Policy Analysis
Paragraphs

The Japan Program at Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), with the generous support of the United States-Japan Foundation and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, held a conference in November 2016 titled “Womenomics, the Workplace, and Women.” The report, which is an outcome of the conference, offers an analysis of the state of women’s leadership and work-life balance in Japan and the United States, and specific actions that Japanese government stakeholders, corporations, start-ups, and educational institutions can take to address gender inequality in Japan.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Brochures
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Japan Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
-

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.

Encina Hall, 2nd floor

CDDRL
Stanford University
Encina Hall
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 723-0676 (650) 724-2996
0
Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Emeritus
Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations
Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Emeritus
krasner.jpg MA, PhD

Stephen Krasner is the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations. 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.

His major publications include Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investment and American Foreign Policy (1978), Structural Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism (1985), Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (1999), and How to Make Love to a Despot (2020). Publications he has edited include International Regimes (1983), Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (co-editor, 1999),  Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities (2001), and Power, the State, and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations (2009). He received a BA in history from Cornell University, an MA in international affairs from Columbia University and a PhD in political science from Harvard.

CV
Stephen D. Krasner Professor of International Relations Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University
Seminars
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Emerging technologies, stemming from the heart of Silicon Valley and extending to Asia and beyond, have pushed the bounds of how stories are told by journalists and the way in which readers interact with them. The Shorenstein Journalism Award, an annual prize given by the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), celebrates 15 years of recognizing distinguished journalists for their innovative and responsible journalism amid social and technological change.

The prize began with “the idea of a media award for a person who has the most significant impact on the relationship with Asia-Pacific nations in the United States,” according to Walter H. Shorenstein, who spoke about his twin interests of Asia and the press in a 2010 oral history project interview and was the benefactor after whom the center is named.

Shorenstein APARC and Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy jointly presented the award for six years. Shorenstein APARC has continued the initiative, and each year, brings the award winner to Stanford to talk with the broader campus community, and since 2011, has alternated between a recipient from the West, who has mainly addressed an American audience, and a recipient from Asia.

The prize seeks to inspire the next generation of U.S. journalists focused on Asia, as well as Asian journalists, who pave the way for press freedom in their countries.

Award winners have explored a multitude of topics over the years, from human rights in North Korea to the rise of democracy in Indonesia and from the U.S.-Japan alliance to gender equality in India. And this year adds an additional view on China; veteran journalist Ian Johnson will address religion and value systems in a panel discussion on May 1 with Xueguang Zhou, Stanford professor of sociology, and Orville Schell, director of the Asia Society's Center on U.S.-China Relations, moderated by Daniel C. Sneider, Shorenstein APARC associate director for research.

To mark the award’s tenure, Shorenstein APARC asked award alumni to answer the question, “What do you think the future holds for journalism in/about Asia?” Their responses are below.



Image
crossette 3x4 bw
Asia is big, with 60 percent of the world's people and a third of its land. The conditions in which journalists work go to the extremes, from the longstanding establishment press of Japan or India to the blanket repression of it in Laos or China. But if there is one word to describe Asian journalism of the future, it is Youth. Creative, energetic young people, armed with connectivity, pack Internet cafes and journalism classes, where they can find them. Their interests are broad, they are open-minded and well informed. Western reporters will benefit from their guidance as colleagues.

Barbara Crossette is the U.N. correspondent for The Nation and a columnist for India Abroad. She received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2010.


Image
funabashi 3x4 bw

Journalism in Asia has had a long history of covering revolutions and wars. However, peace has reigned over Asia for near on 40 years. Yet, the peace and stability in Asia looks increasingly precarious. Asia too is not immune to populist nationalism. In this climate, Asia could yet again become the battleground for dislocation, revolution and war. Journalism, on top of reacting to potential crises, will be critical for proactively finding ways to prevent and defuse crises in the region.

Yoichi Funabashi is the chairman of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2015.

 


Image
buruma 3x4 bw
The scope for independent journalism, checking the powers that be, is shrinking everywhere, not least in Asia. China's rise as a major political and commercial power will be a growing challenge to the freedom of the press. The best thing journalists writing about Asian affairs can do, especially those who are lucky enough to work for free and independent media, is to continue to write as honestly as they can, without bowing to political or commercial pressures. This very much includes pressures at home, in countries that still have liberal democratic institutions. Good journalism on Asia, or anywhere else, will continue to be produced as long as the critical spirit remains undaunted.

Ian Buruma is a writer and the Paul W. Williams Professor of Democracy, Human Rights, and Journalism at Bard College. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2008.


Image
mydans 3x4 bw
The frontier in the battle for press freedom in Southeast Asia has moved into cyberspace, where independent voices have presented a new challenge to government control of information. In Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia and newly open Myanmar, upstart websites and blogs have proliferated. But it hasn't taken long for those in charge to gain the upper hand, and following the example of China, all have found ways to bring these open forums under varying degrees of control, from censorship to harassment to prison terms. The flamboyant Philippines remains the exception, and the future there too has become uncertain.

Seth Mydans is a contributing writer for the New York Times. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2009.


Image
demick 3x4 bw
The United States tends to export its best and worst fashions elsewhere in the world. An example of the latter is President Trump’s tendency to denounce any media coverage he dislikes as “fake news.” The Chinese Communist Party has picked up on that trick, earlier this month using the “fake news” defense to deny a story that a human rights lawyer was tortured, a practice all too common in China. The implications are chilling for the Chinese domestic press and for foreign correspondents covering China. While our own president is denouncing us as “enemies of the people,” we can hardly expect the U.S. government to stand up for us when the intolerant regime in Beijing tries to muzzle our reporting.

Barbara Demick is the Los Angeles Times’ bureau chief in New York and was formerly bureau chief in Beijing and in Seoul. She is the author of Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea and Logavina Street: Life and death in a Sarajevo Neighborhood. She received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2012.


Image
zaw 3x4 bw
In some parts of Asia, the space for freedom of expression has shrunk immensely and there are challenges for all of us covering sensitive issues in countries where journalists increasingly face the Computer Crime Act, censorship, tight space, intimidation and threats – moreover, they also continue to face authoritarian rulers’ unjustified clampdown and high-handed attitudes. Asia is complex – in some corners of our region, many diverse ethnic minorities live in conflict zones and in war without peace – for decades journalists travel there to report stories. But it is our job – isn’t it? Journalists here ought to tell stories and unearth many untold news to readers across Asia. While facing prison walls, threats and lawsuits, journalists also face media tycoons and cronies who want them to be a mouthpiece of commercial conglomerates – they must resist them. Commercial media kills independent journalism. Long before journalists in Asia realized that objectivity alone doesn’t work in Asia but courage, independent reporting and searching the truth are more important than ever before. Last but not least, Asia has the fastest growing economies in the world thus an independent media is needed to keep voices from Asia alive.

Aung Zaw is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Irrawaddy. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2013.


Image
schlesinger 3x4 bw
Donald Trump is challenging many long-held, American consensus policies – including those toward Asia. Trade, diplomacy and security relationships between the United States and Asia – and among Asian nations – are now all in flux. The challenge for journalists on both sides of the Pacific will be sorting out the noise, understanding the concrete actions and reactions, and explaining the implications for a global audience. That mission will be made more difficult – and more vital – by the growing hostility toward journalism from many of the leaders unleashing this transformation.

Jacob Schlesinger is a senior Washington correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2014.


Image
schell 3x4 bw
I am very pessimistic about the ability of thoughtful and informative journalism to survive anywhere in the world given the gale force winds of state propaganda, commercial market pressure and "fake news" that now buffet it. And no where is such reporting more urgently needed than in regard to Asia where China's different value and political pose a stark challenge. To keep a well-informed public, we may well have to finally recognize here in the United States that good and independent reporting cannot be entirely a purely commercial process any more than are our great universities.

Orville Schell is the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York, and former dean of the School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2003.


Image
pomfret 3x4
I am very optimistic about the future of journalism in Asia because I am optimistic about the future of Asia writ large. I am especially optimistic about the future of journalism in China. Despite the dark days that my Chinese colleagues face today, there is no shortage of well-trained, hungry reporters in China who will ultimately help push China in a more positive direction. I think this is, to use the Chinese Communist Party's verbiage, "the historical trend." Just think about the scoops to be had when China begins to open the vast archives of the Chinese Communist Party? Obviously, this won't happen tomorrow, but I am confident that this day is less far off than it sometimes seems.

John Pomfret was a foreign correspondent with the Washington Post for many years. He is the author of The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom: America and China from 1776 to the Present. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2007.

 

Hero Image
journalism award headline
A pair of people read newspapers outside in Seoul, South Korea.
Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images
All News button
1
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
South Korea’s Constitutional Court upheld a parliamentary decision to impeach President Park Geun-hye on Friday. She becomes the country’s first democratically elected leader to be forcibly removed from power, following allegations of corruption that have incited widespread protests for months.
 
Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, answers some questions about the impact of Park’s impeachment and path ahead for South Korea.
 
What happens next?
 
The ruling declares that President Park is no longer president and that she must vacate Blue House, the official residence of the South Korean head of state. Indeed, she returned to the residence where she had lived before assuming the presidency. A presidential election will be held within 60 days, most likely on May 9. In the meantime, South Korean Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn, who was appointed as acting president, will continue in that role until the election. 
 
The decision made by the court was only one part of the investigation into Park’s political scandals and alleged corruption. The verdict delivered on March 10 states that Park committed a grave violation of constitutional law. Park could still face charges for corruption and cronyism, as a separate legal process is ongoing, and she could be put into jail.
 
How are people in South Korea responding to the ruling so far?
 
Most people are accepting the ruling. The decision to confirm Park’s impeachment was largely expected. One noteworthy aspect of the ruling, though, was its unanimity – all eight judges on the court voted to confirm her impeachment. This collective stance aimed to message an agreement that ‘it’s time to move on’ and to minimize the potential for discord in government and society.
 
Following months of protests in Seoul, the reactions on the streets have been fairly restrained. However, there is a contingent that supported Park throughout the trial and they still refuse to accept the ruling. Park herself also expressed defiance, rather than accepting the verdict, reportedly saying, “It will take time, but the truth will eventually be revealed.” Political tensions will continue, perhaps even after the upcoming election.
 
What motivated the protests and impeachment process, and what does it represent?
 
Beyond the political scandals, the protests are more broadly an expression of popular discontent over a range of issues. Following two decades of rapid modernization, South Koreans are experiencing growing inequality, high youth unemployment, and fatigue over two presidential terms by conservative parties. Civic participation was a main driver behind the protests. The protests were large scale and prolonged but certainly not unusual for South Korea. Historically speaking, South Korea has a pattern of a strong state setting itself against a contentious civil society. As was evident in 2016-17, political parties, instead of addressing the issues and public opinion, were being led by the movements themselves.
 
The impeachment trial and civic activism represent neither a crisis of politics nor a crisis of democracy for South Korea. Rather, it shows that Korean democracy has progressed since it accelerated its democratic transition in the late 1980s. Throughout Park’s case, democratic procedures were followed by the National Assembly, special prosecutor and the Constitutional Court – and that’s a good sign. Nonetheless the real test for Korean democracy may yet have to come, as some supporters of Park and perhaps she herself have indicated that the verdict is unfair and unconstitutional. Going forward, I am still optimistic that these events will encourage the government to be more careful with exercise of power and more attentive to societal issues.
 
What are the main issues that the government now faces?
 
National unity and stability will be the main priorities of the next president of South Korea. He or she will have to find a way to bridge the deep divide between progressives and conservatives, and work on the issues that have motivated such wide unrest across the country. An orderly presidential election and transfer of power from the Park administration to the next are equally essential. The next president faces a unique circumstance, however, in that the new administration will begin its work the day following the election, without the typical transition period.
 
These events also underscore the limitations of the current single five-year term presidential system in South Korea. While the Korean presidency is still powerful, the current system has proved to be ineffective as the president becomes a 'lame duck' after 3 or 4 years into office, making it difficult to pursue any long-term policy agenda. Korea needs constitutional reform to enact a greater balance of power and policy continuity.

Read more about this topic in a paper featured in the academic journal Asian Survey and an analysis piece in The Diplomat by Gi-Wook Shin and Rennie J. Moon, or watch a video featuring a panel discussion from earlier this year.

 

Hero Image
seoul protest candle
Activists of all ages gather in Seoul city center for a candlelight rally on Dec. 10, 2016.
Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images
All News button
1
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., commander of U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), visited the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center last Friday. Throughout the day, he met with faculty, fellows and students and delivered a keynote speech to the broader Stanford community.
 
In his remarks titled Deterring Revisionist Powers, Harris described how the Indo-Asia-Pacific region fits in the context of the “global operating system,” a term used to illustrate the norms and standards that have defined the international system since the end of World War II. Harris also explained how USPACOM is ensuring continued international access to the shared domains of the Indo-Asia-Pacific, which include use of the air, sea and cyber domains.
 
Harris also led discussions on the strategic environment and security challenges that the United States faces. He engaged in an exchange with various audience members on current security dilemmas such as North Korea’s nuclear program, the South China Sea, and the state of U.S. alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.
 
The Chatham House Rule applied to Harris’ public presentation, and his subsequent meetings were closed to the public and news media.
 
Harris was later featured at a meeting held at the Highly Immersive Classroom at the Graduate School of Business. Faculty and students at Stanford conversed by way of video teleconference with affiliates at Stanford Center at Peking University (SCPKU), Beijing. U.S.-Asia Security Initiative Director Karl Eikenberry and SCPKU Executive Director Josh Cheng moderated the dialogue.
 
Admiral Harris’ visit to Stanford was co-sponsored by Ambassador Eikenberry and Admiral Gary Roughead, Robert and Marion Oster Distinguished Military Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Hero Image
2017march admharris visit online
Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., commander of U.S. Pacific Command, delivers remarks titled "Deterring Revisionist Powers" at the Bechtel Conference Center, March 3, 2017.
Debbie Warren
All News button
1
Paragraphs

South Korean President Park Geun-hye faced a leadership crisis after revelations that she relied on a confidant with no official position for key decision-making in state affairs. Heavy industry met with serious financial difficulties, and a strong anti-corruption law was enacted. North Korea tested more nuclear weapons and missiles. Controversy over the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense strained South Korea’s relations with China.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Asian Survey
Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
Rennie Moon
Number
1
-

Torun Dewan is a political scientist at the London School of Economics. His main research is in political economy and in the formal and empirical analysis of decision making in political parties, legislatures and executives. Amongst other issues he has looked at how cabinets structure the incentives of ministers, how leadership acts as a coordinating focal point, how political parties aggregate dispersed information, and how elections provide incentives for policy experimentation.

 

This seminar is part of the Comparative Politics Workshop in the Department of Political Science and is co-sponsored by The Europe Center.

Torun Dewan London School of Economics
Workshops
Paragraphs

Admirers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are impressed with the fact that it continues to exist and that an outright war has never broken out between its members. Also often praised is the value to the region of promoting cooperation through the consensual process known as the ‘ASEAN Way’. If ASEAN is a talk shop, these observers say, talking is at least better than fighting. ASEAN's increasingly numerous and vocal critics reply that by valuing process more than product, consensus over accomplishment, the organization is failing to respond to urgent real-world challenges in Asia. Not least among such challenges is Chinese expansion in the South China Sea (SCS) and the stated intention of incoming US president Donald Trump to pull his country out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Only four ASEAN members have claims in the SCS and only four are in the TPP, but the sea's and the treaty's futures matter for the rest of the region as well. The fact of Chinese advancement and the risk of American disengagement are endangering the autonomy and relevance of ASEAN, not to mention the repercussions of Sino-American escalation. Already weakened by internal dissensus, the group's ability to negotiate as a group with China on maritime security has been blocked by Beijing's insistence on bilateral talks. Chinese material largesse has coopted Cambodia into vetoing any ASEAN agreement to restrain, moderate, or even question China's designs on the heartwater of Southeast Asia. The ASEAN Way is being used against ASEAN itself. Heightened uncertainty as to America's future role in and commitment to the region further heightens security concern. In its 50th anniversary year, Southeast Asians would do well to think outside the increasingly marginalised, internally divided, and procedurally restricted box that ASEAN has become. Three ideas already in circulation illustrate the kind of creativity that ASEAN will need if it is to sustain its acknowledged historical success in fashioning an independent political and economic identity for Southeast Asia.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia
Authors
Donald K. Emmerson
Paragraphs

We present a game-theoretical analysis of Commission appointment in the European Union. In the model, the European Parliament and the member states look ahead and consider the outcomes that result from the appointment of alternative Commissions. In contrast to earlier work, we assume the European Parliament and the member states have incomplete information on the consequences of policies, whereas the Commission acquires private information. We find that the increased use of codecision gives the Council an incentive to appoint a Commission that is closer to the European Parliament, because the European Parliament then trusts the Commission more and the Commission is more informative as a result. Thus, we shed new light on the Spitzenkandidaten Coup that preceded the appointment of the Juncker Commission.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
European Union Politics
Authors
Christophe Crombez
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
The future of relations between China and the United States depends on the readiness of both governments to focus on resolving shared challenges, longtime journalist John Pomfret said at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) last Wednesday.
 
“The reality of the U.S.-China relationship is collaboration and competition,” said Pomfret, who served for 15 years as a foreign correspondent, describing the nature of interaction between the two countries that began to normalize relations in 1972.
 
Pomfret's remarks were delivered at a colloquium entitled, “The United States and China in the Era of Donald Trump,” which explored the unorthodox approach Donald Trump took during his campaign on a range of issues related to China, and implications for the bilateral relationship now that Trump has assumed the U.S. presidency.
 
Pomfret over the course of his journalism career spent seven years covering China, including during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and from 1998 through 2003 as the bureau chief for the Washington Post in Beijing, and recently authored the book, The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom, which examines U.S.-China relations from 1776 to the present. He won the 2007 Shorenstein Journalism Award, an annual honor conferred to a journalist who produces outstanding reporting on Asia.
 
“It’s clear that a new type of reciprocity is needed to right the balance in the U.S.-China relationship, but just whether Trump and his team have the wherewithal to do it…is very much an open question,” he said.
 
Trump continues to promise to restore manufacturing jobs in the United States, but fulfillment of that promise could come in conflict with its trade relationship with China, where much manufacturing of U.S. products takes place, he said.
 
Equally important in the U.S.-China relationship is how to address North Korea and its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles program, which remains an “extremely complicated” and pressing situation, he said.
 
Pomfret expressed uncertainty about the Trump administration’s capacity to change China’s position from the status quo, which has long supported the North Korean regime by way of trade and relaxed implementation of U.N. sanctions despite repeated provocations.
 
Yet, amidst the vague foreign policy positions projected by Trump toward China, “there is one positive, and that is that he has the Chinese off-balance,” Pomfret admitted.
 
For Pomfret, his appearance at Stanford was a bit of a homecoming; he spoke to an audience of 200 faculty, students and community members at the colloquium sponsored by the China Program and Center for East Asian Studies, the center from which he received his master’s degree in 1984.
 
Asked about the future of China and its governance, he noted that today’s China is markedly different than when he was there in the 1980s studying as a student, and later, working as a journalist. The generational changes are stark, said Pomfret, relaying a sense of optimism that the country would become more democratic over time.
 
“The amount of personal freedoms that the average Chinese person has has expanded exponentially. I think the desire of Chinese people to have more agency over their lives will continue to grow – that’s clear.”
 
Innovation will be a determinant of China’s future growth, said Pomfret, coupling the idea that societies that have knowledge-driven economies typically demand more freedoms. Without innovation, China will fall into the middle-income trap, he said, “I don’t think they want to be there; they are an incredibly proud nation.”
 
Hero Image
china uscapital reuters Reuters/Hyungwon Kang
All News button
1
Subscribe to Policy Analysis