There is no consensus as to what outsiders can or should do in response to the dire situation inside Burma (Myanmar). At least that was the impression left by a vigorous discussion at a standing-room-only event convened by SEAF on October 18, 2007 on "Burma's Crisis: What Should Outsiders Do?"

Reviewing the protests that broke out in Burma in August 2007, swelled into mass demonstrations for democracy, and were brutally repressed by the junta in September-October, Maureen Aung-Thwin, who heads the Open Society Institute's Burma Project, argued for targeted sanctions. In her view, for example, cutting the flow of tourists to Burma would be less effective than spotlighting China's ties to the junta in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when Chinese leaders would be especially sensitive to embarrassment. But if positive change could be achieved through engagement, that too would be worth trying, in her estimation.

Zarni, an author, activist, and visiting research fellow at Oxford University, differed from Aung-Thwin in recommending constructive and coordinated engagement. And whereas she thought that the political situation inside Burma, if it were to change at all, could change rapidly, Zarni argued that "gradual change is the only solution." Yet just as Aung-Thwin welcomed engagement, if that could promote democracy, protect human rights, and reduce the suffering of Burmese, so was Zarni amenable to sanctions if they could effectively serve such ends.

The willingness of both speakers to entertain a range of options reflected the difficulty of inducing change in Burma from the outside, and the corresponding inclination to be eclectic about options. One speaker from the floor went so far as to suggest that only physical intervention from the outside could end the repression. But of all the proposals suggested, that one appeared to be by far the least realistic.

Several speakers urged that China, India, and/or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) be persuaded to put pressure the regime. But there was little faith in the room that Burma's immediate neighbors would sacrifice their economic interests, including access to Burma's natural gas, for the sake of promoting political reform. The sense of pessimism prevailing in the room prompted one person in the audience to suggest later that all one could hope to do was extend humanitarian aid to the Burmese people and wait for political reforms that might never arrive.

Suharto's authoritarian "New Order" regime in Indonesia unraveled quickly in 1998. Aung-Thwin recalled a conversation she had had that year with an expert on Indonesia. He had told her he expected the New Order to last a long time. Three weeks later, Suharto resigned.

Aung-Thwin offered this anecdote by way of suggesting that events in Burma, too, could someday catch observers by surprise. Also surprising, in view of this discussion, would be the effectiveness of any external action, on the full spectrum from sanctions to engagement, to induce the democratization of Burma.

The Asia Society Northern California and the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at the University of California-Berkeley co-sponsored this event with Stanford's SEAF. Of course none of the three is responsible for the opinions expressed on the panel or during the Q and A.

Please join us on Thursday, November 1 for the launch of the Stanford China Program, a new program of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC). With China at the forefront of so many contemporary issues, from economic growth to international security, scholars at Shorenstein APARC have developed the China Program in response to the increasing need to explore and explain dynamic changes taking place in China today. The Stanford China Program is composed of scholars who do their research on the ground, in the villages, company boardrooms and government institutions of China.

Our inaugural event, co-sponsored with the Center for East Asian Studies, illustrates the catalytic role that the Stanford China Program intends to play. The panel discussion "Growing Pains: Tensions and Opportunity in China's Transformation" will go beyond the headlines trumpeting China's spectacular growth. We will discuss the difficult questions facing China, about whether and how such a rapidly transforming nation will be able to manage the tensions that accompany growth at such a pace. Issues from growing income disparity to environmental damage and widening gaps between rural and urban China are forces that are tearing at the social fabric of China. Are these the signs of a system in crisis or, as the event title suggests, the necessary pains associated with growth?

These questions occupy not only scholars, but also policy makers and business leaders alike. The panelists will discuss a range of tensions and opportunities in contemporary China such as markets, governance, environment and social inequality. The panelists include:

• Melanie Manion, Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a specialist on issues of political governance in China.
• Leonardo Ortolano, UPS Foundation Professor of Civil Engineering in Urban and Regional Planning at Stanford, who will speak on environmental issues.
• Scott Rozelle, FSI Helen F. Farnsworth Senior Fellow at Shorenstein APARC and a leading expert on rural China.
• Andrew G. Walder, Denise O'Leary and Kent Thiry Professor of Sociology at Stanford and Director Emeritus of Shorenstein APARC will moderate the panel discussion.

The event is scheduled to take place from 5:30 - 7:00 PM, Thursday November 1 in the Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall, 616 Serra Street. A light reception will follow the panel discussion. Full details can be found at the link below.

I look forward to welcoming you to this inaugural event and to future activities of the Stanford China Program at Shorenstein APARC.

Sincerely,

Jean C. Oi
William Haas Professor in Chinese Politics
Professor of Political Science
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Director, Stanford China Program

The Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Initiative on Southeast Asia, founded in 2007, establishes the Distinguished Visiting Fellowship on Southeast Asia to help advance scholarly and policy-relevant consideration of this region. The fellowship provides an expert on Southeast Asia the opportunity to spend a period of up to a year writing and conducting research on or related to contemporary Southeast Asia. Each fellow will divide his or her time as appropriate between residence at the National University of Singapore and at Stanford University. Fellows may expect to share their research findings in academic seminars and professional forums. Fellows may be of any nationality.

In addition to encouraging high-quality research and publication, the initiative hopes to identify and support the next generation of scholarly and policy leaders on Southeast Asia. In the long run, the Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Initiative on Southeast Asia aspires to advance the use of scholarly and policy research and education to deepen international understanding of Southeast Asia and augment the well-being of Southeast Asians in that larger context, a matter very close to the heart of its benefactor.

For fellowship application procedures, please click on the fellowship link below.

Pro: Not as Tempting

by Sabrina Siddiqui, intern, BusinessWeek, and a senior at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.

There is no doubt that over the last decade, India fortified its rule over the shared services and outsourcing (SSO) sector. Access to low-wage yet skilled workers allowed local global technology services giants Infosys (INFY), Tata Consultancy Services (TACSF), and Wipro (WIT) to employ tens of thousands of Indians to do work for such multinational corporate clients as Bank of America (BAC), Microsoft (MSFT), and Ericsson (ERIC).

But a recent study by Frost & Sullivan consolidates the idea that India's outsourcing has already peaked, and there are a number of factors to blame:

The Rupee Riddle. Earlier this year, the Indian rupee appreciated 8.4% against the U.S. dollar and touched 41.14 to the dollar, its highest rate in nine years. A significant reason for concern for the outsourcing sector, the upward value of the rupee continues to put a squeeze on earnings. By April, 2007, it had cut margins by about 2.5 percentage points.

Cost (In)Efficiency. Companies looking to outsource have long seen India as their most cost-efficient vehicle. But with wage inflation running 15% to 25% per year, India can no longer use the siren song of its labor being the cheapest. Competitors like China can offer their services at a lower cost, while firms like Infosys are stuck recruiting from outside the country, because the comparable Indian staff is growing too expensive.

That Age-Old Infrastructure. As much as the economy continues to boom, how long can it sustain its position when IT operations spend considerably on backup systems to fight regular blackouts? And the 300,000 engineering students who graduate each year may be short of the level needed to support modernization of infrastructure and industry growth. (Not to mention that the peculiarly accented "Doug Smith" on the computer help desk is a little too hard for U.S. callers to comprehend.)

So if you assume you're being rerouted by tech support to a call center in Bangalore, guess again. It seems India's grasp on the SSO market is at long-term risk, and it just so happens that your call might be answered by someone in Shanghai.

Con: Plenty of Spice Left

by Rafiq Dossani, Stanford University and Martin Kenney, University of California, Davis

Notwithstanding the occasional news stories about companies returning work earlier offshored to India, the logic behind offshoring and its financial impact (both on outsourcing firms operating in India and their American clients) remains intact. First, the logic: A fresh engineer costs $8,000, including benefits, on average in Bangalore. Even a "Google-quality", presumably equivalent to the best Google can hire anywhere (in fact, Google offers its India recruits the option of working in Silicon Valley if they so desire) costs $30,000. These wages are much lower than in the U.S. and will remain that way for at least a decadeespecially if the ambitious graduation targets of Indian education policymakers are realized.

Of course, there are problems in doing work long distance: Coordinating the work of global teams is costlier than coordinating such work locally. The intellectual property issues could be important. But offshoring is now tried and tested enough, and large corporations are deeply committed to it.

By 2010, many large multinational corporations like IBM (IBM) will have their largest workforces in India. This is creating a relatively rich ecosystem in a number of Indian cities, especially Bangalore.

Already, for a number of these firms, their Indian operations are being declared global centers of excellence, whose value goes well beyond just cost savings. Undoubtedly, some smaller firms have faced high initial costs, but even they, particularly the technology firms of Silicon Valley, have committed to Indian operations. Firms such as Infinera (INFNO) and HelloSoft have substantial Indian operations that are critical to their success. For them to retreat would require a major reorientation of their business strategy.

The appreciating rupee will, like rising wages, affect offshoring decisions. However, the Indian system integrators such as TCS, Infosys, and Wipro, which are also being squeezed by costs, have experienced profits rising at about 35% a year for the past decade and enjoy margins in excess of 20%. This provides ample room to absorb rising costs.

There can be little doubt that the Indian ecosystem is maturing. However, the growth of offshoring to India has not peaked.

Reprinted by permission from BusinessWeek.