[[{"fid":"225746","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"2":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"}},"link_text":null,"attributes":{"style":"font-size: 13.008px; height: 450px; width: 300px; float: left;margin-right: 15px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto","data-delta":"2"}}]]

A wave of far-right populism is sweeping across Europe. Euroskeptic, nationalist, populist parties, once on the fringes of European politics, are poised to enter the mainstream. The rise of the far right is first and foremost a cultural backlash against the rapid economic and political integration of the E.U. over the last 25 years. But while far-right parties are nothing new in Europe, their explicit pro-Russian turn is. Far right parties are not simply puppets of the Kremlin, but they are undoubtedly allies. They act as agents of influence in Europe’s institutions by supporting pro-Russian views, praising Mr. Putin’s foreign policy in Ukraine and Syria, and advocating against EU policies that would hurt Russian interests, such as sanctions. Increasing electoral support for the far right populists is no doubt domestically driven, but by supporting Putin, far-right leaders conveniently play into the Kremlin’s geo-political agenda.

Alina Polyakova, PhD, is the Director of Research for Europe and Eurasia at the Atlantic Council. She is the author of  the book, The Dark Side of European Integration (2015), which examines the rise of far-right populism in Europe. Dr. Polyakova is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a frequent media commentator on developments in Ukraine, Russia, and Europe. Her writings have appeared in major publications such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The American Interest, Newsweek, and academic journals. Concurrently, Dr. Polyakova is a Swiss National Science Foundation Senior Research Fellow and coinvestigator on a multi-year project examining the rise of far-right political parties in the European Union. She has been a fellow at the Eurasia Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Fulbright Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Social Science Research Council, the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), and a Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer at the University of Bern. Dr. Polyakova has taught courses on European politics, foreign policy, and Russia at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Bern, Switzerland. She holds a PhD and MA in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley, and a BA in Economics and Sociology with highest honors from Emory University.

THIS EVENT HAS REACHED FULL CAPACITY. PLEASE CONTACT MAGDALENA magdafb@stanford.edu TO GET ON THE WAITLIST. 

The format of this presentation is each of the three speakers will have approximately 15 minutes to present their research.  This will be followed by a short period of 5-10 minutes for any questions or comments from the audience.

In this session of the Corporate Affiliates Research Presentations, the following will be presented:

Hiroki Morishige, Shizuoka Prefectural Government, "Regional Revitalization:  Overcoming Population Decline and Revitalizing Local Economy"

Image

Hidenori Nishita, Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry, Japan, "Corporate Organization to Innovation"

Image

Akihiko Sado, The Asahi Shimbun, "Media Technology and the Tokyo Olympics:  New Apps to Transform the Viewing Experience"

Image

In the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, what technologies will be utilized and how will the media be able to provide information to people? Can media increase the reader’s engagement with new cutting-edge technologies such as AI?  How will the media incorporate them? In his research presentation, Sado tries to answer these questions by discussing the technology the media should utilize for increasing reader’s engagement in the future. Sado shares one option that the media should drive for Tokyo 2020 - a smartphone app he built that has a facial recognition system of computer vision (part of AI) that links athletes and information gathered by the media.

Abstract:

Colombia’s government set out to reduce crime and violence and increase state legitimacy by raising state presence on the streets of Bogotá, either doubling police patrol time or delivering cleanup and lighting services. We evaluate the effects of those interventions over an 8-month window. Interventions at this scale, in a dense network of streets, require us to account for spillovers into control segments. The policy implications also hinge on these spillovers. We show how to design place-based experiments to test for spatial spillovers over varying distances, and estimate direct and spillover effects using randomization inference. Using administrative data alongside a citywide survey, we find that increasing state presence reduces insecurity on targeted streets, and that there may be increasing returns to state presence and to targeting the least secure places. But data suggests that targeted state presence simply pushes insecurity around the corner.

Speaker Bio:

Image

Abstract: Microsoft President Brad Smith recently analogized Microsoft to a “Digital Switzerland.” This moniker captures the role that U.S. technology companies have increasingly taken on with respect to cybersecurity and privacy: they are acting like states and running their own foreign policies, and they are setting themselves as neutrals with respect to existing national authorities, including the United States. U.S. tech companies are not the first super-empowered private companies, but they have numerous features that set them apart from prior private powers like the Dutch East India Company or more recent examples like ExxonMobil. This article first provides an account of how the relationship between U.S. tech companies and governments has evolved over time. By breaking down the “Digital Switzerland” idea, the article then explores the extent to which and how the companies differ from the powerful private interests of earlier eras, and it concludes by analyzing the implications of the companies’ role for governance and for individuals going forward.

About the Speaker: Kristen Eichensehr is an Assistant Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She writes and teaches about foreign relations, separation of powers, cybersecurity, and national security law. Before joining the UCLA faculty, Eichensehr clerked for Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court of the United States. Eichensehr also served as Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State and practiced at Covington & Burling LLP. Eichensehr received her J.D. from Yale Law School, where she served as executive editor of the Yale Law Journal. Eichensehr is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and an affiliate scholar at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. She is a frequent contributor to and member of the editorial board of the national security blog, Just Security.

Professor Tetsuji Okazaki will present his research which examines the difference between the regime transition phase and consolidation phase, dividing government elites into the pre-Meiji-Restoration-born group and the post-Meiji-Restoration-born group. Using the newly constructed government elites’ data after the Meiji Restoration in Japan, his research shows that reformers’ strategies to recruit government elites and establish a new intra-elite hierarchy changed from the regime transition phase to its consolidation phase. Initially, in order to contend against the incumbent elites, reformers recruited talented activists from the non-elite strata and assigned them to higher-level positions based on their abilities. On achieving a transfer of power, however, reformers’ primary concern shifted to alleviating the dissatisfaction of the masses and the former elites. Therefore, while the barrier preventing access to the elite group keep lowering, which opened the way for non-elites to gain elite status, former elites are reintegrated into the elite group and the intra-elite hierarchy again comes to reflect the social stratum of the former regime.

Image

One prominent feature of South Korea, as well as other countries in East Asia, is citizens’ strong preference to work for large conglomerates or the government, as opposed to startups or small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Relative to the United States, choosing entrepreneurship or working for a young firm are less desired in Korea, especially among highly skilled individuals. This talk will examine how beliefs about corruption and trust in institutions affect an individual’s occupational preferences. A main challenge of examining personal beliefs and their impact on occupational preference is their relation to a host of other individual characteristics such as willingness to accept risk, optimism, patience, education level and family background. Center Fellow Yong Suk Lee will discuss his research on this area, including his focus on the events surrounding the impeachment of South Korea's previous president, Park Geun Hye, and his surveys of South Koreans before the impeachment rulings by the constitutional court and after impeachment. He will talk about (1) whether the impeachment process changed beliefs in the rule of law and societal trust; and (2) whether and how any change in beliefs and trust affect occupational preference. 

Abstract: Both the academic and policy making worlds have been dominated by three explanations for development, understood broadly as democratization and rising levels of per capita income. The first argument is modernization theory which assumes that if polities are provided with adequate resources, especially investment, they will develop. The second argument is institutional capacity approaches which focus on the ability of the state to maintain order. The third argument is rational choice institutionalism which sees deveopment as a rare event resulting from the self interested calculations of elites.  Happenstance and path-dependence play major roles for rational choice instititoinalism. All three of these approaches suffer from major gaps. All three, however, are consistent with the view that external state-building efforts will only be successful if the objectives of external and internal elites are complmentary. This suggests that for most polities the best that external actors can accomplish is Good Enough Governance: security, some service provision, some economic growth.

About the Speaker: Stephen Krasner is the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations, the Senior Associate Dean for the Social Sciences, School of Humanities & Sciences, and the deputy director of FSI. A former director of CDDRL, Krasner is also an FSI senior fellow, and a fellow of the Hoover Institution.

From February 2005 to April 2007 he served as the Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department. While at the State Department, Krasner was a driving force behind foreign assistance reform designed to more effectively target American foreign aid. He was also involved in activities related to the promotion of good governance and democratic institutions around the world.

At CDDRL, Krasner was the coordinator of the Program on Sovereignty. His work has dealt primarily with sovereignty, American foreign policy, and the political determinants of international economic relations. Before coming to Stanford in 1981 he taught at Harvard University and UCLA. At Stanford, he was chair of the political science department from 1984 to 1991, and he served as the editor of International Organization from 1986 to 1992.

He has been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences (1987-88) and at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (2000-2001). In 2002 he served as director for governance and development at the National Security Council. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

South Korea's persistent economic growth combined with a democratic political system has transformed the country into a developed nation. While research has often highlighted the role of industrial policies, technological growth and international trade as imperative to Korea’s developmental success, this talk will instead focus on the role that human capital has played. Professor Ju-Ho Lee will discuss how the accumulation of human capital has aided Korea’s transformation and examine the policies, strategies and challenges that the country faces into the future.

Image

Professor Lee received his BA and MA from Seoul National University, and PhD from Cornell University, all in economics.

This lunch time keynote address is part of the ninth annual Koret Workshop, "Korea's Migrants: From Homogeneity to Diversity," and open to the general public.

This event is made possible through the generous support of the Koret Foundation.