gaps persist between stakeholders. This is exacerbated by the lack of clear, standardized specifications from NATO, leading to inconsistent implementation and operational friction. Second, at its core, this is an intelligence-sharing challenge: member states operate under different national frameworks, threat perceptions, and priorities, which influence what information they are willing (or unwilling) to share. Third, the fragmentation of sharing systems is not merely a technical hurdle but often a deliberate choice made for operational and security reasons, reflecting concerns over sovereignty, data protection, and strategic advantage.

While technological advancements can enhance interoperability, they alone will not drive adoption. Our research highlights that the underlying issue is one of trust and incentives—NATO must establish mechanisms that encourage collaboration beyond just technological solutions. Without a strong foundation of mutual trust, transparency, and shared benefits, even the most advanced systems will face resistance. Creating sustainable incentives for participation—whether through policy alignment, risk reduction assurances, or value-added intelligence sharing—will be essential in fostering a more effective and unified cyber defense posture within NATO.

A key component of our project involves conducting in-depth research and stakeholder interviews focused on Mongolia's "Billion Trees Initiative," where we will be seeking actionable insights to scale up the initiative effectively and sustainably.

influencers work with politicians to coordinate these influence operations and shape public opinion. Our policy recommendations will address how governments and civil societies can work together to tackle this issue.

Australian Space Agency and U.S. Defense Innovation Unit, the goal of this project is to leverage Australia's strategic geographic position and investment in reentry infrastructure to mitigate the hurdles that U.S. commercial startups experience accessing military ranges for reentry. Our project aims to create a robust foundation for the development of orbital return capabilities in Australia, fostering greater commercial and national security collaboration between the U.S. and Australia.

to computational resources acts as a barrier to adoption. India has a thriving tech sector, and openly available AI models have the potential to democratize access to this trailblazing technology. At the same time, AI is expensive to build and deploy, and access to the specialized computational resources needed to do so is limited even for top Indian companies. Our team aims to develop solutions in partnership with Digital Futures Lab that can help bolster the AI ecosystem across India.

that contribute to this issue. During our fieldwork, we will explore community- and government-driven programs aimed at preventing and combating trafficking. Our final report will analyze existing policies, pinpoint gaps, and propose community-led interventions to address them.

The "Meet Our Researchers" series showcases the incredible scholars at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). Through engaging interviews conducted by our undergraduate research assistants, we explore the journeys, passions, and insights of CDDRL’s faculty and researchers.

How has infrastructure development been used to gain influence in diplomacy? How has our understanding of that tool changed since BRI, and how successful has it been for China?

Infrastructure development has always been a problematic tool for amassing geopolitical influence; it builds friendships when loans are going out, then creates enemies once they’re issued. A recent example is the 1997 Asian financial crisis when Western countries had invested in power plants throughout the continent, only for many countries to default and expropriate. This has happened repeatedly throughout history.

While China’s done quite well at protecting its economic interests in infrastructure projects, it's a mixed bag due to the prevalence of moral hazard, public backlash, and the tarnishing of diplomatic ties. With the state being so heavily involved in BRI, China intervenes when countries want to default or expropriate, protecting its interests and those of state-owned enterprises effectively. However, this can lead to a moral hazard problem because these enterprises feel too protected by China and act without the appropriate caution while building risky projects.

Today, many countries that have received BRI lending have serious relational problems with China, if not at the government level, then among the public. People tend to push back and feel taken advantage of when a foreign country comes in and builds projects, especially with rumor mills churning out narratives about China’s 'debt-trap diplomacy.' These diplomatic challenges were true long before the BRI and persist today.

Why do countries, through BRI or other means, decide to take on infrastructure projects they obviously can’t afford?

Countries often don’t behave rationally — politics, corrupt officials, and conflicting interests all affect policymaking. Also, everyone builds infrastructure projects that may bankrupt them, partly due to an ingrained optimism bias in the infrastructure sector.

We’re in the worst developing country debt crisis in modern history, and countries are having a difficult time navigating a changing infrastructure lending landscape. China is now the largest bilateral lender, and its absence from international organizations like the Paris Club prevents the unified action needed to allow countries to emerge from debt crises. Even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is struggling to help them, as it is cautious about issuing aid to countries with murky BRI loans to pay back.

Funding for infrastructure development can be used as an incentive for democratization through conditionality on loans. However, many countries are turning away from traditional Western lending institutions in favor of alternative lenders with fewer conditions. How can we balance the importance of conditionality and incentivizing democratization while preventing the decreased reliance on Western institutions?

Conditionality can be positive in promoting democratization, but there have to be limits to it, especially because it becomes less effective when alternative lenders like China exist. Conditionality began as limited to policies that promote democratization, development, and liberalization but has metastasized to the point where lenders are pushing a wide range of policies on borrower countries. Many of these conditions, such as environmental or social protections, are good policies but can be viewed as a manifestation of Western imperialism within these countries. These programs also become futile when countries become simply incentivized to seek Chinese loans instead, which have virtually no conditionality.

Is the turn away from Western lending institutions an inevitable shift, or can policy changes encourage its prodominance again, if that’s something that we want?

Western institutions are better for infrastructure development, as organizations like the World Bank are the best at protecting human rights and preventing environmental disasters. There are also strategic and security reasons for promoting Western institutions — for example, we don’t want Chinese technology companies building telecommunications grids in other countries.

The bigger question is, what would a return to a Western-dominated model of investment look like? Pre-BRI, there was an open, liberal system of direct investment from private companies. BRI represented a pivot to more state-driven investment. Should the US shift to a similar model, or return to private direct investment fueling infrastructure development? The Biden administration’s alternative to BRI for state-driven investment was the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). Despite mutual investment in telecommunications and renewable energy, PGII focuses on developing very different sectors than BRI, building social impact projects like healthcare infrastructure.

What is the most exciting or impactful finding from your research, and why do you think it matters for democracy, development, or the rule of law?

I’m focusing on how liberal democracies can get building again, so I researched flaws in domestic infrastructure projects within the US. It revealed how the judicial system was an engine fueling how infrastructure projects are conducted; I realized the extent to which permitting regulation and environmental litigation had been driving my own incentives when I was a bureaucrat. Decisions are often made in response to case law and to ‘litigation-proof’ projects, which can incentivize inefficient and expensive project management. I believe democracies are perfectly capable of building infrastructure projects well, but problems in current building initiatives, from the California High-Speed Rail to our housing crisis, are rooted in the outsized effects of the threat of lawsuits.
 

How do you see your research influencing policy or contributing to real-world change?

I do research on practical public-private partnership policy in the United States, working with the Build America Center and the Department of Transportation to directly supply the government with research when needed.

There are policy changes that must occur to promote effective infrastructure development. The US will have to reform institutions that predated BRI to adapt to today’s post-BRI world. The three key institutions are the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Trade Organization (WTO). I hope that my ideas can influence their restructuring. For domestic development, I’m continuing my work with the Build America Center on how governments can more efficiently procure infrastructure projects and help public officials adopt best practices.

Lastly, what book would you recommend for students interested in a research career in your field?

The first book, which is extraordinarily boring but crucial to infrastructure development, is The Strategic Management of Large Engineering Projects: Shaping Institutions, Risks, and Governance. Written by Miller, Lessard, Michaud, and Floricel, it includes the perspectives of MIT engineers on infrastructure project case studies to understand why so many have failed. For some great history, the economist Raymond Vernon’s book Sovereignty at Bay develops the idea that relationships sour over international investment and that it’s not an effective diplomatic tool.

“Our new program with the IFC builds on a decade and a half’s worth of experience in developing mid-career training for public leaders on policy implementation, which has been critical both to economic growth and to democratic legitimacy,” said Francis Fukuyama, LAD co-founder and Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University.

“The last decade has been a period of profound change in emerging markets infrastructure finance,” added Michael Bennon, Program Manager for CDDRL’s Global Infrastructure Policy Research Initiative. “This program is so timely because the success or failure of infrastructure development increasingly hinges on the capacity and governance of public institutions.”

“I am delighted that LAD has forged this new partnership with IFC,” shared Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of CDDRL. “By equipping participants to address immediate infrastructure challenges, this new program will lay a foundation for long-term, sustainable economic development in complex political, cultural, and economic environments.”

About IFC

IFC is the largest global development institution focused on the private sector in emerging markets. For more than 60 years, it has leveraged the power of the private sector for global good. Today, it’s using that experience to transform ideas into investments for green growth, inclusive jobs, and impactful projects.

“Delivering strong, bankable PPPs requires planning, strong infrastructure governance, innovative thinking, and close cooperation between partners,” said Linda Munyengeterwa, Global Director of IFC’s Public-Private Partnerships and Corporate Finance Advisory Services. “When it comes to PPPs, governments need to consider all their projects and prioritize and screen projects to determine which are most suited to the PPP model and which are better procured publicly. This training will help key decision makers advance their understanding of key issues affecting the feasibility and success of PPPs to help them leverage their infrastructure programs to better deliver economic and social benefits for their citizens.” 

the Taiwanese cables to the Matsu Islands have been cut 27 times, most recently in spring 2023. Our final report and presentation will analyze Taiwan’s current emergency management and resiliency plans, identify areas of improvement, and present solutions to fix these gaps. All of us care deeply about democracy and the rule of law, and the security of Taiwan against PRC aggression is central in the fight for those ideals. Our hope is that this work helps in some small way to improve the security of Taiwan and its people.

need resources to be aware of online risks and the best measures to protect themselves. Netsafe has yet to find the most effective way to appeal to this demographic group.

We aim to understand the demographic's most frequently used online platforms, the most common types of online harms, cultural factors, and relevant stakeholders.

disinformation operations with near impunity. We’re particularly interested in how the development of new tools and tactics – like commercial firms’ use of paid influencers, or generative AI – will aid in further obscuring attribution and scaling operations. Our policy recommendations will address how governments, international organizations, and platforms can tackle this issue.

tools. Our research focuses on how the different state PDOs in Brazil can collaborate and share AI tools to help reduce their demand and better serve their clients. The goal is for AI to be a "shared public infrastructure" that multiple PDOs can use to serve their clients.

integrating solutions available at scale for the public. We aim to recommend policy interventions which reflect local demand, ensuring sustainable, efficient, and accessible transportation solutions for the community.

government interventions, local control of stock numbers, or strong market incentives, herds exceed the grassland carrying capacity in pockets that are becoming increasingly degraded. This threatens nomadic pastoralism, a traditional way of life. With such complex and interlinked drivers to this problem, it has been challenging to isolate the causes we should focus on. We have been working with our partners at The Asia Foundation who are in the early stages of piloting a solution.

these interventions have not led to a widespread growth in mini-grid development, as the industry continues to struggle. We hope to further explore the market and regulatory landscape and learn how sub-interventions including cross-subsidization, de-risking investment, demand creation, and other innovative and locally-based solutions may help improve the industry’s viability and aid in increasing access to affordable, renewable energy in Sierra Leone.