When Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin left his home country of South Korea in 1983 to pursue graduate studies at the University of Washington, he was certain he would return to Korea upon graduation. More than 40 years later, Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, is still in the United States. 

Yet he does not consider himself a case of brain drain for Korea. Shin, who is also the founding director of the Korea Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and APARC director, has continuously contributed to Korea by leading transnational collaborations, researching and publishing on pressing issues in Korean affairs, and otherwise engaging in diverse intellectual exchanges with the country.

Shin’s experiences sparked his interest in the sociological patterns of mobile talent and a central question: How do countries attract, develop, and retain talent in a globalized world? His new book, The Four Talent Giants (Stanford University Press, 2025), explores that question regarding transnational talent flows from a comparative lens by examining how four strikingly different Asia-Pacific nations – Japan, Australia, China, and India – have become economic powerhouses.

We interviewed Shin about his book – watch:

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

The book’s main idea, Shin explains, is that how countries manage talent is key to their strength and future success. He calls the four Asia-Pacific nations the book examines “talent giants” because each has used a distinct talent strategy that has proven critical to national development. Three of these nations – China, Japan, and India – are among the top five economies in the world in terms of GDP, and Australia, despite its relatively small population size, is third in terms of wealth per adult.

In The Four Talent Giants, Shin investigates how these four nations have become global powers and sustained momentum by responding to risks and challenges, such as demographic crises, brain drain, and geopolitical tensions, and what lessons their developmental paths hold for other countries.

A New Framework for Studying Human Resource Development 

Asia’s robust economic growth over the past forty years is nothing short of a remarkable feat. The Asia-Pacific today continues to be the world's fastest-growing region, despite global economic uncertainty. How did this phenomenal ascendance come about?

The existing literature has emphasized common “recipes” of success among Asia-Pacific powers. Endeavoring to find one-size-fits-all formulas that could be replicated in other countries seeking rapid development, it has overlooked the distinct developmental journeys of Asian nations. “We need a new lens, or framework, to explain their successes, while also accounting for cross-national variation in development and sustainability,” writes Shin. 

In his book, Shin examines talent – the skilled occupations essential to a nation’s economy – as a key driver of economic development. While all countries rely on human resources for development, their talent strategies vary based on historical, cultural, and institutional factors. Shin introduces a new framework, talent portfolio theory (TPT), inspired by financial portfolio theory, to analyze and compare these national approaches.

“TPT views a nation’s talent development, like financial investment, as constructing a ‘talent portfolio’ that mixes multiple forms of talent – domestic, foreign, and diasporic – adjusting its portfolio over time to meet new risks and challenges,” he explains. Just as an investor may select different financial products in a mix of assets, countries can create talent portfolios by picking from various strategies.

Shin identifies four main strategies by which a country can harness talent – what he calls the four B's: 

• “Brain train” signifies efforts to develop and expand a country’s domestic talent or human capital.
• “Brain gain” refers to attracting foreign talent to strengthen the domestic workforce.
• “Brain circulation” involves bringing back nationals who have gone abroad for work or study.
• “Brain linkage” means leveraging the global networks and expertise of citizens living overseas through transnational collaboration.

Shin uses TPT as an analytical framework to examine how each of the four talent giants has constructed its distinct national talent portfolio and how this portfolio has evolved. As in an investment portfolio rebalancing, a nation can maintain diversification across the four B's and within each B. TPT therefore offers a holistic framework for understanding the overall picture of a country’s talent strategy, and how and why it may “rebalance” its talent portfolio.

Throughout the book, Shin shows that, while Japan has relied on the brain train strategy, Australia, whose population was too small for such an approach, emphasized brain gain. China used brain circulation: it first sent students and professionals abroad to learn, then implemented policies to encourage them to return. India, by contrast, established linkages among its diaspora and used them to develop its economy.

New Geopolitics of Global Talent: Lessons and Policy Implications

The case studies of the four talent giants reveal that there is no single path to talent-driven development. Each of the four Asia-Pacific countries has built its unique talent portfolio, balancing human and social capital, homegrown and foreign-educated individuals, and domestic and diasporic talents. While the talent giants use all four B's to some extent, each emphasizes them differently, reflecting diverse strategies and development paths. The core findings of these studies offer valuable insights for countries aiming to design effective talent policies. 

The four B's were instrumental in the economic rise of the four Asian nations, and they will be equally critical in addressing new challenges facing all economies, from demographic crises to emergent geopolitical tensions. For the United States, one such challenge is its sprawling competition with China, where the battle for talent is heating up in the race for technological supremacy.

Shin warns that the advantage the United States has long held in technological innovation, driven by its ability to attract skilled foreign talent, is now at risk from the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies, pressures on universities, and cuts to research funding. “Immigrants have not just filled jobs,” he emphasizes. “They have created new industries and helped the US and their home countries. If the US makes it harder for talent to come in and stay, it risks hurting its long-term success.”

The Four Talent Giants is an outcome of Shin’s longstanding project investigating Talent Flows and Development, now one of the research tracks he leads at the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL), which he launched in 2022. Housed at APARC, the lab is an interdisciplinary research initiative addressing Asia’s social, cultural, economic, and political challenges through comparative, policy-relevant studies. SNAPL’s education mission is to cultivate the next generation of researchers and policy leaders by offering mentorships and fellowship opportunities for students and emerging scholars.

Shin notes that the SNAPL team illustrates all four B’s in his talent portfolio theory, as some members are U.S.-born and trained, some come from Asia and, after working at the lab, return to their home countries, whereas some stay here, promoting linkages with their home countries. “In many ways, this project shows what is possible when we invest in talent and encourage international collaboration.”

In the Media

Stanford Scholar Reveals How Talent Development Strategies Shape National Futures
The Korean Daily, July 13, 2025 (interview)
- English version
- Korean version

Slowing Growth, Thriving Tech
Despite slowing economic growth, China’s industrial and tech strength remains formidable. Its economy is ~75% the size of the U.S. in dollar terms, but China accounts for 33% of global manufacturing value-added, projected to rise to 49% by 2050. “China is very strong in all sorts of advanced manufacturing... in many cases it is almost entirely a Chinese concern.”

The gap is vast, according to another panelist: in 2023, China had 1,500 commercial ships under construction; the U.S. had three. Non-state firms drive export growth, crowding out for shrinking shares of foreign-led exports (60% to 30%). “There is plenty of profitable activity going on, especially in the non-state sector.”

Meanwhile, Made in China 2025 has paid dividends. “At a first approximation, it looks like a pretty good success,” said one panelist, citing EVs, clean tech, and automation, but admitted that weaknesses persist in sectors like semiconductors and aerospace. Nevertheless, China’s highly competent manufacturers, tech companies, and deep reservoir of human capital ensure that despite costly and inefficient industrial policies, China still has “a good amount of fuel left in the tank.”

Rather than stagnating like Japan in the 1990s, panelists agreed China would more closely resemble a “Leninist Germany”—an authoritarian state with a globally competitive, export-driven, tech-intensive economy.

An Enduring Value Proposition for the World, but Pushback is Growing 
Around the world China is embedding itself in local production ecosystems. Several panelists described how Chinese firms have established smartphone assembly plants in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, and Indonesia. EV assembly and battery processing plants have followed, particularly in Zimbabwe and the DRC. In practice, countries receiving China’s investment often express more concern about being left behind by the West than overwhelmed by China.

China’s outbound investment is not just commercial; it is also strategic. As one panelist put it, this “industrial diplomacy” steers capital toward geopolitically friendly or economically useful countries—especially those with preferential trade access to the U.S. or E.U., like Mexico and Morocco—and away from places perceived as hostile, such as India.

This strategy has helped China rebuild global supply chains with itself at the center, creating new production ecosystems around batteries, robotics, AI, and advanced manufacturing. As one expert noted, firms like BYD, Xiaomi, and Huawei are at the core of “interlocking industrial ecosystems” that tie together multiple cutting-edge sectors across borders.

Yet pushback is growing. In 2023, 117 of 198 World Trade Organization complaints against China came from low- and middle-income countries. These nations aren’t rejecting Chinese investment, panelists pointed out—they’re renegotiating harder, hedging more, and believing less.

The conference underscored a world in flux—one where China’s industrial and technological dynamism continues to reshape global supply chains even as its assertive statecraft provokes growing resistance. While some panelists warned of the breakdown of integrationist hopes, others saw opportunity in a more defined and stable strategic rivalry, even if it takes the form of a new cold war. A key takeaway was the paradox of China’s global role: it remains an important source of growth and innovation, yet inspires distrust that is prompting nations to pursue more reciprocal, conditional partnerships. In navigating this uncertain era, both China and the West appear to be groping toward a new equilibrium—messy, complex, and decidedly post-unipolar.

Discover more from the 2025 SCCEI China Conference. 
 

Urgent Rethink Needed on U.S-China Trade and Technological Competition
Stein also pushed back against long-held assumptions that the U.S. market alone can dictate global business trends. The notion that “the only market that matters is the U.S. market” no longer holds, noting that Chinese consumers and innovation ecosystems now play a decisive role in shaping product development and global supply chains. He noted that European businesses have expressed a radical shift in strategy, they said, “we've been in China for Asia, in North America, for the Americas…We're now going from that model to what could very well become an, ‘in China for China and the world minus one.’ And the minus one is, of course, the U.S. market.”

On the technology front, he offered a candid evaluation of the U.S.-China competition. Stein reflected on the current state of artificial intelligence in China and the U.S., he said, “ at the end of the day it's not who has the best model; a good enough model is a good enough model, where it really makes a difference is in the application…and I see China racing ahead in the application of AI.” 

Know Your Competitor
Stein concluded with a call for more measured and constructive engagement. He urged both Washington and Beijing to establish clearer rules of the road, maintain open lines of communication, and invest in policy solutions that reduce uncertainty rather than amplify it.

Stein’s keynote offered a business-grounded counterpoint to prevailing narratives of decoupling and confrontation. His insights reinforced the importance of understanding the full complexity of economic interdependence, as well as China’s capacity for global market disruption, and the costs of miscalculation. As part of the broader SCCEI China Conference, his remarks served as a reminder that if America does not properly understand its competitor, efforts to stay ahead may well backfire and erode U.S. strength and global standing. 

A full recording of Sean Stein’s keynote is available on YouTube and below.