Society

FSI researchers work to understand continuity and change in societies as they confront their problems and opportunities. This includes the implications of migration and human trafficking. What happens to a society when young girls exit the sex trade? How do groups moving between locations impact societies, economies, self-identity and citizenship? What are the ethnic challenges faced by an increasingly diverse European Union? From a policy perspective, scholars also work to investigate the consequences of security-related measures for society and its values.

The Europe Center reflects much of FSI’s agenda of investigating societies, serving as a forum for experts to research the cultures, religions and people of Europe. The Center sponsors several seminars and lectures, as well as visiting scholars.

Societal research also addresses issues of demography and aging, such as the social and economic challenges of providing health care for an aging population. How do older adults make decisions, and what societal tools need to be in place to ensure the resulting decisions are well-informed? FSI regularly brings in international scholars to look at these issues. They discuss how adults care for their older parents in rural China as well as the economic aspects of aging populations in China and India.

-

Download Transcript

Image
Angrynomics book cover
Economics increasingly fails to explain why the pressures of life appear to be intensifying at the same time as income per capita is rising, or why we work more hours for less money in real terms. And why we see the rise of nationalism everywhere when globalization, on average, has made us all richer. The disconnect between our experience of the world and the economic model used to explain it has given rise to "angrynomics": an economy of heightened uncertainty and anger, where faith in the workings of markets and politics has been undermined and rapid and seemingly ever-accelerating economic change has become something to be feared. Eric Lonergan and Mark Blyth have written a book for anyone anxious, worried - or angry - about the mismatch between how they experience the world with the increasing day to day pressures they face and the model used by economic elites and politicians to explain and justify it. In a powerful and passionately argued analysis, they bring their critical insight and expertise to bear on the nature of angrynomics and offer a set of radical and innovative policies that cut across tired party political lines - and that if implemented might just help the world to be a less angry place.

Mark Blyth


Mark Blyth is the William R. Rhodes ’57 Professor of International Economics at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. Blyth graduated Strathclyde University in 1990 and then finished his PhD. in political science at Columbia University in 1999. He then joined the Johns Hopkins University before moving to Brown University in 2009.

Blyth’s research spans several areas. The first focuses on the power of economic ideas as seen in his recent award winning book, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea (New York: Oxford University Press 2015), which has been translated into 16 languages. He has written extensively on the political economy of Europe, as seen in his recent book, The Future of the Euro (New York: Oxford University Press 2015). His most recent book is Angrynomics (Columbia University Press 2020 - with Eric Lonergan), which deals with the economics underlying the current populist moment. He is currently working on a new joint project on the New Politics of Growth and Stagnation.

Blyth is a regular contributor to the journal of the Council for Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs and he contributes to several Podcasts, including the Financial Times Alphaville podcast.

 

Co-sponsored by the Global Populisms Project.

Online via Zoom: Register

Mark Blyth Brown University
-

In October, the Justice Department sued Google for violating antitrust laws.These antitrust concerns are motivated by the potential economic harms caused by the tech giants’ monopoly positions, but there might be greater reason to worry about the political harms that the platforms pose to American democracy because of their control over the modern information ecosystem. If the antitrust laws are designed to address economic harms, how should policymakers confront the political harms from dominant digital platforms?

Join us on November 18th at 10 a.m. PST to discuss recommendations from the new White Paper of the Stanford Working Group on Platform Scale, where we will assess how today’s digital platforms pose threats to American democracy and a proposal for how creative technological interventions might mitigate the platform’s growing power. Panelists include Francis Fukuyama, Mosbacher Director of Stanford University’s Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and a leader at the Cyber Policy Center’s Program on Democracy and the Internet, Ashish Goel, Professor of Management Science and Engineering and (by courtesy) Computer Science at Stanford University, Barak D. Richman, Professor of Law and Business Administration at Duke University, Luigi Zingales, Professor of Economics at the Chicago Booth School of Business and Co-host of the podcast Capitalisn't, and Dick Costolo, former CEO of Twitter, founder and CEO of multiple startups, and now a Managing Partner at 01 Advisors, in conversation with Kelly Born, Executive Director of the Cyber Policy Center as they discuss new ideas in antitrust.

Dick Costolo

Encina Hall, C148
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305

0
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy
Research Affiliate at The Europe Center
Professor by Courtesy, Department of Political Science
yff-2021-14290_6500x4500_square.jpg

Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science.

Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, has appeared in over twenty foreign editions. His book In the Realm of the Last Man: A Memoir will be published in fall 2026.

Francis Fukuyama received his B.A. from Cornell University in classics, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science. He was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation, and of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State. From 1996-2000 he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and from 2001-2010 he was Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. He served as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics from 2001-2004. He is editor-in-chief of American Purpose, an online journal.

Dr. Fukuyama holds honorary doctorates from Connecticut College, Doane College, Doshisha University (Japan), Kansai University (Japan), Aarhus University (Denmark), the Pardee Rand Graduate School, and Adam Mickiewicz University (Poland). He is a non-resident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rand Corporation, the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, and the Board of the Volcker Alliance. He is a fellow of the National Academy for Public Administration, a member of the American Political Science Association, and of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is married to Laura Holmgren and has three children.

(October 2025)

CV
Date Label
Ashish Goel
Luigi Zingales
Barak Richman
-

The internet is now the most common source of political news for almost half of Americans, and social media is now the primary source of news for those under 30. Yet today’s youth have little capacity to evaluate the credibility of digital sources, with colleges across the country often relying on severely outdated guidelines supporting digital literacy education. Join Stanford’s Sam Wineburg, Washington State University’s Mike Caulfield, and Rowan University’s Andrea Baer and Dan Kipnis, in conversation with the Cyber Center’s Kelly Born, about the many challenges and opportunities facing media literacy.

Andrea Baer
Mike Caulfield
Dan Kipnis
Sam Wineburg
Seminars
Paragraphs

VOTERS ARE BEING INUNDATED WITH POLITICAL ADVERTISING on social media and online platforms during the 2020 election season. Campaigns, PACs and third parties have added new tools and tactics for gathering data on voters and targeting them with advertising, and now they can pinpoint niches of potential voters on social media in ways unknown in prior election cycles.

Where once advertising conveyed reasons to vote for a candidate, now it frequently aims to convey misinformation, undermine trust, and depress turnout. The risk is that the spread of misinformation through such means could influence the U.S. vote, cast doubt on the democratic process and raise suspicions about the accuracy of the election outcome. 

 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Authors
Marietje Schaake
Rob Reich
Authors
Graham Webster
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

Graham Webster leads the DigiChina Project, which translates and explains Chinese technology policy for an English-language audience so that debates and decisions regarding cyber policy are factual and based on primary sources of information.  

Housed within Stanford’s Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance (GTG) and in partnership with New America, DigiChina and its community of experts have already published more than 80 translations and analyses of public policy documents, laws, regulations and political speeches and are creating an open-access knowledge base for policy-makers, academics, and members of the tech industry who need insight into the choices China makes regarding technology.

Q. Why is this work important?

A lot of tech is produced in China so it’s important to understand their policies. And in Washington, D.C., you hear a lot of people say, “Well, you can’t know what China’s doing on tech policy. It’s all a secret.” But while China’s political system is often opaque, if you happen to read Chinese, there’s a lot that’s publicly available and can explain what the Chinese government is thinking and planning.

With our network of experts, DigiChina works at the intersection of two policy challenges. One is how do we deal with high technology, and the questions around economic competitiveness, personal autonomy and the security risks that our dependence on tech creates.

The other challenge is, from a US government, business or values perspective, what needs to be done about the increased prominence and power of the Chinese government and its economic, technological and military capabilities.

These questions cut across tech sectors from IT infrastructure to data-driven automation, and cutting-edge developments in quantum technology, biotech, and other fields of research.

Q: How was DigiChina started?

A number of us were working at different organizations, think tanks, consultancies and universities and we all had an interest in explaining the laws and the bureaucratic language to others who aren’t Chinese policy specialists or don’t have the language skills.  

We started working informally at first and then reached out to New America, which is an innovative type of think tank combining research, innovation, and policy thinking on challenges arising during this time of rapid technological and social change. Under the New America umbrella, and through partnerships with the Leiden Asia Centre, a leading European research center based at the University of Leiden, and the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Initiative at Harvard and MIT, we were able to build out the program and increase the number of experts in our network.

Q: Who is involved in DigiChina and what types of expertise do you and others bring to the project?

More than 40 people have contributed to DigiChina publications so far, and it’s a pretty diverse group. There are professors and think tank scholars, students and early-career professionals, and experienced government and industry analysts. Everyone has a different part of the picture they can contribute, and we reach out to other experts both in China and around the world when we need more context.

As for me, I was working at Yale Law School’s China Center when I was roped into what would become DigiChina and had spent several years in Beijing and New Haven working more generally on US-China relations and Track 2 dialogues, where experts and former officials from the two countries meet to take on tough problems. As a journalist and graduate student, I had long studied technology and politics in China, and I took on a coordinating role with DigiChina as I turned back to that pursuit full time.

Stanford is an ideal home because the university is a powerhouse in Chinese studies and an epicenter of global digital development.
Graham Webster
Editor in Chief, DigiChina Project

Q. Are there other organizations involved as well?

We have a strong tie to the Leiden Asia Centre at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, where one of DigiChina’s cofounders, Rogier Creemers, is a professor, and where staff and student researchers have contributed to existing and forthcoming work. We coordinate with a number of other groups on translations, and the project benefits greatly from the time and knowledge contributed by employees of various institutions. I hope that network will increasingly be a resource for contributors and their colleagues.

The project is currently supported by the Ford Foundation, which works to strengthen democratic values, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement around the world. A generous grant from Ford will keep the lights on for two years, giving us the ability to build our open-access resource and, with further fundraising, the potential to bring on more in-house editorial and research staff.

We hope researchers and policy thinkers, regardless of their approaches or ideologies, can use our translations to engage with the real and messy evolution of Chinese tech policy.
Graham Webster
Editor in Chief, DigiChina Project

Q. Do you have plans to grow the project?

We are working to build an accessible online database so researchers and scholars can review primary source documents in both the original Chinese and in English. And we are working toward a knowledge base with background entries on key institutions, legal concepts, and phrases so that a broader audience can situate things like Chinese legal language in their actual context. Providing access to this information is especially important now and in the near future, whether we have a second Trump Administration or a Biden Administration in the United States.

On any number of policy challenges, effective measures are going to depend on going beyond caricatures like an “AI arms race,” “cyber authoritarianism,” or “decoupling,” which provide useful frameworks for debate but can tend to prejudge the outcomes of a huge number of developments. We hope researchers and policy thinkers, regardless of their approaches or ideologies, can use this work to engage with the real and messy evolution of Chinese tech policy.

Hero Image
Graham Webster Q&A
All News button
1
Subtitle

Webster explains how DigiChina makes Chinese tech policy accessible for English speakers

Authors
News Type
Blogs
Date
Paragraphs

The Stanford e-Japan Program provided me with the opportunity to take insightful lectures by front runners in various fields (for example, ambassadors, lawyers, and university professors), and to participate in absolutely riveting virtual classrooms, during which we could confer and raise questions about issues pertaining to the lectures.

Not only was it an intellectually enriching program providing extensive knowledge about the United States, I believe it was one of the turning points in my life.
Hikaru Suzuki

It was my gateway to cross-cultural understanding and international studies, and it was the key to finding my passion, as I realized that law and business were my specific areas of interests. The program pushed me to seek further education in those fields and learn more intensively.

In high school, I conducted comparative research between India and Pakistan, analyzing honor killing court cases dating back to the late 19th century, judicial systems, etc. I realized how law can reinforce social norms by signaling approval and dissent through legal decisions, and how a revision of judicial systems can have massive social impact. I decided to major in Japanese law to gain knowledge and insight into these legal regimes domestically, and to pursue my dream of addressing social injustice.

Studying law at the University of Tokyo was both rewarding and invigorating. I had chances to engage in frank discussions with professors about civil procedures and criminal law, scrutinize documents, participate in seminars, and write a research paper about criminal prosecutions for defamation in Japan. Whilst taking classes, I also had internship opportunities to see how law was put into practice at a number of domestic and international law firms, and these experiences greatly assisted in developing my practical and theoretical expertise in law.

At the same time, having an interest in business, I launched a project with university peers to tackle food insecurity in Asia with the ultimate aim of reducing social injustice through social entrepreneurship. The idea was to produce an environmentally sustainable source of animal feed and provide a new source of income for the local population. We presented this plan and placed in the top six in the Asian Regional Hult Prize competition—one of the world’s largest international social entrepreneurship competitions for students—and took our project further.

Stanford e-Japan was much more than a virtual classroom, as it introduced me to so many caring and enthusiastic educators who encouraged me to go beyond my limits, and it equipped me with the skills that are essential for learning, such as problem-solving, research, and communication skills. With these skills and personal ties, I intend to keep challenging myself and carrying on my lifelong journey of learning.

Read More

Male student with a backpack
Blogs

Stanford e-Japan: A Gate for Learning about the United States and a Mirror for Reflection on Japan

The following reflection is a guest post written by Shintaro Aoi, an alumnus of the Stanford e-Japan Program.
Stanford e-Japan: A Gate for Learning about the United States and a Mirror for Reflection on Japan
ejapanphoto
Blogs

The Future to Be Inherited

The following reflection is a guest post written by Haruki Kitagawa, a 2015 alum and honoree of the Stanford e-Japan Program.
The Future to Be Inherited
Japanese scholar and Ambassador Armacost chatting in a conference room
News

Four Stanford e-Japan Alumni Awarded Yanai Tadashi Foundation Scholarships

In 2015, SPICE launched the inaugural online course, Stanford e-Japan, for high school students in Japan.
Four Stanford e-Japan Alumni Awarded Yanai Tadashi Foundation Scholarships
Hero Image
female student standing in front of Akamon in Japan
Hikaru Suzuki at Akamon, University of Tokyo; photo courtesy Hikaru Suzuki
All News button
1
Subtitle

The following reflection is a guest post written by Hikaru Suzuki, a 2015 alumna and honoree of the Stanford e-Japan Program, which is currently accepting applications for Spring 2021.

-
This is a virtual event. Please click here to register and generate a link to the talk. 
The link will be unique to you; please save it and do not share with others
.
 
 APARC South Asia research Initiative presents: Fall 2020 Colloquium Series on
India-China Strategic Competition
 

Washington DC time:  7:00pm-8:30pm, 9-Nov. 2020
Sydney, Australia time: 11:00am-12:30pm, 10-Nov. 2020 

Expectations of India’s rise have been dented in 2020. Amid lackluster economic performance and creeping socio-political illiberalism, India also suffered a major strategic setback. Chinese forces that crossed the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh remain encamped at several tactically-valuable points, and although talks continue, India has few visible options to force a return to the status quo ante. India now sees China is more clearly adversarial terms – but does it have what it takes to compete effectively? This conversation will conclude the APARC South Asia’s fall 2020 colloquium series on the India-China strategic competition with a wider and deeper look at India’s political and military power. We will discuss India’s ability to deter and balance China, its strategies to build national power and align with new partners, and the prospects for the competition in 2021 and beyond.
 

Ashley Tellis29kb Ashley Tellis29Kb
Ashley J. Tellis holds the Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Previously he was commissioned into the Foreign Service and served as senior adviser to the ambassador at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. While serving as the senior adviser to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, he was intimately involved in negotiating the civil nuclear agreement with India. He also served on the National Security Council staff as special assistant to President George W. Bush and senior director for strategic planning and Southwest Asia. Prior to his government service, Tellis was senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation and professor of policy analysis at the RAND Graduate School. He is a counselor at the National Bureau of Asian Research and serves as an adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations. He is the author of India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture (2001), co-author of Interpreting China’s Grand Strategy: Past, Present, and Future (2000), and co-editor of the sixteen latest annual volumes of Strategic Asia. He earned his PhD in political science from the University of Chicago.

 

Image
Arzan Tarapore
Arzan Tarapore is the South Asia research scholar at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, where he leads the newly-restarted South Asia research initiative. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the National Bureau of Asian Research. His research focuses on Indian military strategy and contemporary Indo-Pacific security issues. He previously held research positions at the RAND Corporation, the Observer Research Foundation, and the East-West Center in Washington. Prior to his scholarly career, he served as an analyst in the Australian Defence Department, which included operational deployments as well as a diplomatic posting to Washington, DC. Tarapore holds a PhD in war studies from King’s College London.

 

via ZOOM Webinar
Register:  https://bit.ly/2IPGZjS

Ashley J. Tellis <br><i>Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs and Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace</i><br><br>
Arzan Tarapore <br><i>South Asia Research Scholar, Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University</i><br><br>
Seminars
Paragraphs

THE EMERGENCE OF A DIGITAL SPHERE where public debate takes place raises profound questions about the connection between online information and polarization, echo chambers, and filter bubbles. Does the information ecosystem created by social media companies support the conditions necessary for a healthy democracy? Is it different from other media? These are particularly urgent questions as the United States approaches a contentious 2020 election during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The influence of technology and AI-curated information on America’s democratic process is being examined in the eight-week Stanford University course, “Technology and the 2020 Election: How Silicon Valley Technologies Affect Elections and Shape Democracy.” This issue brief focuses on the class session on “Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarization,” with guest experts Joan Donovan and Joshua Tucker.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Authors
Marietje Schaake
Rob Reich
-

Image
december 10th digital tech social media and 2020 election

Since the 2016 election, great attention has been paid to the impact of digital technologies on democracy in the United States and around the world.  Foreign intervention into the U.S. campaign through social media and online advertising, including the rise of "fake news" and computational propaganda, exacerbated concerns that new technologies posed a substantial threat to the normal workings of  the U.S. electoral process.  These concerns remain for 2020, alongside new threats related to the COVID-19 pandemic.  With in-person campaigning, voter mobilization, and even voting itself hindered by the pandemic, digital technologies promise to play an even more important role in 2020.  

On December 10, 2020, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center will bring together scholars, tech platforms, principals from the digital campaigns, journalists, and other key experts to explore the effect of digital technologies on the 2020 Election.  The conference will explore the role of digital technologies on election administration, campaign tactics, political advertising, the news media, foreign propaganda efforts, and the broader campaign information ecosystem.  It will also consider how changes in platform policies affected the campaign and information environment, and whether lessons learned in the 2020 elections suggest that further changes are warranted.  

9AM:   Introduction: Kelly Born, Stanford Cyber Policy Center

9:10:    Findings from the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project:  Nate Persily, Stanford Law School

9:30:    Trends in 2020 Political Advertising:  Erika Franklin Fowler, Wesleyan Media Project

9:50:    Online Political Transparency:  Laura Edelson, New York University Political Ads Project

10:10:  BREAK

10:20: Center for Technology and Civic Life’s Elections Project:  Tiana Epps-Johnson, CTCL

10:40:  Platform Speech Policies and the Elections: Daniel Kreiss and Bridget Barrett, University of North             Carolina at Chapel Hill

11:00:  Findings from the Election Integrity Project:  Alex Stamos and Renee DiResta, Stanford Internet             Observatory

11:20: BREAK

11:30:  Experiences from the Platforms

  • Nathaniel Gleicher, Head of Cybersecurity Policy at Facebook
  • Clement Wolf, Global Public Policy Lead for Information Integrity at Google
  • Yoel Roth, Director of Site Integrity at Twitter
  • Eric Han, Head of Safety at TikTok

12:30:  Full Panel Q&A/Discussion

1PM     Close

Stanford Law School Neukom Building, Room N230 Stanford, CA 94305
650-725-9875
0
James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute
Professor, by courtesy, Political Science
Professor, by courtesy, Communication
headshot_3.jpg

Nathaniel Persily is the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, with appointments in the departments of Political Science, Communication, and FSI.  Prior to joining Stanford, Professor Persily taught at Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and as a visiting professor at Harvard, NYU, Princeton, the University of Amsterdam, and the University of Melbourne. Professor Persily’s scholarship and legal practice focus on American election law or what is sometimes called the “law of democracy,” which addresses issues such as voting rights, political parties, campaign finance, redistricting, and election administration. He has served as a special master or court-appointed expert to craft congressional or legislative districting plans for Georgia, Maryland, Connecticut, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.  He also served as the Senior Research Director for the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. In addition to dozens of articles (many of which have been cited by the Supreme Court) on the legal regulation of political parties, issues surrounding the census and redistricting process, voting rights, and campaign finance reform, Professor Persily is coauthor of the leading election law casebook, The Law of Democracy (Foundation Press, 5th ed., 2016), with Samuel Issacharoff, Pamela Karlan, and Richard Pildes. His current work, for which he has been honored as a Guggenheim Fellow, Andrew Carnegie Fellow, and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, examines the impact of changing technology on political communication, campaigns, and election administration.  He is codirector of the Stanford Program on Democracy and the Internet, and Social Science One, a project to make available to the world’s research community privacy-protected Facebook data to study the impact of social media on democracy.  He is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a commissioner on the Kofi Annan Commission on Elections and Democracy in the Digital Age.  Along with Professor Charles Stewart III, he recently founded HealthyElections.Org (the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project) which aims to support local election officials in taking the necessary steps during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide safe voting options for the 2020 election. He received a B.A. and M.A. in political science from Yale (1992); a J.D. from Stanford (1998) where he was President of the Stanford Law Review, and a Ph.D. in political science from U.C. Berkeley in 2002.   

CV
Date Label
Nathaniel Persily
Erika Franklin Fowler
Daniel Kreiss
Clement Wolf
Nathaniel Gleicher
Yoel Roth
Eric Han
Bridget Barrett
Tiana Epps-Johnson
Laura Edelson
Subscribe to Society