The Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL) has received two grants to offer guidance for more effective U.S. foreign policy strategies in Asia and propose structural reforms that propel the region toward growth, innovation, and democratic resilience. The first grant, from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), supports SNAPL's policy engagements with stakeholders in Washington, D.C., forthcoming this September. The second grant, from Stanford Global Studies, funds a series of SNAPL-hosted research workshops throughout the 2024-25 academic year.

Both funded initiatives underscore SNAPL's commitment to generating evidence-based policy recommendations and promoting transnational collaboration with academic and policy institutions to advance the future prosperity of Asia and U.S.-Asia relations.

Housed at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), SNAPL is led by Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea, a senior fellow at FSI, and the director of APARC and the Korea Program. The lab’s mission is to address emergent social, cultural, economic, and political challenges facing Asia-Pacific countries and guide effective U.S. Asia policies through interdisciplinary, comparative research and collaboration with academic and policy research institutions in Asia and the United States.  

“We are grateful to FSI and Stanford Global Studies for supporting SNAPL's interdisciplinary, policy-relevant research,” says Shin. “The two grants provide a tremendous boost as we work to contribute evidence-based recommendations to advance a more nuanced understanding of Asia's role in global affairs and informed new directions for U.S. Asia policies.”

Policy Considerations for U.S.-China and U.S.-Asia Relations

With a grant from FSI to support policy engagement, SNAPL team members will share research findings from several of the lab’s flagship projects. The SNAPL team — including Shin, Research Fellow Xinru Ma, and Postdoctoral Fellows Gidong Kim and Junki Nakahara — will travel to Washington, D.C. in September 2024 to present these findings at forums and meetings with academic and policy communities. The trip includes a joint symposium with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a presentation at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, and meetings with think tanks and Congress members.

Three core projects the team will share guide U.S. policies in Asia, particularly toward China. The first project challenges many pundits’ framing of the U.S.-China competition as a “new Cold War.” In contrast to this narrative, a recent SNAPL study reveals that contemporary U.S.-China relations are markedly different from the U.S.-Soviet Cold War dynamics. “Our analysis of over 41,000 Congressional speeches spanning 36 years suggests that current U.S. discourses on China mirror those on the past economic competition with Japan rather than the ideological or military conflicts with the USSR in the Cold War era,” says Ma. “Applying Cold War analogies to today's geopolitical landscape would thus misguide efforts to navigate current U.S.-China tensions.”

The research findings from a second SNAPL study offer a better understanding of how U.S. alliance relationships and U.S.-China tensions shape public attitudes toward China in the Asia-Pacific region. Furthermore, another study challenges the conventional wisdom that democracy promotion gives the U.S. a competitive edge in its foreign policy over China. “Our research indicates that liberal values do not serve as a key lens through which Asia-Pacific citizens view recent geopolitical developments,” notes Kim. “The United States should therefore pivot from focusing on liberal rhetoric to emphasizing its role in promoting shared benefits with Asia-Pacific citizens in economic, trade, and military security areas.”

These studies are part of SNAPL’s U.S.-Asia Relations research track.

Racism in Global Context

At George Washington University, the SNAPL team will discuss findings from a project the lab explores as part of another research track, Nationalism and Racism. Recognizing that racism is a global problem with diverse roots and manifestations, this research track examines how nationalism and racism intertwine to create forms of exclusion and marginalization in Asia and provides policy recommendations to advance more inclusive societies in the region and beyond.

At this discussion, to be hosted by the Elliott School of International Affairs’ Sigur Center for Asian Studies, the team will present findings from a study that analyzes how 16 Northeast, Southeast, and South Asian nations discuss and justify their positions on race and racial discrimination. “Our study reveals various forms of racism ‘denial’ rooted in nationalist and religious ideologies, hindering efforts to address ongoing inequalities,” says Nakahara. “Addressing these forms of denial is crucial for promoting critical dialogue on race and racism in Asia and dismantling systems of oppression in the region and elsewhere.”

A Platform for Interdisciplinary Research on Contemporary Asia

SNAPL’s second grant, awarded by Stanford Global Studies, will enable the lab to host throughout the 2024-25 academic year a research workshop series focused on projects from the two research tracks above. Involving scholars and students from Stanford and Asia, the six-part series will foster cross-disciplinary dialogue and share policy-relevant findings grounded in the lab’s research.

The four workshop installments in fall and winter quarters 2024 will be dedicated to the projects discussed above. The spring quarter 2025 workshops will focus on two additional projects: one that examines the discursive construction of U.S. rivals and the respective roles of the media, executive, and legislative branches in this process, and the second that investigates elite articulation of “multiculturalism” in four Asia-Pacific nations.

“These workshops will be invaluable to advancing exchange and partnerships with academics and experts from Stanford and across Asia,” says Shin. “They directly promote SNAPL’s mission to serve as a platform that facilitates trans-Pacific, network-based collaboration."

Visit SNAPL's website for information about the workshops’ schedule and discussion topics.

The panelists began their election analysis with a discussion of the structural features of American democracy and then addressed the issues, strategies, and stakes central to November’s race.

Cain began his remarks by highlighting a longstanding and escalating concern about the American democratic structure: tension between electability and governance. Rather, that the negative partisanship necessary during the election process has proven incompatible with the bipartisan negotiations required to govern. This, coupled with campaign finance — which, among other things, has complicated the incentive and power structures of political parties — has fueled inefficiency and political frustration.

Jefferson argued that a persistent feature of American democracy is the influence of race on political outcomes. While various identities may shape Americans' political attitudes and behaviors, race, he contended, is unparalleled in its impact. As one example, Black Americans have long been "steadfast Democrats," while no Democratic Party nominee has received a majority of the white vote since 1964.

Referring to comparative politics scholarship, Jefferson noted that, in some ways, the Republican Party functions as an "ethnic party." He pointed out that Trump’s success in generating and consolidating his base is directly tied to white identity politics. Trump has relied on grievance politics to gain power, speaking to white, middle-class American voters who feel left behind and resentful of what they believe is a changing racial order. Positioning himself as their spokesman and defender, Trump attempts to reassure these voters that, if he returns to power, he will defend their place in America's racial hierarchy.

While Cain and Jefferson touched on American democracy’s organizing features, Canes-Wrone brought the conversation back to the current election cycle, highlighting prediction models and key issues. The polls, Canes-Wrone believes, are accurate, yet with such slim confidence intervals, the election is still too close to call.

Contrary to popular portrayal in the media, historical evidence suggests that bounces from the convention and vice presidential picks are rarely pivotal, if impactful at all. However, qualifies Canes-Wrone, this cycle is unprecedented, leaving an opportunity for a break in the trend.

Moving to discuss the issues, Canes-Wrone underscores that the candidates are following traditional political strategy — placing emphasis on the issues that favor them and de-emphasis on those that don’t. The Harris campaign has focused its efforts on abortion rights and threats to democracy, whereas Trump remains fixated on immigration and the economy. Unfortunately for Harris, post-COVID inflation and immigration remain the top issues, and her position is further complicated by the inability to heavily criticize her own administration.

To conclude their remarks, the panelists turned to the issue of gender: is the United States really ready to have a woman in the presidency? Canes-Wrone remarked that while survey data indicates that gender bias on the issue has diminished, it is not yet zero. In other political offices, women now win at equal rates to men, but with one caveat — far more expertise is required. There also appears to be far more sexism attached to executive offices, a reality Trump is likely to exploit. Perhaps luckily for Harris, there is one traditional argument the Republican nominee may have difficulty leveraging against her: it's not so easy to argue that a former prosecutor isn't tough on crime.