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.

-

The Energy Security Initiative (ESI) is a proposal to increase the benefits offered to countries in good standing with their NPT Obligations, to compensate for all the new supply restrictions and intrusive safeguards requirements imposed on them. The NPT Balance between benefits to signatories and impositions made on them has eroded through more restrictive interpretations of the NPT. The recently implemented Additional Protocol, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the proposals to deny nuclear fuel cycle facilities to countries not yet operating them on the one hand, and the limited supply of low cost nuclear energy available to developing countries on the other hand, demonstrate the need to re-constitute the balance implied in the NPT. It is, in fact, in the self interest of the developed countries, to be able to offer an expanded menu of additional energy benefits to countries whose current scope of available benefits has shrank, while the costs of complying with all new restrictions imposed and proposed has increased. This is the purpose of the ESI, which represents a reinterpretation and expansion of a part of Article IV of the NPT.

This presentation includes a detailed description of what ESI could offer under a new reading of article IV; which countries could qualify as beneficiaries of such program, how much might the total program cost, and how to fund it. A special case dealing with small national enrichment plants in countries such as Iran or Brazil is also considered.

Chaim Braun is a vice president of Altos Management Partners, Inc., and a CISAC science fellow and affiliate. He is a member of the Near-Term Deployment and the Economic Cross-Cut Working Groups of the Department of Energy (DOE) Generation IV Roadmap study. He conducted several nuclear economics-related studies for the DOE Nuclear Energy Office, the Energy Information Administration, the Electric Power Research Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute, Non-Proliferation Trust International, and others. Braun has worked as a member of Bechtel Power Corporation's Nuclear Management Group, and led studies on power plant performance and economics used to support maintenance services. Braun has worked on a study of safeguarding the Agreed Framework in North Korea, he was the co-leader of a NATO Study of Terrorist Threats to Nuclear Power Plants, led CISAC's Summer Study on Terrorist Threats to Research Reactors, and most recently co-authored an article with CISAC Co-Director Chris Chyba on nuclear proliferation rings. His research project this year is entitled "The Energy Security Initiative and a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Center: Two Enhancement Options for the Current Non-Proliferation Regime."

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room, East 207, Encina Hall

Chaim Braun
Seminars
-

We describe VEGA, a system for analyzing the vulnerability of an electric power grid to physical attacks by terrorists, and for planning mitigation efforts. VEGA (Vulnerability of Electric Grids Analyzer) consists of a bilevel optimization model and solution algorithm, a graphical user interface and a database. The optimization model implements a Stackelberg game in which (a) a group of terrorists attacks components of a power grid ("the system") so as to maximize the amount of load that must be shed (demand for power that goes unmet), and (b) the system operator minimizes that maximum by controlling the degraded system as best possible. We illustrate the basic model using realistic data and show how it can guide a system-upgrade plan to reduce vulnerability.

Actually, we at NPS are using similar techniques to study the vulnerability to attack of a variety of infrastructure systems. This talk will discuss the common approach, and provide two examples: (a) Finding "weak spots" in the Saudi Arabian crude-oil pipeline system and (b) protecting the Washington, DC subway system from a chemical or biological attack.

Dr. Kevin Wood is professor of operations research at the Naval Postgraduate School. At NPS since 1982, he has taught courses in networks and optimization and has published research on network reliability, mathematical programming and its applications, and on interdiction. His 1993 paper "Deterministic Network Interdiction" spurred renewed interest in applying analytical techniques to network and system interdiction, and has led to a series of papers on these topics, by him and by others. He is currently applying the methodology to critical infrastructure protection in general, and electric power grids in particular: Professor Wood has long-term research support from the Office of Naval Research as well as the Air Force of Scientific Research, and has been a visiting professor at Stanford University, the National Security Agency and the University of Auckland.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room, East 207, Encina Hall

Kevin Wood Professor of Operations Research Naval Postgraduate School
Seminars
Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Senior fellow and contributing author, %people1%, comments in <i>Nature</i> on the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment--a four year endeavour that explores the link between human well-being, the status of ecosystems and their sustainable use.

How can ecosystems provide sustainable services to benefit society?

Four years in the making, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (see Nature 417, 112-113; 2002) is released this week (starting 30 March). This gigantic endeavour explores the link between human well-being, the status of ecosystems and their sustainable use.

What has this assessment taught us about developing our planet, and will it, or should it, be continued? To answer the first part of this question, the assessment is an invaluable record of where we stand now, and why. But for it to be useful, the answer to the second part of the question must be 'yes'. We need to take a consistent approach to measuring the status and trends of the world's ecosystems. To take one example, the Convention on Biological Diversity has set the target of reducing the rate of global loss of biodiversity by 2010. But the data to evaluate whether this goal is being met are not readily available, as biological diversity is more than just an enumeration of species present or absent - it includes parameters such as the populations of species and the ecosystems in which they reside. In addition, biodiversity is just one of the many aspects of change in ecosystems and their related functions assessed in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Only from a periodic audit of the state of our natural resource base can we determine if we are indeed approaching sustainability.

At present, there are no formal plans to repeat the Millennium Assessment. There should be, and we hope that the informal discussions among the current sponsors will bear fruit from the seeds sown by the many smaller, ongoing sub-global assessments that were stimulated by the assessment.

Achievements and goals

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment took a new pathway of evaluating the status of the Earth's human support systems. Rather than the standard environmental audit, the new assessment places audits of numbers of organisms and so on into the context of how ecosystem changes have affected human well-being, and how they may do so in the foreseeable future. It had to find a link between the status of biotic systems and the status of individuals in various societies in the world to estimate the capacity of ecosystems to provide services that benefit society. Many of these links are obvious, but others have not been appreciated, nor have all these linkages been quantified. In essence, we had to make a large leap from the current styles of evaluations of status and trends in ecosystems to an entirely different approach - an ecosystems services database related to how ecosystems and societies operate, and how they interrelate.

Current status of ecosystems

Human societies have made marked progress in increasing provisioning services, such as crops and livestock, to meet the demand of a growing population (see Box 1). Food is more abundant and cheaper than in the past. Despite these dramatic accomplishments, there are still more than 850 million undernourished people, and some advances in production are at the cost of other services essential for human well-being, such as ocean fisheries, wood for fuel, genetic resources and - perhaps the most important - fresh water. It is the poor in many nations that are most directly dependent on services from ecosystems, and the degradation of these systems can exacerbate their poverty. Millions of people face the reality of the declining availability of cheap protein from local fisheries, inadequate water for sanitation or live on degraded landscapes.

There are a number of issues that cloud the goal of sustaining a high level of provisioning services. The use of fertilizer in agriculture has greatly increased to meet food demand, but at the cost of polluting off-site unmanaged ecosystems, such as groundwater, rivers and coastal fisheries. In many regions, water for irrigation is being pumped from groundwater and in some cases from fossil sources. Rivers are dammed and diverted for irrigation, altering ecosystems that depend on this water - causing the loss of many of the services they provided.

Further, we are diminishing crucial 'regulating' services responsible for climate, erosion, air- and water-quality control, as well as for the regulation of pests and natural hazards. We are losing these services due to massive land-surface conversion, atmosphere alteration, eutrophication, overharvesting and the impact of invasive species. The Millennium Assessment concluded that 60% of the ecosystem services evaluated were either being degraded or being used unsustainably.

As an example, cultivated systems (areas where at least 30% of the landscape is in croplands, confined livestock production or freshwater aquaculture) now cover a quarter of the Earth's surface, partly by conversion of temperate grasslands, Mediterranean-climate forests and many tropical ecosystem types. Forests have essentially disappeared from 25 countries, with 9.4 million hectares being lost annually from the Earth's surface. Historically important fisheries have collapsed or are overfished, one third of the mangrove forests for which there are historical data have been lost, as have 20% of the coral reefs, with a further 20% degraded. Nearly 40% of the rivers of the world have been fragmented. Species and populations of species are being lost at unprecedented rates, while at the same time the global biota is becoming homogenized owing to the introductions of alien species to new regions. These examples represent major losses of pieces of the biosphere machinery, which have a serious impact on the delivery of ecosystem-regulating services - impacts such as greater prevalence of infectious diseases in disrupted ecosystems, adverse effects on local climates by ecosystem modification, and the loss of flood protection (as in the recent tsunami in Indonesia).

What we can do

The drivers of change in ecosystems and their services will continue in direction and intensity. So how can these trends be reversed to achieve sustainability and to relieve the negative impacts of the loss of services to society, particularly to the disadvantaged? New pathways and approaches can and must be taken. But these are major initiatives, which will mean profound changes in the way global society operates. As learned in the Millennium Assessment, favourable responses need to take place at all levels, from the local to the global. Global mechanisms do not necessarily solve local problems, yet are an important part of the overall solution. At the same time, local players and solutions can feed into regional and global approaches. The players at these different levels address different decision-makers, who can collectively put in place the major changes that are needed for ecosystem sustainability.

The Millennium Assessment examines the merits of options for mechanisms and policies, to accomplish the goal of maintaining and enhancing the delivery of ecosystem services to society. Some of these require major reorganization in the way we do business. At present, our organizational structures address separately the issues of a single resource, such as agriculture, fisheries or the environment. There is little interaction within and between each issue, and much less again with trade and the treasury bodies. The lesson of the Millennium Assessment is that all these resource issues are interrelated: action on one issue has consequences for another. It is crucial to address how to minimize the trade-offs (biodiversity or clean water for agricultural yield), either on-site or by managing landscapes. One important example of how this process can work is the EU system of directives for nitrate accounting on landscapes.

Some institutional innovations are moving towards more integrated views of issues and responses to them. For example, Britain has a government department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. These are all closely interrelated domains, but in other countries are often handled by competing agencies. Elsewhere, interagency groups are evolving to address central issues such as climate change, but their effectiveness is hampered by competitiveness and politics. We need new kinds of institutions in better positions to achieve sustainability of ecosystems that provide for human well-being.

We must also try to improve the economics. Although provisioning services are enmeshed in the local (and increasingly global) marketplace, regulating services are not. We must accelerate our ability to value ecosystem-regulating services at the national level, as well as the ecosystem services that provide crucial cultural amenities, and ensure that these values are considered in decision-making.

Some progress is being made. Costa Rica has established a system of conservation payments, under which contracts are brokered between international and domestic 'buyers' and local 'sellers' of sequestered carbon, biodiversity, watershed services and scenic beauty. On a global scale, the Ecosystem Marketplace consortium is beginning to track transactions, pricing trends and buyers' requests on the carbon, water and biodiversity markets. It is predicted that the global carbon market will reach US$44 billion by 2010.

We need to eliminate the subsidies that promote the excessive use of ecosystem services and evaluate more carefully the trade incentives that damage ecosystem services. We must work harder to educate the public on the strong links between sustainable ecosystems and the lives of humans. The role of new technologies in more efficient use of natural resources is crucial and needs more incentives.

There is plenty that can and needs to be done to deal with the crisis that has already enveloped us. The path is open for scientists to quantify, to a much greater extent, the way in which the operation of ecosystems is directly linked to human well-being, and hence model the course of human activities on future outcomes of the delivery of these services. The Millennium Assessment is certainly providing a strong stimulus for such studies.

Millennium Assessment

Acknowledgements. We thank the scientists, reviewers and members of the review board who provided input to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and the sponsors of this work.

Hero Image
cover nature v434
All News button
1
-

Many critiques have been made of the U.S. Intelligence Community's performance in thwarting terrorist attacks (i.e. 9/11) and understanding the proliferation of WMD (i.e. Iraq). Given the reports from the 9/11 and WMD commissions as well as last year's legislation establishing the position of National Intelligence Director, what in fact are the deficiencies of the Intelligence Community and what changes have the best chance of correcting them and preventing future intelligence failures?

This seminar will feature a panel discussion by three experts on intelligence issues. They will focus their comments on the issues, challenges, and potential solutions for improving the U.S. Intelligence Community capabilities to provide timely warning and accurate assessments of future threats. They will then invite comments, questions, and discussion.

Sidney Drell is a professor of theoretical physics (Emeritus) at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. As a physicist and arms control specialist, he has been a leader in providing essential technical advice to the U.S. Government on national security issues. He is an active member of JASON, a group of distinguished scientists, and has served on a number of boards, including the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the President's Science Advisory Committee, and the Non-Proliferation Advisory Panel.

Keith Hansen is a consulting professor of international relations teaching courses on U.S. intelligence and arms control/proliferation. His 35-year government career included seven years on the National Intelligence Council, where he managed numerous national intelligence estimates and other interagency studies on strategic and nuclear issues, and where he served as the National Intelligence Officer for Strategic Programs and Nuclear Proliferation.

Henry Rowen is Director Emeritus of the Asia/Pacific Research Center, professor of public policy and management (emeritus) at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Department of Defense (1989-1991), Chairman of the DCI's National Intelligence Council (1981-1983), President of RAND Corporation (1968-1972), and Assistant Director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget (1965-1966). Most recently, he was a Member of the President's Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

0
FSI Senior Fellow Emeritus and Director-Emeritus, Shorenstein APARC
H_Rowen_headshot.jpg

Henry S. Rowen was a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a professor of public policy and management emeritus at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and a senior fellow emeritus of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC). Rowen was an expert on international security, economic development, and high tech industries in the United States and Asia. His most current research focused on the rise of Asia in high technologies.

In 2004 and 2005, Rowen served on the Presidential Commission on the Intelligence of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. From 2001 to 2004, he served on the Secretary of Defense Policy Advisory Board. Rowen was assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs in the U.S. Department of Defense from 1989 to 1991. He was also chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 1981 to 1983. Rowen served as president of the RAND Corporation from 1967 to 1972, and was assistant director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget from 1965 to 1966.

Rowen most recently co-edited Greater China's Quest for Innovation (Shorenstein APARC, 2008). He also co-edited Making IT: The Rise of Asia in High Tech (Stanford University Press, 2006) and The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (2000). Rowen's other books include Prospects for Peace in South Asia (edited with Rafiq Dossani) and Behind East Asian Growth: The Political and Social Foundations of Prosperity (1998). Among his articles are "The Short March: China's Road to Democracy," in National Interest (1996); "Inchon in the Desert: My Rejected Plan," in National Interest (1995); and "The Tide underneath the 'Third Wave,'" in Journal of Democracy (1995).

Born in Boston in 1925, Rowen earned a bachelors degree in industrial management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1949 and a masters in economics from Oxford University in 1955.

Faculty Co-director Emeritus, SPRIE
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Henry S. Rowen Speaker
Keith Hansen Visiting professor of international relations Speaker
Sidney D. Drell Professor of theoretical physics (Emeritus) Speaker Stanford University
Seminars
-

When the Soviet Union dissolved on Dec. 25, 1991, the nuclear threat changed from the Cold War concern of ending civilization as we know it to one of securing "loose nukes" in chaotic Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union. I had the opportunity to visit the secret cities of the Russian nuclear complex six weeks after the collapse and to initiate a program of scientific collaboration between U.S. and Russian nuclear scientists. Together, we made remarkable progress in reducing the threat in the early and mid-1990's because of the trust we were able to build based on mutual respect, similar objectives, and a common heritage in the great early-20th century school of European physics.

Although the number of joint U.S. - Russian cooperative threat reduction programs increased and the U.S. funding rose dramatically at the turn of the millennium, real progress slowed as U.S. and Russian objectives began to diverge, and the programs became politicized and bureaucratized. Major opportunities to reduce the long-term threat were lost. Cooperation was re-energized by the tragic events of 9/11 and the emerging threat of nuclear terrorism. Today, both Presidents Bush and Putin agree that keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists is their highest security priority. Yet, strategy and commitment on both sides appear incommensurate with the threat. I will discuss critical barriers to and opportunities for renewed cooperation to meet the threat.

Siegfried S. Hecker is currently a Senior Fellow at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Hecker was Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1986-1997. He joined the Laboratory as technical staff member of the Physical Metallurgy Group in 1973, following a postdoctoral assignment there in 1968-1970 and a summer graduate student assignment in 1965. He served as Chairman of the Center for Materials Science and Division Leader of the Materials Science and Technology Division before becoming Director. From 1970 to 1973 he was a senior research metallurgist with the General Motors Research Laboratories.

Dr. Hecker received his B.S. in metallurgy in 1965 and M.S. in metallurgy in 1967 from Case Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. in metallurgy in 1968 from Case Western Reserve University.

Dr. Hecker is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Fellow of the TMS (Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials Society), Fellow of the American Society for Metals, Honorary Member of the American Ceramics Society, and Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Among other awards, Dr. Hecker received the American Nuclear Society Seaborg Medal (2004), the Acta Materialia J. Herbert Hollomon Award (2004), the Case Western Reserve University Alumni Association Gold Medal (2004) and Undergraduate Distinguished Alumni Award (2001), the New Mexico Distinguished Public Service Award, (1998); was named Laboratory Director of the Year by the Federal Laboratory Consortium, (1998); received an honorary Doctor of Science degree (Honoris Causa) from Case Western Reserve University (1998); received the Department of Energy's Distinguished Associate Award, (1997); the University of California's President's Medal, (1997); the ASM Distinguished Life Membership Award, (1997); an Honorary Degree of Scientiae Doctoris, Ripon College (1997); the Navy League New York Council Roosevelt Gold Medal for Science (1996); the Aviation Week Group Laurels Award for National Security (1995); the James O. Douglas Gold Medal Award (1990); the ASM International's Distinguished Lectureship in Materials and Society, (1989); the Kent Van Horn Distinguished Alumnus Award, Case Western Reserve University (1989); an Honorary Degree of Scientiae Doctoris, College of Santa Fe, (1988); the Year's Top 100 Innovations Award from Science Digest (1985); the Department of Energy's E. O. Lawrence Award, (1984); the American Society for Metals, Marcus A. Grossman Young Author Award (1976); and the Wesley P. Sykes Outstanding Metallurgist Award, Case Institute of Technology (1965). He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Council on Foreign Relations, Tau Beta Pi Honorary Engineering Fraternity, Alpha Sigma Mu Honorary Metallurgical Fraternity, and the Society of Sigma Xi.

In addition to his current research activities in plutonium science and stockpile stewardship, he works closely with the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy on a variety of cooperative threat reduction programs. Dr. Hecker is also actively involved with the U.S. National Academies, serving on the Council of the National Academy of Engineering, serving as chair of the newly established Committee on Counterterrorism Challenges for Russia and the United States, and as a member of the National Academies Committee on Nuclear Nonproliferation. He is a member of ASM International and TMS, the Minerals/Metals/Materials Society, having served both in numerous local and national positions, and a member of the Materials Research Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Pacific Council. He serves on the Corporate Advisory Panel of the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment, is a member of the Advisory Group to the Cooperative Research and Development Foundation (CRDF), and previously served on the Board of Regents for the University of New Mexico.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

CISAC
Stanford University
Encina Hall, C220
Stanford, CA 94305-6165

(650) 725-6468 (650) 723-0089
0
Senior Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Emeritus
Research Professor, Management Science and Engineering, Emeritus
hecker2.jpg PhD

Siegfried S. Hecker is a professor emeritus (research) in the Department of Management Science and Engineering and a senior fellow emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He was co-director of CISAC from 2007-2012. From 1986 to 1997, Dr. Hecker served as the fifth Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Hecker is an internationally recognized expert in plutonium science, global threat reduction, and nuclear security.

Dr. Hecker’s current research interests include nuclear nonproliferation and arms control, nuclear weapons policy, nuclear security, the safe and secure expansion of nuclear energy, and plutonium science. At the end of the Cold War, he has fostered cooperation with the Russian nuclear laboratories to secure and safeguard the vast stockpile of ex-Soviet fissile materials. In June 2016, the Los Alamos Historical Society published two volumes edited by Dr. Hecker. The works, titled Doomed to Cooperate, document the history of Russian-U.S. laboratory-to-laboratory cooperation since 1992.

Dr. Hecker’s research projects at CISAC focus on cooperation with young and senior nuclear professionals in Russia and China to reduce the risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism worldwide, to avoid a return to a nuclear arms race, and to promote the safe and secure global expansion of nuclear power. He also continues to assess the technical and political challenges of nuclear North Korea and the nuclear aspirations of Iran.

Dr. Hecker joined Los Alamos National Laboratory as graduate research assistant and postdoctoral fellow before returning as technical staff member following a tenure at General Motors Research. He led the laboratory's Materials Science and Technology Division and Center for Materials Science before serving as laboratory director from 1986 through 1997, and senior fellow until July 2005.

Among his professional distinctions, Dr. Hecker is a member of the National Academy of Engineering; foreign member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; fellow of the TMS, or Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials Society; fellow of the American Society for Metals; fellow of the American Physical Society, honorary member of the American Ceramics Society; and fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

His achievements have been recognized with the Presidential Enrico Fermi Award, the 2020 Building Bridges Award from the Pacific Century Institute, the 2018 National Engineering Award from the American Association of Engineering Societies, the 2017 American Nuclear Society Eisenhower Medal, the American Physical Society’s Leo Szilard Prize, the American Nuclear Society's Seaborg Medal, the Department of Energy's E.O. Lawrence Award, the Los Alamos National Laboratory Medal, among other awards including the Alumni Association Gold Medal and the Undergraduate Distinguished Alumni Award from Case Western Reserve University, where he earned his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees in metallurgy.

Date Label
Siegfried S. Hecker Senior Fellow Speaker Los Alamos National Laboratory
Seminars
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

In 2004, SPRIE launched the three-year Greater China Networks (GCN) research program. Its goal is two-fold. First, the GCN seeks to advance understanding of the systems of innovation and entrepreneurship that drive Greater China's ascendance in high technology. Second, it will study the nature and impacts of the region's integration into the global knowledge economy. The research agenda includes a focus on activities or institutions that underpin systems of innovation and entrepreneurship, especially for the new generation of ascending high tech regions in Greater China. These include university-industry linkages, globalization of R&D, venture capital, new firm formation and development, and flows of technology and business leaders.

All News button
1
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On February 25, 2005 a panel of researchers presented preliminary findings from surveys of 176 CASPA members (171 valid responses). The discussion included the interpretation of study findings, key issues and trends, and implications for professionals, corporate managers, and policymakers in the semiconductor industry. Panelists included Hsing-Hsiung (Hubert) Chen (pictured above left), SPRIE visiting scholar and director of Integrated Research Division, ITRI; Jian Hung Chen (pictured above center), SPRIE visiting scholar and ITRI researcher; and Mr. David Wang (pictured above right), vice president, Fibera Inc., CASPA President 2003-2004.

The Rise of Greater China in the Global Semiconductor Industry

Dr. Hsing-Hsiung Chen shared with the participants some striking statistics that clearly highlighted the rise of Asia and Greater China in the semiconductor industry. While in 1985 Asia accounted for only one percent of worldwide semiconductor production and 7 percent of worldwide semiconductor consumption, the numbers are expected to reach 21 percent and 42 percent respectively in 2005. The story for Greater China is particularly salient. Take the year of 2004 as an example. In IC design, the top thirty firms in this sector commanded 86 percent of the worldwide market share and half of them were founded or co-founded by Chinese professionals. In fabrication, eight of the top ten foundry companies were Chinese and together they covered 88 percent of the market. A similar story can be told about packaging and testing companies, with eight of the top ten companies located in Taiwan and mainland China and accounting for half of the global market share.

The Connection of Silicon Valley Professionals to Greater China

Mr. David Wang pointed out the role of the Silicon Valley as a hotbed for entrepreneurs, managers, and engineers that found or join semiconductor companies in Greater China. For example, CASPA, a leading semiconductor professional organization for Chinese Americans, has over 3,500 members in the United States and Asia, with the majority residing in the Silicon Valley. Among 171 CASPA survey respondents, half had worked in the United States and Greater China. Fifteen percent had worked at more than one place in Greater China.

Many aforementioned top Chinese semiconductor companies have strong ties to the Silicon Valley. Companies such as SST and ISSI were founded by Chinese in the Silicon Valley but have strong presence in the Greater China region in production and sales. Other Greater China-based companies like UMC, SMIC, ASMC, HuaHong NEC, and Winbond have drawn an impressive list of senior managers from Silicon Valley companies.

Job Movement Trends

Dr. Jian-Hung Chen presented some preliminary findings of the surveys and identified some interesting trends in job movement. When being asked "Will you consider working permanently in a region different from your current location?" 7 percent of the respondents revealed that they were already considering moving, while 52 percent said they would consider moving within 1-3 years. Young professionals (with fewer than ten years of work experience) were somewhat more likely to move within three years (65 percent) than more experienced professionals (~57 percent). In terms of geographic destinations, only 10 percent favored moving to or relocating to elsewhere in the United States. The rest all preferred relocations within or to Greater China. Shanghai was the most popular site, voted by 50 percent of the respondents as their preferred destination. Taiwan and Beijing followed with 13 percent and 14 percent of the votes. Breaking down the data according to the origin of the respondents into Mainland China, Taiwan and the United States (indicated by the location of undergraduate education), Shanghai remains the topic choice for all three populations. Interestingly, professionals originally from Taiwan were more likely to move to Shanghai (39 percent) than return to Taiwan (33 percent) and none of the professionals originally from mainland China regarded Taiwan as an option.

An examination of key influential factors on movement decisions may shed some light on the observed trends. Growth potential, family matters, and quality of Life were ranked the three most important factors in one's movement decision. others' success/failure examples and company decision received the lowest scores. Senior professionals were more likely to be influenced by company decision (compared to junior professionals), while junior professionals more by others' success/failure examples (compared to senior professionals). Host company size did not seem to be a noteworthy differentiator.

Finally, in terms of the type of company one hopes to work for after relocation -- the choices being startup, multinational, local company and company decision (i.e. internal transfer) -- professionals moving to Taiwan strongly favored local company and internal transfer, while professionals moving to Beijing and Shanghai preferred startup much more than the other three modes.

Greater China's Regional Advantage

Several participants chipped in their insights on the mainland's labor cost advantage. For semiconductor professionals moving from the Silicon Valley to Shanghai, "The rule of thumb is a 1/3 to 1/2 pay cut, although they may be awarded with [the realization of] the growth potential through other forms, such as stock options" observed Mr. Wang. Such expatriate compensation packages are still substantially higher than those for local hires, whose salary level is usually 20-25 percent of that of the Silicon Valley. Overall local income increase is estimated to be about 5-10 percent a year, although most of it is due to the move up the semiconductor industry value chain. Salary increase for the same position is probably less than 5 percent a year. Entry-level salary has also been heavily affected by the recent surge in the local supply of engineers, thanks to a substantial increase in college engineering graduates. Hence, taking into account differences in cost and experience, "for now, the common and effective practice seems to be hiring one expatriate for every 25 local hires," said Dr. Jian-Hung Chen.

Going beyond cost considerations, discussions centered around a provocative question raised by a member of the audience: "Is it just a question of time or is there any other fundamental piece that needs to get in place before Chinese firms can penetrate high value-added nodes in the semiconductor industry value chain [i.e. design]?" SPRIE Director, Professor Henry Rowen responded by pointing out that although to this day, probably only a handful of the 400-500 design companies in Mainland China have real technologies and products, let alone profits, Chinese fabless design companies are growing rapidly and can find lots of applications in the domestic market, especially in telecommunication. Dr. Wang concurred that it is probably more of a matter of time. "If a foundry moves to the next-generation technology, firms up- and down-chain will follow suit and build complementary capacities as well. It's a clustering effect. It just takes time."

Other Issues

Panelists and the audience also engaged in lively discussions about corporate strategy for semiconductor multinational companies in Greater China, family, social and cultural factors affecting the flow of talents, and inter-regional collaboration. Networks and flows of managerial and technical leaders -- particularly their connection to the Silicon Valley and their worldwide reach -- are new priority areas of research for SPRIE.

All News button
1
-

Dr. Sarah Mendelson is a senior fellow with the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Before joining CSIS in 2001, she taught international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Dr. Mendelson received her B.A. in history from Yale University, and her Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University. She also earned a certificate from the Harriman Institute.

At CSIS, she manages several projects that explore the links between security and human rights. Her current research includes collaborative work on public opinion surveys of Russian attitudes on democracy, human rights, Chechnya and the military. She directed a collaborative study evaluating the impact of Western democracy assistance to Eastern Europe and Eurasia. In addition, she has served on the staff of the National Democratic Institute's Moscow office, and was a resident associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She has also been a fellow at CISAC and at Princeton University's Center of International Studies.

Dr. Mendelson serves on the steering committee of Human Rights Watch, the editorial board of International Security, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Program on New Approaches to Russian Security.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room, East 207, Encina Hall

Sarah Mendelson Senior Fellow Russia and Eurasia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Seminars
-

Tonya Putnam has a J.D. from Harvard Law School and received her Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at Stanford University in March 2005. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at CISAC, but will be moving to the Center on Globalization and Governance at Princeton University for a postdoctoral fellowship next academic year. Her dissertation, Courts Without Borders? The Politics and Law of Extraterritorial Regulation, explores the extraterritorial reach of U.S. federal courts and regulatory institutions, and implications for the development of de facto international regulatory frameworks. Other research areas have included human rights in peace implementation missions, comparative legal responses to the threat of cybercrime and cyberterrorism, risk communication in the context of radiological terrorism (dirty bombs), and obstacles to military reform in Russia.

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room, East 207, Encina Hall

0
Affiliate
Tonya Lee Putnam

Tonya L. Putnam (J.D./Ph.D) is a Research Scholar at the Arnold A. Salzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. From 2007 to 2020 she was a member of the Political Science at Columbia University. Tonya’s work engages a variety of topics related to international relations and international law with emphasis on issues related to jurisdiction and jurisdictional overlaps in international regulatory and security matters. She is the author of Courts Without Borders: Law, Politics, and U.S. Extraterritoriality along with several articles in International Organization, International Security, and the Human Rights Review. She is also a member (inactive) of the California State Bar.

CV
Tonya L. Putnam
Seminars
Subscribe to International Development