About the Topic: A study of how two major democracies, the United States and India, responded to one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 20th century: the 1971 atrocities in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). This book documents the extent of Nixon and Kissinger's support for the Pakistani military regime, and India's mix of humanitarian and strategic motivations in its 1971 war, which created an independent Bangladesh.

About the Speaker: Gary Bass is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (Knopf, forthcoming September 2013); Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention (Knopf); and Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals (Princeton). A former reporter for The Economist, he has written often for The New York Times, as well as writing for The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and other publications.

He has written academic articles and book chapters on human rights and international justice. He has been a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University and a visiting professor of law and government at Harvard Law School. He got his Ph.D. and A.B. at Harvard.

We invite you to a special event with Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Infosys, one of the world's largest IT services companies.  Nilekani is also Chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), an ambitious government program designed to issue biometric identity cards to all citizens of India, with goals such as of reducing corruption in government transfers and increasing financial inclusion for the poor.  The event will give us the opportunity to hear Nilekani's view on the potential of the UID project as well as the vigorous debate it has engendered.   Nilekani will also reflect on business,the economy, and philanthropy in India.  

Matt Bannick, Managing Partner of Omidyar Network, the philanthropic investment firm founded by eBay's Pierre Omidyar, will lead the discussion. Gerhard Casper, former President of Stanford University will make a special introduction.

** We are currently experiencing some problems with our online RSVP system.  If you have any difficulty registering for this event, please send an email directly to the organizer, Denise Masumoto, via email masumoto@stanford.edu.  Thank you for your cooperation.  **

In this session of the Shorenstein APARC Corporate Affiliate Visiting Fellows Research Presentations, the following will be presented:

Yasuaki Hanai, "Are Japanese Electric Companies Becoming Obsolete? –  Rethinking Strong Points for Japanese Electric Companies

In recent years, it has become very common to take pictures using a smart phone or tablet, such as an iPad, and to share this information via social media outlets such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.  Japanese electric companies and products have been noticeably absent from this area, except for the single-lens reflex camera.  How has this happened?  Why have Japanese electric companies suffered a decline?  In his research, Hanai tries to answer these questions by analyzing the financial reports of various Japanese companies after the bubble economy collapse.  Hanai also considers strong points for Japanese electric companies and what the next actions should be to reverse the decline.

Saiko Nakagawa,  "Systemic Risks in the Japanese Banking Sector"

“Systemic risk” has become a buzzword after the global financial crisis in 2007-08.  Due to its elusive nature, there have been active discussions among scholars, international organizations and national regulators on how to measure and address the risk in order to prevent the next crisis.  In her presentation, Nakagawa will introduce these recent discussions and argue the implications to Japan’s financial sector.

Masashi Suzuki, "Dismal Software Industry in Japan – Will It Be Disrupted or Will It Discover Its Own Way like U.S. Players?"

In his research, Suzuki provides an historical analysis of the software market in Japan and the United States as well as a comprehensive analysis of the status quo of these two countries. Are there ways to improve the unfavorable situation in Japan?  Suzuki attempts to provide an answer to this question in his research presentation. 

Bin Wang, "Innovation and New Venture Strategies in China"

In recent years, entrepreneurship has played an increasing role in promoting economic growth in China.  The Chinese government began to pay more attention to encourage entrepreneurship in order to reform the economic structure.  Wang’s research examines the characteristics of the emerging industry and reveals a positive relationship between innovation capabilities and growth of new venture.  He developed a framework to classify new venture strategies based on market characteristics and innovation capabilities, identified ten strategic types, and reviewed their impact on performance in new ventures in China.  Wang’s research attempts to provide important guidelines for venture capital to identify potential investment opportunities.  These guidelines will also help entrepreneurs to identify an appropriate strategy to pursue business opportunities in given situations. 

Abstract:

The discovery of oil or gas in a poor country is potentially beneficial and, simultaneously, potentially calamitous. While countries could put oil revenues toward building much-needed schools and roads, fixing and staffing health systems, and policing the streets, many resource-rich states fare little better—and often much worse—than their re resource-poor counterparts. Too often public money is misallocated and funds meant to be saved are raided, and citizens pay the price. While there is much discussion about how to respond to windfalls, solutions to counteract potential corrosive effects are highly elusive. Todd Moss leads CGD's Oil-to-Cash initiative, which is exploring one policy option: paying revenues directly to citizens. Under this proposal, a government would transfer some or all of the revenue from natural resource extraction to citizens in universal, transparent, and regular payments. The state would treat these payments as normal income and tax it accordingly—thus forcing the state to collect taxes, and addinng additional pressure for public accountability and more responsible resource management. Todd will talk about the idea, the pitfalls, and some of the emerging models experimenting with aspects of the Oil-to-Cash model.

Todd Moss is vice president for programs and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Washington-DC based thinktank. Moss previously served in the US State Department, worked at the World Bank, and was a lecturer at the London School of Economics.  He is the author of African Development: Making sense of the issues and actors (2011).

Abstract:

The U.S. and the E.U. are often seen as fundamentally different democracy promoters. It has been argued that the U.S. has a more political approach, which is confrontational vis-à-vis host governments and promotes democracy bottom-up via civil society. The E.U., on the other hand, is perceived as more developmental, focusing on non-confrontational projects that are mostly top-down or focused on civil society organizations not critical of the government. The U.S.’s political approach has been criticized for being too donor-led, unilateral, and hardly respecting country ownership. But should American democracy assistance become more European?

Based on research on E.U. and U.S. democracy assistance programs in Ethiopia, CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow Karen Del Biondo explains the causes and consequences of a political and developmental approach to democracy assistance. She argues that the E.U. has indeed taken a more developmental approach, which can be explained by the European Commission’s commitment to the Paris Declaration principles on aid effectiveness, including ownership, alignment and, harmonization. This was possible because of the relatively autonomous position of the Commission vis-à-vis the Member States and the European Parliament. In contrast, USAID does not enjoy this bureaucratic autonomy, and has therefore paid lip service to aid effectiveness. Del Biondo discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a political and developmental approach in a semi-authoritarian regime such as Ethiopia. She finds that, although the impact of E.U. democracy assistance in Ethiopia can be questioned, the E.U.’s developmental approach has made the government of Ethiopia more open to E.U. democracy assistance, while the U.S.’s political approach led to a backlash.

Speaker Bio:

Karen Del Biondo is a 2012-2013 postdoctoral fellow at the CDDRL. Her research is funded with a Fulbright-Schuman award and a postdoctoral grant from the Belgian-American Educational Foundation (BAEF). She holds an MA in Political Science (International Relations) from Ghent University and an MA in European Studies from the Université Libre de Bruxelles. In 2007-2008 she obtained a Bernheim fellowship for an internship in European affairs at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Permanent Representation to the EU. 

Karen Del Biondo obtained her PhD at the Centre for EU Studies, Ghent University in September 2012 with a dissertation entitled ‘Norms, self-interest and effectiveness: Explaining double standards in EU reactions to violations of democratic principles in sub-Saharan Africa’. Her PhD research was funded by the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO). Apart from her PhD research, she has been involved in the research project ‘The Substance of EU Democracy Promotion’ (Ghent University/University of Mannheim/Centre of European Policy Studies) and has published on the securitisation of EU development policies. In January 2011 she conducted field research in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Her postdoctoral research will focus on the comparison between EU and US democracy assistance in sub-Saharan Africa.

Abstract:

The U.S. and the E.U. are often seen as fundamentally different democracy promoters. It has been argued that the U.S. has a more political approach, which is confrontational vis-à-vis host governments and promotes democracy bottom-up via civil society. The E.U., on the other hand, is perceived as more developmental, focusing on non-confrontational projects that are mostly top-down or focused on civil society organizations not critical of the government. The U.S.’s political approach has been criticized for being too donor-led, unilateral, and hardly respecting country ownership. But should American democracy assistance become more European?

Based on research on E.U. and U.S. democracy assistance programs in Ethiopia, CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow Karen Del Biondo explains the causes and consequences of a political and developmental approach to democracy assistance. She argues that the E.U. has indeed taken a more developmental approach, which can be explained by the European Commission’s commitment to the Paris Declaration principles on aid effectiveness, including ownership, alignment and, harmonization. This was possible because of the relatively autonomous position of the Commission vis-à-vis the Member States and the European Parliament. In contrast, USAID does not enjoy this bureaucratic autonomy, and has therefore paid lip service to aid effectiveness. Del Biondo discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a political and developmental approach in a semi-authoritarian regime such as Ethiopia. She finds that, although the impact of E.U. democracy assistance in Ethiopia can be questioned, the E.U.’s developmental approach has made the government of Ethiopia more open to E.U. democracy assistance, while the U.S.’s political approach led to a backlash.