FSI's research on the origins, character and consequences of government institutions spans continents and academic disciplines. The institute’s senior fellows and their colleagues across Stanford examine the principles of public administration and implementation. Their work focuses on how maternal health care is delivered in rural China, how public action can create wealth and eliminate poverty, and why U.S. immigration reform keeps stalling.
FSI’s work includes comparative studies of how institutions help resolve policy and societal issues. Scholars aim to clearly define and make sense of the rule of law, examining how it is invoked and applied around the world.
FSI researchers also investigate government services – trying to understand and measure how they work, whom they serve and how good they are. They assess energy services aimed at helping the poorest people around the world and explore public opinion on torture policies. The Children in Crisis project addresses how child health interventions interact with political reform. Specific research on governance, organizations and security capitalizes on FSI's longstanding interests and looks at how governance and organizational issues affect a nation’s ability to address security and international cooperation.
Byongjin Ahn joined the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) as a visiting scholar for the 2025 fall quarter. He recently served at the State Affairs Planning Committee (equivalent to the transition team as President Lee had to assume his post immediately after his election in June).
He is currently a professor at Kyung Hee University's Global Academy for Future Civilizations. He has served as the Rector of the Global Academy for the Future of Civilizations at Kyung Hee University, Vice President of Kyung Hee Cyber University, Assistant Professor of International Relations at Changwon National University, and Lecturer at the City University of New York. Born in Daegu (1967), he earned a B.A. in sociology from Sogang University and an M.A. in political science from Seoul National University. He earned his Ph.D. in American politics from the New School for Social Research, founded by John Dewey. For his dissertation, he was awarded the Hannah Arendt Award.
His main specialty is the U.S. presidency and Korean politics, and he has appeared on numerous television programs and newspapers, including a panel on the U.S. presidential election specials on MBC and SBS and an interview with the New York Times. He has been a regular columnist for the JoongAng Ilbo, Kyunghyang Shinmun, and Hankyoreh, and a guest commentator for KBS. He is a co-author of South Korea's Democracy In Crisis: The Threats of Illiberalism, Populism, and Polarization (Gi-Wook Shin and Ho-Ki Kim Eds, Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, 2022) and many other books and articles.
Major: International Relations Minor: Theater Hometown: Winchester, Virginia Thesis Advisor: Kathryn Stoner
Tentative Thesis Title:U.S. Silence as a Form of Soft Power
Future aspirations post-Stanford: I plan to attend graduate school, work at the intersection of international development & foreign policy, and pursue global public service projects.
A fun fact about yourself: I was born on leap day!
Encina Hall, E105 616 Jane Stanford Way Stanford, CA 94305-6055
0
mnagawa@stanford.edu
CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow, 2025-26
marianagawa_photo_-_maria_nagawa.jpeg
Maria Nagawa is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) at Stanford University. She studies governance and development in the Global South with a particular focus on aid and bureaucracy. She employs mixed methods and a range of data sources, including survey, experimental, interview, and administrative data.
In her book project, she examines how international aid affects the performance of bureaucrats in aid recipient countries. Her work shows how, in incentivizing select bureaucrats to work on aid projects, aid diverts bureaucrats from routine government programming and erodes organizational cohesion. This work draws on months of fieldwork in Uganda, including interviews with diverse actors in the public and aid sectors and a survey of bureaucrats in Uganda's central government.
Prior to starting her fellowship at CDDRL, Maria was a postdoctoral fellow at the Niehaus Center for Globalization and Governance at Princeton University. She has worked in both the private and public sectors and received her PhD in Public Policy and Political Science from Duke University in 2024.
Research on reentry has documented how material hardship, network dynamics, and carceral governance impede reintegration after prison, but existing scholarship has left underdeveloped other instances in which adverse outcomes stem from the institution's socioemotional dynamics and people's practical and emotional responses to bureaucratic indignities. Drawing on more than 2 years of ethnographic fieldwork with people on parole in Philadelphia, this study analyzes three sources of adversity that occur because reentry institutions’ or actors’ practices are incompatible with the behaviors and needs of system-involved people. I demonstrate how unrecognized vulnerability, discretion's benefits and drawbacks, and risk-escalating rules contribute to adverse outcomes—withdrawal and rule-breaking—that sometimes lead to reincarceration. In failing to account for aspects of human agency and dignity, such as the ability to provide for oneself and to advance personal and familial well-being, parole guidelines often prompted withdrawal and subversion.
The system of reentry institutions — including halfway houses, parole agencies, and housing assistance programs — can be extremely complicated for formerly incarcerated persons (FIPs) to navigate. These complications are not merely logistical, but also social and emotional: the ways in which FIPs interact with reentry institutions can affect their sense of belonging, dignity, and prosperity. When the rules and practices of reentry institutions undermine these needs, it becomes more likely that participants will violate rules, withdraw from the institutions altogether, or find themselves reincarcerated.
In “Home But Not Free,” Gillian Slee offers a rich analysis of these socioemotional dynamics. The paper both increases our knowledge of reentry processes and deepens our understanding of FIPs and reentry staff. Previous scholars have focused more on how adverse outcomes stem from reentry institutions prioritizing surveillance or control. Slee pushes forward this conversation by highlighting how adverse outcomes also stem from failures to acknowledge and support the dignity of FIPs.
Slee’s paper is informed by over two years of ethnographic fieldwork with FIPs in Philadelphia. This includes observing over 200 appointments at a housing assistance program, analyzing more than 130 files of program participants, and both observing and assisting with programming at a women’s halfway house.
Reentry institutions and their staff often fail to recognize or respond to the constraints and vulnerabilities faced by FIPs. These failures can undermine the dignity of FIPs and provoke their withdrawal from such institutions.
Three Mechanisms:
The core of the paper centers on Slee’s elaboration of three mechanisms that link socioemotional concepts, such as indignity, to outcomes like withdrawal or reincarceration. Each mechanism is clarified through a range of examples and case studies.
1. Unrecognized vulnerability:
Reentry institutions and their staff often fail to recognize or respond to the constraints and vulnerabilities faced by FIPs. These failures can undermine the dignity of FIPs and provoke their withdrawal from such institutions. In the realm of housing assistance, the Philadelphia program requires that rent falls between 30% and 45% of participants’ income. However, this is often unrealistic given the difficulties of finding fairly priced units or securing gainful employment with a felony conviction. Accordingly, FIPs must seek low-quality units or roommates. Yet most participants do not want roommates because it reminds them of being incarcerated. Participants are thus presented with an undignified set of choices. The program restrictions mean that many FIPs cannot or will not utilize housing assistance programs, deepening their sense of instability.
Another source of vulnerability concerns the mismatch between FIPs’ expectations and the realities of frontline bureaucracy. For example, many housing assistance programs have too few staff, some of whom struggle to juggle appointments or return phone calls. Because reentry staff are overburdened, they may ask participants to pick up the slack by searching for housing units. Yet many FIPs lack the requisite know-how, for example, calling about units too frequently or too early in the morning. Others may show up hours early for their appointments, in the process annoying reentry staff. Yet participants are not coached on how to improve these behaviors, leading to neglect. Other FIPs must learn that the majority of units are listed online as opposed to in newspapers, incurring the mockery from reentry staff in the process.
A final source of vulnerability concerns participants’ lack of efficacy — the sense that their efforts make little difference or are inadequate. Reentry staff may have high expectations of people who feel “cryogenically frozen in time” (p. 32) because of years of incarceration. Some are unable to use modern cell phones or have no rental history.
A final source of vulnerability concerns participants’ lack of efficacy — the sense that their efforts make little difference or are inadequate.
2. Discretion’s Benefits and Drawbacks:
The discretion exercised by reentry staff introduces difficult choices for participants, forcing them to choose between (a) following the rules and becoming socially isolated or (b) breaking the rules and developing social connections. For example, some halfway houses are restrictive about time spent outside of the house. Participants who abide by the rules may miss out on socially important events, like a child’s basketball game. Some FIPs may lie about or conceal where they live in order to deal with less intrusive parole agents. Others may cross state lines to pursue important career opportunities. One participant parked their mobile home outside of the parole district lines because it was less expensive and easier than seeking alternative units, but these kinds of ‘rational’ behaviors cannot be accommodated. Discretion is a highly variable attribute: some reentry staff cancel meetings and inconvenience participants, while others remember individuals’ needs and accommodate them. Those who expect more discretion than they receive may break the rules out of frustration. Ultimately, discretion and its absence can provoke a host of socioemotional problems.
Instead of preventing noncompliance, program rules may serve to encourage it when they undermine participants’ sense of dignity.
3. Risk-Escalating Rules:
Instead of preventing noncompliance, program rules may serve to encourage it when they undermine participants’ sense of dignity. For example, 29 states prohibit associating with other FIPs, yet many participants have friends or family supervised by the system; as such, people violate the rules in order to preserve meaningful relationships. Some FIPs are faced with painful dilemmas, for example, choosing between living in halfway houses where drug use is common or breaking the rules by leaving. Others report using cocaine instead of marijuana because the latter can be detected in their bloodstream for much longer. Some halfway houses mandate spending a certain number of hours inside the house, but this leads to participants being unable to work multiple jobs to support themselves, a clear violation of their dignity.
For many FIPs in uncomfortable halfway houses, they cannot be placed in another house unless they break the rules of their existing house; some consider breaking the rules for the sake of their well-being, even though doing so might land them under even more restrictive supervision. One participant was refused permission to live in a camper that he could afford because the camper’s mobility posed a flight risk. Another participant broke the rules by traveling out of state because her son’s father had cancer, and a reentry professional later told her to return in a rather threatening way. The rules of reentry institutions thus incentivized FIPs to make very risky choices.
By highlighting socioemotional concepts — especially (in)dignity — as central to the experiences of formerly incarcerated persons, Slee shows how the rules and practices of reentry institutions can undermine reintegration.
By highlighting socioemotional concepts — especially (in)dignity — as central to the experiences of formerly incarcerated persons, Slee shows how the rules and practices of reentry institutions can undermine reintegration. Addressing sources of vulnerability and counterproductive rules may help reform reentry institutions in more humane and effective ways.
SCCEI Senior Research Scholar Chenggang Xu’s latest book, Institutional Genes: Origins of China's Institutions and Totalitarianism, offers a reinterpretation of China’s political and institutional development. Drawing from decades of research, Xu introduces the concept of "institutional genes"—the enduring foundational structures that shape and constrain how institutions evolve. Through this lens, he examines the emergence and evolution of China’s current communist totalitarian institution, contending that substantial parts of its "institutional genes" were implanted by Soviet Russia, building upon a longstanding tradition of authoritarian rule dating back to imperial China.
With insights spanning political economy, institutional economics, and history, Institutional Genes presents a compelling account of why China’s institutions have taken their particular form—why they have resisted democratization—and why its economic reforms have risen and fallen. Xu’s work will appeal to scholars, policymakers, and general readers seeking a deeper understanding of how China’s past continues to shape its political trajectory today.
Institutional Genes: Origins of China's Institutions and Totalitarianism, previously published in Chinese, is currently available for pre-order and will be published and available to the public on August 21, 2025. For more from Xu, read his recent essay, The Origins of China’s Institutions and Totalitarianism, based on his forthcoming book.
Chenggang Xu
Senior Research Scholar, Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions
Shanjun Li to Lead New Research Program on Sustainability and Energy Transition in China
SCCEI's newest research program addresses the pressing sustainability challenges facing China and examines their broader global implications. Grounded in rigorous empirical analysis and economic modeling, researchers aim to inform the development of effective evidence-based policy solutions as well as uncover valuable lessons for other countries navigating similar economic and energy transitions.
Strategic Shifts: Understanding China’s Global Ambitions and U.S.-China Dynamics with Elizabeth Economy
At the 2025 SCCEI China Conference, Elizabeth Economy, Hargrove Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, outlined China’s ambitious bid to reshape the global order—and urged the U.S. to respond with vision, not just rivalry, during a Fireside Chat with Professor Hongbin Li, Senior Fellow and SCCEI Faculty Co-Director.
Stanford Professor Matteo Maggiori Unpacks the New Geopolitics of Global Trade
Professor Maggiori joined SCCEI and Stanford Libraries to discuss how the U.S. and China apply economic pressure to achieve their political and economic goals, and the economic costs and benefits that this competition is imposing on the world.
SCCEI Senior Research Scholar Chenggang Xu’s latest book, "Institutional Genes: Origins of China's Institutions and Totalitarianism", explores the origins and evolution of China's institutions and communist totalitarianism.
This paper examines the political climate in El Salvador under President Nayib Bukele, with a particular focus on his efforts to consolidate power and the implications for democracy. It discusses the constitutional limitations on presidential authority as outlined in El Salvador's constitution, specifically addressing the removal of Supreme Court judges and the militarization of society. The paper highlights the pushback from civil society organizations, particularly through the efforts of legislator Claudia Ortiz, who raises concerns about the legality and democratic implications of Bukele's actions. The potential consequences for democratic governance and civil rights amid the current regime's popularity and alliances within government are critically analyzed, posing questions about the future of democratic integrity in El Salvador.
In 2023, Guatemala's political landscape experienced a significant transformation with the election of President Bernardo Arevalo, a reformist determined to combat deep-seated corruption affecting the nation. Arevalo's presidency surfaced amid considerable public discontent with entrenched corruption, culminating in a challenge regarding the actions to be taken against Attorney General María Consuelo Porras, who was accused of obstructing justice. As he navigated the complexities of a divided political environment, Arevalo faced pressures from both the conservative establishment and civil society groups advocating for anti-corruption reforms. Guatemala's historical struggles with corruption, influenced by a legacy of civil war and ineffective political institutions, further complicated his efforts. The disbandment of the International Commission Against Impunity in 2019 and the pervasive influence of conservative elites posed significant barriers to his mandate. The text explores the intricate dynamics influencing Arevalo's decision-making process, highlighting the implications of his choices on Guatemala's future governance and the ongoing pursuit of democratic integrity in a challenging political context. Options available to Arevalo include immediate action against Porras, delayed engagement, or inaction, each presenting distinct risks and potential impacts on his reform agenda and the country’s democratic institutions.
Virtual participation available via Zoom using the link above. Zoom Meeting ID: 997 4878 4037, Passcode: 998456
We invite our virtual participants to join in celebrating Marcel Fafchamps' distinguished career. Following the keynote address, at 10:00 AM PST, there will be an opportunity for online attendees to offer brief remarks or words of appreciation to honor Professor Fafchamps and his many contributions to scholarship, mentorship, and our academic community. Your reflections are a valued part of this special occasion.
Join us for a full-day academic symposium celebrating the career and contributions of economist Marcel Fafchamps, Satre Family Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, on the occasion of his retirement. Featuring a keynote by Marcel himself, this tribute brings together colleagues, collaborators, and students to engage with the themes and ideas that have shaped his influential work in development economics, labor markets, and social networks.
The day will feature in-depth paper presentations, rapid-fire research talks, and engaging discussions with scholars, including Stefano Caria (University of Warwick), Pascaline Dupas (Princeton University), and Simon Quinn (Imperial College London), with more speakers to be announced soon. Topics span management practices, persuasion and diffusion, strategic reasoning, and mutual aid—from field experiments to economic theory.
Come celebrate the distinguished research career of Marcel Fafchamps with us.
Lunch and refreshments will be provided.
The symposium will be held in person, by invitation only. Professor Fafchamps' keynote will be livestreamed via Zoom.
This event is co-sponsored by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and the King Center on Global Development.
8:30 AM — Continental Breakfast available in 2nd Floor Lobby, Encina Hall Central
8:45 AM — General Welcome, Kathryn Stoner
9:00 AM — Keynote Address, Marcel Fafchamps: Behavioral Markets
10:00 AM— Virtual Attendees may join to share brief remarks and words of appreciation
10:15 AM — Morning Break
10:45 AM — Session Speaker: Stefano Caria,Competition and Management
11:45 AM — Rapid Fire Speaker: Tom Schwantje, Management Style Under the Spotlight: Evidence from Studio Recordings
12:15 PM — Lunch Break
1:15 PM — Session Speaker Pascaline Dupas: Keeping Up Appearances: Socioeconomic Status Signaling to Avoid Discrimination
2:15 PM — Rapid Fire Speaker: Deivy Houeix,Eliciting Poverty Rankings from Urban or Rural Neighbors
2:45 PM — Afternoon Break
3:00 PM — Session Speaker: Simon Quinn,Matching, Management and Employment Outcomes: A Field Experiment with Firm Internships
Marcel Fafchamps is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and a professor of economics. His research focuses on development economics, particularly how institutions, social networks, and market failures impact economic outcomes in low-income countries. He has published extensively on topics like agriculture, labor markets, and entrepreneurship, and has held academic positions at Oxford and Stanford. Fafchamps is known for combining rigorous empirical analysis with an understanding of real-world development challenges.
Stefano Caria is a Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick, affiliated with J‑PAL, CEPR, CAGE, and the IGC, serving as lead academic for Ethiopia. He earned his DPhil (and MPhil) in Economics from the University of Oxford and previously held positions at Oxford’s Department of International Development and the University of Bristol. He combines experimental and structural methods to study labor market frictions, refugee employment, childcare support, and firm-worker matching in low-income settings across Africa and the Middle East.
Tom Schwantje is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Bocconi University, where he is affiliated with IGIER and FINAFRICA. In his research, he focuses on the organizational economics and management of firms and banks in low-income countries. He is particularly interested in how managers operate in these settings, and how this is shaped by their environment. Most recently, he has started working on an exciting new research agenda on the organizational economics of banking in Ethiopia. Tom received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from Oxford University.
Deivy Houeix is a Prize Fellow at the Center for History and Economics at Harvard University. His primary field is Development Economics, with secondary interests in Organizational Economics. His research focuses on technology's role in lower-income countries, particularly in West Africa. Houeix explores how digital technologies reshape economic relationships and contract structures within and between firms, uncovering some key drivers and barriers to their adoption. Houeix is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and has conducted research projects in Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Senegal, and Togo. In 2027, Houeix will join Columbia Business School as an Assistant Professor of Economics.
Pascaline Dupas is Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University. She joined the Princeton faculty in July 2023. She was previously the Kleinheinz Family Professor of International Studies at Stanford University, where she spent 12 years on the faculty. She has also held faculty positions at Dartmouth College and UCLA. Dupas is a development economist studying the challenges facing poor households in lower-income countries and their root causes. Her goal is to identify interventions and policies that can help overcome these challenges and reduce global poverty. She conducts extensive fieldwork. Her ongoing research includes studies of education policy in Ghana, family planning policy in Burkina Faso, and government-subsidized health insurance in India, among others.
Simon Quinnis an Associate Professor of Economics at Imperial College Business School and Academic Director of its MSc in Economics & Strategy for Business. His research lies at the intersection of development and labor economics, with a focus on firms, markets, and institutions in low-income countries, especially in Africa. A Rhodes Scholar, he earned his MPhil and DPhil in Economics from Oxford, where he was also an Examination Fellow at All Souls College. Simon’s work includes field experiments on credit, management, and labor markets.
Kathryn Stoner is the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and a Senior Fellow at CDDRL and the Center on International Security and Cooperation at FSI. From 2017 to 2021, she served as FSI's Deputy Director. She is Professor of Political Science (by courtesy) at Stanford and she teaches in the Department of Political Science, and in the Program on International Relations, as well as in the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy Program. She is also a Senior Fellow (by courtesy) at the Hoover Institution.
Katherine Casey is a professor of political economy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and Faculty Director of the King Center on Global Development. Her research explores the interactions between economic and political forces in developing countries, with particular interest in the role of information in enhancing political accountability and the influence of foreign aid on economic development. Her work has appeared in the American Economic Review, Journal of Political Economy and Quarterly Journal of Economics, among others. She teaches a course in the MBA program focused on firm strategy vis a vis government in emerging markets.
Melanie Morton, Faculty Affiliate, King Center on Global Development, is a development economist and associate professor in the department of economics at Stanford University. She is a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and the National Bureau for Economic Research. Dr. Morten is interested in how households respond to risk in developing countries, including using short term and temporary migration. Her work has been published in numerous journals including the Journal of Police Economy and the World Bank Economic Review. She received her PhD from Yale and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
The symposium will be held in the William J. Perry Conference Room, 2nd Floor, Encina Hall.
Event Location:
William J. Perry Conference Room Encina Hall, 2nd Floor, C-231 616 Jane Stanford Way Stanford, CA 94305-6165
Visitor Parking
There is no free parking on campus. Visitor and hourly parking permits are required through the ParkMobile app. Please download the app ahead of your visit and follow directions. Pay-by-space parking is available throughout campus; availability is limited. Please note that parking is monitored Monday - Friday, 8 am - 4 pm.
The parking areas closest to Encina Hall are located on surrounding streets and in the following parking garages:
Knight Management Center Parking Garage
Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB), 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94305
Manzanita Field Garage
742 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA 94305
For parking information, contact the Parking and Transportation Department's Visitor Parking page.
Rideshare Drop-off / Pick-up Address
The closest drop-off location is: Gunn Building, 366 Galvez St., Stanford, CA 94305
From Galvez, walk South towards the Hoover Tower, and turn left at the intersection, onto Jane Stanford Way. Encina Hall is the large four-story building on your right. Enter through the main door, at the top of the stairs, and head up to the 2nd floor. An accessible entrance and ramp are located on the right side of Encina Hall, at the West Entrance.
Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
0
fafchamp@stanford.edu
Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Professor, by courtesy, of Economics
marcel_fafchamps_2025.jpg
Marcel Fafchamps is a Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and a member of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. Previously, he was the Satre Family Senior Fellow at FSI. Fafchamps is a professor (by courtesy) for the Department of Economics at Stanford University. His research interests include economic development, market institutions, social networks, and behavioral economics — with a special focus on Africa and South Asia.
Prior to joining FSI, from 1999-2013, Fafchamps served as professor of development economics in the Department of Economics at Oxford University. He also served as deputy director and then co-director of the Center for the Study of African Economies. From 1989 to 1996, Fafchamps was an assistant professor with the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. Following the closure of the Institute, he taught for two years at the Department of Economics. For the 1998-1999 academic year, Fafchamps was on sabbatical leave at the research department of the World Bank. Before pursuing his PhD in 1986, Fafchamps was based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for 5 years during his employment with the International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency that oversees employment, income distribution, and vocational training in Africa.
He has authored two books: Market Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Theory and Evidence (MIT Press, 2004) and Rural Poverty, Risk, and Development (Elgar Press, 2003), and has published numerous articles in academic journals.
Fafchamps served as the editor-in-chief of Economic Development and Cultural Change until 2020. Previously, he had served as chief editor of the Journal of African Economies from 2000 to 2013, and as associate editor of the Economic Journal, the Journal of Development Economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, and the Revue d'Economie du Développement.
He is a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an affiliated professor with J-PAL, a senior fellow with the Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development, a research fellow with IZA, Germany, and with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, UK, and an affiliate with the University of California’s Center for Effective Global Action.
Fafchamps has degrees in Law and in Economics from the Université Catholique de Louvain. He holds a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Berkeley.
Public health infrastructure varies widely at the local, state, and national levels, and the COVID-19 response revealed just how critical local health authority can be. Public health officials created COVID policies, enforced behavioral and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and communicated with the public. This article explores the determinants of public health capacity, distinguishing between formal institutional capacity (i.e., budget, staff) and informal embedded capacity (i.e., community ties, insulation from political pressures). Using qualitative data and interviews with county health officers in California, this article shows that informal embedded capacity—while difficult to measure—is essential to public health capacity. It concludes by relating public health capacity to broader issues of state capacity and democracy.
