christian von Luebke and Li Han will join the center in fall 2008, each for a one-year term.

Dr. von Luebke completed his Ph.D. in 2007 in policy and governance at the Crawford School of Economics and Government, the Australian National University. He also holds a masters in Economics and a B.A. in Business and Political Science from Muenster University. He is currently working on a book that analyzes the determinants for local policy variation in Post-Suharto Indonesia. During his stay at the center, he will extend his work on local governance to other Asian transition countries, in particular China and the Philippines.

Li Han is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard University. She expects to receive her Ph.D. in economics in June 2008. She also holds an M.A. in economics from Peking University and a B.A. from Xi'an Jiaotong University in China.

Li Han's primary fields are development economics and political economy. She is particularly interested in political incentives in nondemocracies and public policy issues in developing countries. She is currently working on a project that analyzes the link between economic liberalization and autocracies.

APARC looks forward to their arrival in the fall.

All News button
1

Christian von Luebke

Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall E301
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 726-0685 (650) 723-6530
0
Visiting Scholar, 2009-12
CvL_APARC_Photo_-_Oct_2010_2.jpg MA, PhD

Christian von Luebke is a political economist with particular interest in democracy, governance, and development in Southeast Asia. He is currently working on a research project that gauges institutional and structural effects on political agency in post-Suharto Indonesia and the post-Marcos Philippines. During his German Research Foundation fellowship at Stanford he seeks to finalize a book manuscript on Indonesian governance and democracy and teach a course on contemporary Southeast Asian politics.

Before coming to Stanford, Dr. von Luebke was a research fellow at the Center of Global Political Economy at Waseda (Tokyo), the Institute for Developing Economies (Chiba), and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Jakarta). He received a JSPS postdoctoral scholarship from the Japan Science Council and a PhD scholarship from the Australian National University.

Between 2001 and 2006, he worked as technical advisor in various parts of rural Indonesia - for both GTZ and the World Bank. In 2007, he joined an international research team at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) analyzing the effects of public-private action on investment and growth.

Dr. von Luebke completed his Ph.D. in 2008 in Political Science at the Crawford School of Economics and Government, the Australian National University. He also holds a Masters in Economics and a B.A. in Business and Political Science from Muenster University.

His research on contemporary Indonesian politics, democratic governance, rural investment, and leadership has been published in the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Contemporary Southeast Asian Affairs, Asian Economic Journal, and ISEAS. He regularly contributes political analyses on Southeast Asia to Oxford Analytica.

The Economics of Tobacco Control and Healthcare Reforms in China

-
Teh-wei Hu is a Professor Emeritus of health economics at the University of California, Berkeley.  At Berkeley, he served as associate dean (1999-2002) and department chair (1990-1993) in the School of Public Health.  He received his PhD in Economics from the University of Wisconsin.  

During the past 40 years, Professor Hu has been teaching and conducting research in health economics, particularly in healthcare financing and the economics of tobacco control.  Hu was a Fulbright scholar in China. He has served as consultant or advisor to the World Bank, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, the Institute of Medicine, the Rand Corporation, the Ministry of Health in the People's Republic of China, Department of Health and Welfare in Hong Kong, Department of Health in the Republic of China (Taiwan), and many private research institutions and foundations. 

Professor Hu will speak to us immediately after an April trip to China, sharing his research and perspectives on the economics of tobacco control and the debate about healthcare system reforms in China (including a possible link between the two through financing expansions in coverage through increased tobacco taxation).

Philippines Conference Room

Teh-wei Hu Professor Emeritus Speaker University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health
Seminars
Asia Health Policy Program

Announcing the Asia-Pacific Health Policy Forum

Authors
Karen Eggleston
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Asia Health Policy Program of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center invites scholars from multiple disciplines to join the Asia-Pacific Health Policy Forum (APHPF) by creating your own account on our website.  Your information will be saved in our online database, searchable by name, country or region of focus, discipline, and topic.  

The mission of the Asia-Pacific Health Policy Forum (APHPF) is to serve as a resource for social science research, teaching, and evidence-based policymaking about health and healthcare in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Specifically, APHPF aims to

  • encourage collaboration among social scientists doing research on health policy in the Asia-Pacific region;
  • serve as a resource for teaching about health and healthcare in specific countries and regions within the Asia-Pacific;
  • provide analysis to inform policy, by offering a forum for rapid dissemination of policy-relevant research results, as well as by linking organizations, programs, conferences and white papers about specific health policy issues; and
  • raise awareness and foster dialogue among researchers, policymakers, and business about cross-cutting themes and global challenges of health and healthcare access, quality, and cost, within the specific historical and cultural contexts of the diverse nations of the Asia-Pacific. 

We encourage all researchers with an interest in health and healthcare in the Asia-Pacific to create an account and to submit information about upcoming conferences and sessions within larger disciplinary conferences that focus on any aspect of health policy in the Asia-Pacific to the Forum coordinator, Karen Eggleston. 

There are no membership dues, as the Forum is currently supported by the Asian Health Policy Program of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University.

The Asia-Pacific Health Policy Forum represents a multidisciplinary effort to build organizational linkages and work toward developing an Asia-Pacific parallel to the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy.

With your help, the APHPF can develop into a vibrant resource and networking support for all of us seeking to understand and improve health and healthcare systems in the region.

All News button
1

Call for papers: Conference on Korean democratization and social movements

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, with a generous grant from the Academy of Korean Studies, will host "From Democracy to Civil Society: The Evolution of Korean Social Movements," a conference on Korean democratization and social movements, on October 23-24, 2008.

This conference seeks to examine two paths through which Korean democratic movements have evolved: institutionalization and diffusion. Regarding institutionalization, we focus on the increasing legitimacy of the democracy movement’s ideals and organizations as well as a shift toward political institutions as a central locus for movement activity. Regarding diffusion, we explore how democratization has facilitated a variety of new social movements such as the environmentalist movement, women’s movement, and peace movement.

We encourage paper submission from interdisciplinary approaches and junior scholars including graduate students. The deadline for submitting proposals or papers (preferred) is May 15, 2008. We will pay all expenses for travel and accommodation and offer an honorarium for those who will present their papers at the conference. We will only accept electronic submissions.

» Apply via email

All News button
1
Subscribe to Governance