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.
Erin Baggot Carter and Brett Carter describe how Beijing’s repression reaches all the way to American classrooms.
Ali Çarkoğlu, a political scientist specializing in elections, voting behavior, and Turkish politics, presented an analysis of Turkey's electoral dynamics from 1990 to 2023 at a CDDRL research seminar. His study focused on the interplay between social cleavages, democratic backsliding, and their impact on political competition and voter behavior. Using data from the World Values Survey and Turkish Election Studies, Çarkoğlu explored the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the enduring influence of cultural divides on Turkey’s political landscape.
Central to his analysis was the "alla Turca kulturkampf," a concept describing the deep-rooted center-periphery divide in Turkish politics. This cleavage reflects a cultural conflict between two contrasting societal visions: the Kemalist ideal of secularism, gender equality, and scientific rationalism versus the pro-Islamist focus on tradition, religion, and family values. Despite the AKP’s success in bringing peripheral groups into the state’s institutional core, these cultural divides persist as a primary source of polarization. Çarkoğlu argued that this polarization has entrenched partisan loyalty and overshadowed other factors in shaping voter behavior.
A key theme of the presentation was Turkey's democratic backsliding, characterized by the erosion of democratic institutions, curtailment of civil liberties, and electoral manipulation. Çarkoğlu noted that Turkey ranks 148th on the liberal democracy index, illustrating its significant democratic decline. He linked these trends to heightened polarization, which weakens opposition forces and reduces the influence of traditional electoral cleavages. Instead of fostering competitive elections, the political landscape is increasingly dominated by entrenched party loyalties and identity-driven politics.
The presentation also highlighted the significant social and economic changes Turkey has undergone since 1990. Urbanization surged from 61% in 1992 to 78% in 2024, while agriculture’s share of employment dropped from 45% to 17%. Economic growth has raised per capita income from $2,000 to $10,000, but inequality remains pervasive, and safety nets are inadequate. Women’s labor force participation remains low at 35%, and educational disparities persist. Household sizes have decreased, and the dependency ratio has dropped from 65 to 47 over 30 years. However, these societal shifts have had limited political consequences, as electoral dynamics remain anchored in longstanding cultural cleavages.
Çarkoğlu’s findings indicated that Turkey’s party system has remained "frozen" for the past three decades. While socio-demographic factors play a declining role in explaining voter behavior, attitudinal variables such as group identity and cultural values have gained prominence. This shift reflects how polarization has solidified, with partisan loyalty reinforcing competitive authoritarianism.
Çarkoğlu emphasized that the weakening of electoral cleavages has facilitated democratic backsliding by reducing opposition effectiveness and enabling strategic manipulation. Despite rapid social change, entrenched cultural divides and polarization have prevented political transformation. His research underscores the importance of addressing institutional decline, polarization, and social inequality to combat democratic erosion. Turkey’s experience offers critical lessons for other unconsolidated democracies facing similar challenges.
Using data from the World Values Survey and Turkish Election Studies, CDDRL Visiting Scholar Ali Çarkoğlu explores the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the enduring influence of cultural divides on Turkey’s political landscape.
This "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.
Dr. Didi Kuo is a Center Fellow at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), manager of the Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), and co-director of CDDRL's Fisher Family Honors Program. Her research focuses on democratization, political reform, corruption, and the evolution of political parties. She is the author of Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2018) and the forthcoming The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don’t (Oxford University Press, 2025). Dr. Kuo has been an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America and is a non-resident fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She received a PhD in political science from Harvard University, an MSc in Economic and Social History from Oxford University, where she studied as a Marshall Scholar, and a BA from Emory University.
I first became interested in politics growing up in the American South during the early stages of today’s polarized era. Living in a deeply conservative area during the rise of partisan media and in Newt Gingrich’s congressional district sparked my curiosity about politics and its broader implications.
In college, my interest expanded beyond American democracy. Post-Cold War debates on democratization and the U.S.’s role in promoting democracy, particularly during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11, shaped my desire to explore democracy, governance, and international policy—questions that remain critical today.
I majored in political science, pursued graduate studies in the UK, and worked at think tanks where I saw PhDs bridging research and policy. This inspired me to pursue a doctorate. After earning my PhD, I was fortunate to join CDDRL as a postdoctoral fellow, where I’ve found the ideal environment to explore these issues and contribute to broader discussions on democracy and development.
I don’t tend to think of my findings as particularly “exciting” in the traditional sense, as they often reaffirm long-standing conventional wisdom. However, one key insight that my research reinforces is that stable and thriving democratic societies require not just strong democratic institutions but also robust intermediary organizations.
My new book focuses on political parties, which are a prime example of these intermediary organizations. Much of my research highlights the importance of understanding not just what governments and institutions look like, but how they link to society. How do they connect with citizens? How do they convince citizens that government actions are meaningful and worthwhile? These are critical questions for democracy.
I believe you cannot fully grasp concepts like governance, democracy, or even state capacity without understanding the role of these intermediaries. They play a vital role in bridging the gap between institutions and the public, ensuring that democracy is not just about structures but about meaningful engagement with citizens. This finding matters because, without these linkages, even the strongest institutions risk losing public trust and legitimacy.
When I arrived at Stanford 10 years ago, I noticed a disconnect: while political science views strong political parties as essential for democratic success, public opinion often sees them as a problem. At CDDRL, I observed how many outside academia dislike or even distrust parties, despite their historical link to stability and democratic consolidation.
My book was inspired by this gap. It defends political parties, arguing that many of democracy’s challenges over the past 50 years stem from weaker parties—not stronger ones. My goal is to challenge the narrative that parties are the problem and show how strengthening them is key to addressing today’s democratic challenges.
That's a critical question. Angelo Panebianco’s 1988 concept of the "electoral-professional party" highlights how professionalized parties prioritize winning elections over grassroots connections—a trend that has only intensified with today’s competitive elections and internal party factions.
Despite electoral success through strategies like PR and micro-targeting, parties struggle to meaningfully connect with voters, leading to dissatisfaction, distrust, and rising disillusionment. This indicates that a purely electoral focus is unsustainable.
Parties are unlikely to shift strategies without electoral losses. For instance, Democrats must rebuild trust and align policies with popular interests, while Republicans face the challenge of reconciling their traditional structure with the influence of the MAGA faction.
Both parties need to balance professionalization with public engagement by fostering grassroots connections and building sustainable support. Without recalibration, they risk further alienating voters and undermining trust in democratic institutions.
That’s a great question, and we’re already seeing a partisan realignment. Historically, Democrats and left-leaning parties represented the working class, but now they increasingly draw support from highly educated urban professionals. Meanwhile, right-leaning parties, traditionally backed by elites, are gaining support from the working class.
This shift, driven by education and economic divides, challenges both parties. Democrats must balance appealing to urban professionals and working-class voters, while Republicans struggle to reconcile small-government policies with the needs of a working-class base.
State and local parties may offer insights by experimenting with coalition-building strategies, such as Democrats succeeding in rural areas or centrist Republicans challenging MAGA influence. These cleavages create both opportunities and uncertainty, and how parties manage these divisions will shape the future of U.S. partisanship.
As parties have become more professionalized, their community engagement has become episodic, focused mainly around elections. This has left advocacy and organizing to NGOs, civic groups, and social movements, many of which operate independently or are even anti-party.
To reclaim their social role, parties need to maintain a consistent presence in communities year-round, addressing local issues and collaborating with civic groups. NGOs and social movements, in turn, should see parties as potential partners rather than adversaries, working together to institutionalize their causes and foster democratic engagement.
This relationship should be a two-way street—parties investing in communities and NGOs collaborating within the party system. Together, they can rebuild connections and create a more integrated approach to representation and problem-solving.
I recommend Making Democracy Work by Robert Putnam. While Putnam is better known for Bowling Alone, this book initially captured my interest in political science. It compares governance in northern and southern Italy, introducing the concept of social capital as critical to local institutions' success. Putnam demonstrates how formal institutions and society are deeply interconnected, linking contemporary outcomes to historical legacies of conquest and political development.
Reading it in college while traveling through Italy was transformative—it brought the book to life and showed how political science connects institutions, societies, history, and economics. It’s a great introduction to the field, encouraging young researchers to tackle complex questions and piece together relationships to understand political challenges like democratic backsliding. Each piece of research adds to a larger puzzle, making this work so rewarding.
Examining democratization, political reform, and the role of political parties with FSI Center Fellow Dr. Didi Kuo.
Join us for a compelling discussion on the evolving challenges and strategies shaping China’s economy and its impact on global industrial policy. During this panel discussion, Skyline Scholars Loren Brandt from the University of Toronto and Xiaonian Xu from the China Europe International Business School, as well as Senior Fellow Mary Lovely from the Peterson Institute for International Economics will explore the slowdown of China’s economy and the structural reforms needed to address its debt and growth challenges. Scott Rozelle, Co-Director of the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions, will moderate the discussion. Panelists will examine the shifting role of industrial policy in China, its strategic and economic motivations, and its broader effects on China’s long-term trajectory, as well as how China’s policies influence U.S. policy decisions, including the role of industrial policy in an era of increasing global competition.
The discussion will begin with opening remarks at 3:15 pm on Wednesday, February 26th. We invite you to join us before the event for light refreshments.
This event is off the record.
Loren Brandt is the Noranda Chair Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto specializing in the Chinese economy. He is also a research fellow at the IZA (The Institute for the Study of Labor) in Bonn, Germany. He has published widely on the Chinese economy in leading economic journals and been involved in extensive household and enterprise survey work in both China and Vietnam. With Thomas Rawski, he completed Policy, Regulation, and Innovation in China’s Electricity and Telecom Industries (Cambridge University Press, 2019), an interdisciplinary effort analyzing the effect of government policy on the power and telecom sectors in China. He was also co-editor and major contributor to China’s Great Economic Transformation (Cambridge University Press, 2008), which provides an integrated analysis of China’s unexpected economic boom of the past three decades. Brandt was also one of the area editors for Oxford University Press’ five-volume Encyclopedia of Economic History (2003). His current research focuses on issues of entrepreneurship and firm dynamics, industrial policy and innovation and economic growth and structural change.
Mary E. Lovely is the Anthony M. Solomon Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute. She served as the 2022 Carnegie Chair in US-China Relations with the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. Lovely is professor emeritus of economics at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, where she was Melvin A. Eggers Economics Faculty Scholar from 2010 to April 2022. She was coeditor of the China Economic Review during 2011–15.
Her current research projects investigate the effect of China's foreign direct investment policies on trade flows and entry mode, strategic reform of US tariffs on China, and recent movements in global supply chains. Lovely earned her PhD in economics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and a master's degree in city and regional planning from Harvard University.
Scott Rozelle is the Helen F. Farnsworth Senior Fellow and the co-director of Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research at Stanford University. He received his BS from the University of California, Berkeley, and his MS and PhD from Cornell University. His research focuses almost exclusively on China and is concerned with: agricultural policy, including the supply, demand, and trade in agricultural projects; the emergence and evolution of markets and other economic institutions in the transition process and their implications for equity and efficiency; and the economics of poverty and inequality, with an emphasis on rural education, health and nutrition.
In recognition of his outstanding achievements, Rozelle has received numerous honors and awards, including the Friendship Award in 2008, the highest award given to a non-Chinese by the Premier; and the National Science and Technology Collaboration Award in 2009 for scientific achievement in collaborative research.
Dr. Xiaonian Xu is Professor Emeritus at CEIBS, where he held the position of Professor of Economics and Finance from 2004 to 2018. In recognition of his contributions, he was named an Honorary Professor in Economics from September 2018 to August 2023.
Dr. Xu earned his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Davis, in 1991, and an MA in Industrial Economics from the People's University of China in 1981. In 1996, he was awarded the distinguished Sun Yefang Economics Prize, the highest honor in the field in China, for his research on China’s capital markets. His research interests include Macroeconomics, Financial Institutions and Financial Markets, Transitional Economies, China’s Economic Reform, Corporate Strategy and Digital Transformation. His publications include: Freedom and Market Economy, There has Never been A Savior, China: Market Economy or Planned Economy, the Nature of the Business and the Internet, and the Nature of the Business and the Internet, 2nd Edition.
A dedicated educator, he has been recognized with the CEIBS Teaching Excellence Award in 2005 and 2006, as well as the esteemed CEIBS Medal for Teaching Excellence in 2010.
Encina Hall, William J. Perry Room C231
616 Jane Stanford Way
This event will be held in-person only, registration is required.
Encina Hall, East Wing, Room 413
Office Hours:
Select Wednesdays | 2:00-5:00 PM
Please schedule a meeting in advance
Loren Brandt is the Noranda Chair Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto specializing in the Chinese economy. He is also a research fellow at the IZA (The Institute for the Study of Labor) in Bonn, Germany. He has published widely on the Chinese economy in leading economic journals and been involved in extensive household and enterprise survey work in both China and Vietnam. With Thomas Rawski, he completed Policy, Regulation, and Innovation in China’s Electricity and Telecom Industries (Cambridge University Press, 2019), an interdisciplinary effort analyzing the effect of government policy on the power and telecom sectors in China. He was also co-editor and major contributor to China’s Great Economic Transformation (Cambridge University Press, 2008), which provides an integrated analysis of China’s unexpected economic boom of the past three decades. Brandt was also one of the area editors for Oxford University Press’ five-volume Encyclopedia of Economic History (2003). His current research focuses on issues of entrepreneurship and firm dynamics, industrial policy and innovation and economic growth and structural change.
Encina Hall, East Wing, Room 014
Office Hours:
Select Mondays | 3:00-5:00 PM
Please schedule a meeting in advance
Dr. Xiaonian Xu is Professor Emeritus at CEIBS, where he held the position of Professor of Economics and Finance from 2004 to 2018. In recognition of his contributions, he was named an Honorary Professor in Economics from September 2018 to August 2023.
Between 1999 and 2004, Dr. Xu served as Managing Director and Head of Research at China International Capital Corporation Limited (CICC). Before joining CICC, he was a Senior Economist at Merrill Lynch Asia Pacific, based in Hong Kong from 1997 to 1998, and worked as a World Bank consultant in Washington DC in 1996. Dr. Xu was appointed Assistant Professor of Amherst College, Massachusetts, where he taught Economics and Financial Markets from 1991 to 1995. Earlier in his career, he was a research fellow at the State Development Research Centre of China from 1981 to 1985.
Dr. Xu earned his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of California, Davis, in 1991, and an MA in Industrial Economics from the People's University of China in 1981. In 1996, he was awarded the distinguished Sun Yefang Economics Prize, the highest honor in the field in China, for his research on China’s capital markets. His research interests include Macroeconomics, Financial Institutions and Financial Markets, Transitional Economies, China’s Economic Reform, Corporate Strategy and Digital Transformation. His publication includes: Freedom and Market Economy, There has Never been A Savior, China: Market Economy or Planned Economy, the Nature of the Business and the Internet, and the Nature of the Business and the Internet, 2nd Edition.
A dedicated educator, he has been recognized with the CEIBS Teaching Excellence Award in 2005 and 2006, as well as the esteemed CEIBS Medal for Teaching Excellence in 2010.
The interactions between bureaucratic agencies and political actors shape governance outcomes, yet scholars disagree about how bureaucratic autonomy relates to government quality. Some claim that enhancing autonomy improves quality, whereas others maintain the opposite. An influential article by Fukuyama (2013) in Governance suggests a curvilinear relationship, moderated by capacity. This article evaluates the theory empirically, focusing on within-country variation and two dimensions of autonomy: independence and discretion. Drawing on an original survey of over 3200 public sector workers in Brazil and administrative data on 325,000 public servants, we find evidence suggesting that the relationship between perceived autonomy and quality depends on the type of perceived autonomy and level of capacity. Public servants' perceptions of independence from political actors are associated with increased perceptions about governance quality in a linear fashion. For perceived discretion, we find initial evidence of a Goldilocks relationship: too little reduces perceptions of government quality but so does too much, especially in low-capacity areas. Our findings offer initial evidence that may qualify claims that limiting bureaucratic discretion while increasing political oversight improves governance; instead, context may be crucial.
The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law’s (CDDRL) Leadership Academy for Development (LAD) is pleased to announce a new partnership with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group, to deliver a new executive education program for senior public sector leaders and decision-makers in structuring and implementing sustainable Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure development.
LAD is an executive training program for government officials and business leaders from emerging markets and developing economies. Its goal is to help the private sector become a constructive force for economic growth and development. The program teaches carefully selected participants how to be effective reform leaders, promoting sound public policies in sometimes complex settings.
This new partnership will provide case-based, tailored education to senior public sector leaders, leveraging the expertise of Stanford faculty and the IFC’s unparalleled experience in mobilizing private investment for critical infrastructure investments worldwide.
Subject areas include the establishment of strong legal and regulatory frameworks for infrastructure investment, capacity development in public sector PPP institutions, navigating political considerations in infrastructure development, integrating climate and sustainability goals into infrastructure planning, and assessing the costs, benefits, and risks of major infrastructure projects. The program will empower participants with the skills to deliver infrastructure policy solutions and projects that are sustainable, bankable, and which create value for money for their constituents.
“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.”
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 Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law’s (CDDRL) Leadership Academy for Development (LAD) is embarking on a new partnership with the International Finance Corporation to educate senior leaders on infrastructure policy, governance, and public-private partnerships.
Joong-Seop Kim joins the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) as visiting scholar for the 2025 calendar year. He currently serves as Emeritus Professor in the Department of Sociology at Gyeongsang National University in Korea. While at APARC, he will conduct research on human rights and racism in East Asia.
He has written and edited numerous books and articles on social movements, human rights, and historical sociology. His notable publications include The Hyongpyong (Egalitarian) Movement in Retrospect: Commemorating the Centennial Anniversary of the Hyongpyongsa (2025); Hyongpyong Movement and the Era of Human Rights (co-ed., 2023); Localization of Human Rights: For the Implementation of Human Rights in Everyday Life (2016); Toward an Egalitarian Society: A Comparison between Korean Hyongpyongsa and Japanese Suiheisha (2015); The Korean Paekjong under Japanese Rule: The Quest for Equality and Human Rights (2003, in English); Hyongpyong Movement (2001, 2003 in Japanese); The Era of Social Movements: Historical Sociology of Local Community under Japanese Colonial Rule (2012); The Outlook for Human Rights in the Era of Globalization (co-ed., 2004; 2004 in Japanese); A Study of Hyongpyong Movement: Social History of Paekjong Under Japanese Rule (1994). (All works are in Korean unless otherwise indicated.)
After earning his BA and MA from Yonsei University in Korea, he completed his PhD at Hull University in the United Kingdom in 1989.
Story last updated December 15, 2024
On December 3, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol abruptly declared martial law in a dramatic response to the political deadlock that has stymied his tenure, only to rescind the decision six hours later, sparking widespread protests and plunging the nation — one of the United States’ closest allies — into turmoil.
What were Yoon’s motivations? What happens now? What are the implications of the dramatic events for South Korea’s democracy?
Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea and the director of APARC and its Korea Program, has written extensively about South Korea’s democratic decay and is the co-editor of the volume "South Korea’s Democracy in Crisis: The Threats of Illiberalism, Populism, and Polarization" (Shorenstein APARC, 2022). This news roundup highlights Shin's commentary on Korea's political turmoil, published in national and international media. We update it as this developing story unfolds.
Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our scholars' commentary and analysis >
Elected in 2022 by a razor-thin margin of less than one percentage point over his left-wing rival, Yoon entered office as a political outsider with an unyielding approach to leadership. “He may have been a successful prosecutor, but he entered politics without much preparation,” Shin told the Financial Times. “He is completely out of touch if he thought he could run the country through martial law.”
Yoon came into power in a toxic political environment, where democratic norms have become increasingly rare. Korean politics, shaped by a winner-take-all electoral system and a dominant presidency, has further heightened the tensions between the executive and legislative branches, writes Shin in a Stanford University Press blog post, explaining the historical and sociopolitical contexts of Yoon’s martial law declaration and its aftermath.
Yoon has been a “lame duck” president since the opposition Democratic Party (DP) secured a landslide victory in the April 2024 National Assembly elections. His audacious martial law declaration was “a surprising last-ditch move to grab political power" in the face of steadily falling approval ratings, Shin told AFP and Vox. But this move “is basically political suicide” that “will only fasten the demise of his political career," Shin added.
On the morning following his short-lived martial law bid, members of the DP submitted a motion to impeach Yoon. “He really has two options: resign or face impeachment,” Shin said in an interview with BBC Newsday. Yoon has lost the public trust, legitimacy, and even his mandate to rule the country. “He should resign, it's better for him and the country, but I doubt that he will,” noted Shin, predicting a political ruckus over impeachment during the coming days and weeks. Watch the complete interview below:
Should Korean citizens be worried about the future of their democracy? Yes and no, explained Shin in an interview on NPR’s "All Things Considered." In the short term, there will likely be significant political instability and societal uncertainty, with potential economic repercussions, he said. In the long run, however, Shin believes that Korea’s strong democratic institutions will ensure its democracy will prevail. He emphasized that he remains optimistic and encouraged by how swiftly and decisively the martial law attempt failed. Listen to the conversation:
Martial law was last imposed in South Korea in 1980 by Chun Doon Whan, a general who seized power through a coup after the 1979 assassination of President Park Chung Hee — himself a former general who had also used martial law to crack down on student-led dissent during his rule. Chun brutally suppressed civilian protests in the city of Kwangju in May 1980. Many Korean people, including Shin, who was a student at the time, still hold painful memories of this violent episode in Korean history. Shin reflected on that period in an interview on WBUR’s OnPoint program (listen starting 35:24).
But the situation today is very different from when South Korea was fighting against dictatorship, Shin told The Washington Post. “Democracy was not given to the Korean people. It was hard fought and won,” he said. “I believe Korean democracy will come out stronger after this.”
This week’s turn of events has highlighted “both the vulnerabilities and resilience of South Korean democracy”, Shin told the Financial Times. It has exposed challenges and problems including polarization, potential executive overreach, and weakened public trust, "but the swift rejection of martial law by the National Assembly and public outcry demonstrated strong institutional checks, civic engagement, and the opportunity to reinforce democratic safeguards.”
Yoon justified the imposition of martial law as a measure to protect South Korea from the threats of North Korea's communist threat and prevent gridlock by “anti-state” forces, referring to the DP, his liberal opposition.
“I am sure North Korea will be watching the situation very closely and may issue a statement condemning the martial law [...] Other than that, I don't think they will take any immediate action,” Shin told Newsweek in the hours before Yoon reversed course, predicting that Yoon’s ploy would be short-lived as it would face fierce national resistance.
The United States, which has around 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, was unaware of Yoon's intention to declare martial law. The White House voiced relief over Yoon’s decision to rescind his martial law bid, emphasizing that the United States reaffirms its “support for the people of Korea and the U.S.-ROK alliance based on shared principles of democracy and the rule of law.” Shin believes the alliance is resilient enough to weather Korea’s political turmoil. "I don't think the situation will affect the alliance that much," he remarked on NPR’s "All Things Considered."
What's next for South Korea after the martial law crisis? If Yoon does not resign, then the main opposition party will pursue impeachment. The National Assembly must vote on the motion within 72 hours after it is introduced, and the Constitutional Court has 180 days to make a ruling. A snap election would follow if impeachment is upheld, explains Shin.
The conservative People Power Party (PPP) will need to evaluate carefully the political landscape and their election prospects, and might not necessarily abandon President Yoon. “There is a difference between voting to stop martial law and voting in favor of an impeachment that would likely guarantee an opposition victory in the snap election to follow,” Shin told TIME Magazine.
While PPP leader Han Dong-hoon, once Yoon's protégé, has urged the president to resign, citing “significant risks” to the nation, impeachment poses a tough choice for the ruling party, which remains haunted by the 2017 impeachment of Park Geun Hye, Shin explains in the Journal of Democracy. Conservative leaders lost the snap election following Park's removal and faced intense political retribution under her liberal successor, Moon Jae In. History could repeat itself now, although DP opposition leader Lee Jae Myung is facing trial on multiple criminal charges. "This alternative to Yoon does not appear as promising for Korean democracy as one would hope," Shin notes.
Yoon's doomed power grab is "a stern warning to the world: People should take democratic backsliding in their countries seriously," Shin concludes his Journal of Democracy essay. "If such an event can happen in Korea — an advanced nation long regarded as an exemplary case of the 'third wave' of democratization — then it can happen anywhere that is experiencing similar democratic challenges. This is a critical lesson for democracies worldwide."
As Shin expected, President Yoon avoided impeachment on Saturday, December 7, after PPP lawmakers boycotted a parliamentary vote on the impeachment motion proposed by opposition parties, despite massive public protests outside the National Assembly.
The PPP defended its decision, stating it acted to prevent "severe division and chaos" and pledged to address the crisis "responsibly." PPP leader Han Dong-hoon claimed Yoon had agreed to step down and would be "effectively excluded from his duties," with the prime minister and party taking over governance in the interim.
“I don't think Korean people have the patience to wait for this plan to work out,” said Shin in a BBC News interview. He explained that the ruling PPP is trying to buy time, but Yoon will have to go sooner or later. The opposition parties have declared their intent to file an impeachment motion against Yoon every week until it is passed. With growing public anger and mounting demonstrations, pressure on the ruling party is expected to intensify, Shin said. Watch:
As Yoon clung to power, the National Assembly passed a bill on December 10 mandating a special counsel to investigate insurrection charges against him. The ruling party "might delay the demise of Yoon's tenure but won't prevent it — its road will be messier," Shin told AFP.
Shin is concerned that this crisis in political leadership and the resulting leadership vacuum spell trouble for South Korea on the world stage. The nation already faces mounting foreign policy challenges with President-elect Trump’s anticipated policies and a new prime minister in Japan. It’s unclear how it can effectively navigate critical issues involving the United States, Japan, North Korea, and China amidst such instability, Shin told BBC News.
On December 14, South Korea's National Assembly voted to impeach Yoon, passing the motion 204-85 (including a dozen ruling party members) as jubilant crowds celebrated a triumph for the country’s democracy. Yoon's presidential duties were suspended, and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo will take over as acting president. The Constitutional Court now has 180 days to decide whether to remove Yoon from office or reinstate him. If he is removed, a national election to select his successor must be held within 60 days.
Shin believes the likelihood the Constitutional Court will overturn the impeachment is low, as Yoon’s constitutional violations appear quite clear. “Certainly, Yoon will go down in Korean history as a very poor political leader,” he remarked in the latest interview with BBC News, several hours after the impeachment vote.
The day after the passage of the impeachment bill, Han Dong-hoon announced his resignation as leader of the ruling People Power party, saying his position had become untenable after he backed Yoon’s impeachment. The PPP is in turmoil, attempting to buy time to be better prepared for the potential snap election that could follow than it was in the 2017 scenario, Shin explained, expressing skepticism about the PPP’s chances of success. Watch the interview:
The crisis offers Korean people an opportunity to reflect on their tumultuous democratic journey and push for necessary reforms stymied by political calculations, Shin writes on Stanford University Press’ blog. He explains that addressing the negative consequences of the nation’s extremely powerful presidency and the winner-take-all voting system requires constitutional and electoral reforms.
“Korea’s political culture must also change,” Shin emphasizes. “Demonizing opponents, divisive identity politics, and insular political fandoms and populism have no place in a healthy democracy.”
As political chaos plays out in South Korea following President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived martial law attempt, Stanford sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the director of APARC and its Korea Program, analyzes the fast-moving developments.
Once a centralizing force of the democratic process, political parties have eroded over the past fifty years. In her new book, The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don't, Didi Kuo explores the development of political parties as democracy expanded across the West in the nineteenth century. While parties have become professionalized and nationalized, they have lost the robust organizational density that made them effective representatives. After the Cold War, the combination of a neoliberal economic consensus, changes to campaign finance, and shifting party priorities weakened the party systems of Western democracies. In order for democracy to adapt to a new era of global capitalism, The Great Retreat makes the case for stronger parties in the form of socially embedded institutions with deep connections to communities and citizens.
Kuo will give a brief talk about the book before being joined by Jake Grumbach, Julia Azari, and Bruce Cain for a panel discussion.
Didi Kuo is a Center Fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. Her research interests include democratization, political parties, state-building, and the political economy of representation. She is the author of The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave - and Why They Don't (Oxford University Press, 2025) and Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy: the Rise of Programmatic Politics in the United States and Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2018). She was an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America, is a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and is an adjunct fellow at the Niskanen Center.
Jake Grumbach is an associate professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. He was previously associate professor of political science at the University of Washington and a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics at Princeton.
He studies the political economy of the United States, with interests in democratic institutions, labor, federalism, racial and economic inequality, and statistical methods. His book, Laboratories Against Democracy (Princeton University Press 2022), investigates the causes and consequences of the nationalization of state politics.
Before graduate school, he earned a B.A. from Columbia University and worked as a public health researcher. Outside of academia, he's a nerd for 70s funk/soul and 90s hip hop, as well as a Warriors fan.
Julia Azari is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University. An active public-facing scholar, she has published commentary on presidential and party politics in FiveThirtyEight, Politico, Vox, The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, and The Guardian.
Her scholarly work has appeared in journals such as The Forum, Perspectives on Politics, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Foreign Affairs, and Social Science History. She has contributed invited chapters to books published by the University Press of Kansas, University of Pennsylvania Press, Cambridge University Press, and University of Edinburgh Press. Azari is the author of Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate (Cornell, 2014), coeditor of The Presidential Leadership Dilemma (SUNY, 2013), and co-editor of The Trump Legacy (under contract, University Press of Kansas).
Bruce E. Cain is a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West. He received a BA from Bowdoin College (1970), a B Phil. from Oxford University (1972) as a Rhodes Scholar, and a Ph D from Harvard University (1976). He taught at Caltech (1976-89) and UC Berkeley (1989-2012) before coming to Stanford. Professor Cain was Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley from 1990-2007 and Executive Director of the UC Washington Center from 2005-2012. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2000 and has won awards for his research (Richard F. Fenno Prize, 1988), teaching (Caltech, 1988 and UC Berkeley, 2003), and public service (Zale Award for Outstanding Achievement in Policy Research and Public Service, 2000). His areas of expertise include political regulation, applied democratic theory, representation, and state politics. Some of Professor Cain’s most recent publications include “Malleable Constitutions: Reflections on State Constitutional Design,” coauthored with Roger Noll in University of Texas Law Review, volume 2, 2009; “More or Less: Searching for Regulatory Balance,” in Race, Reform and the Political Process, edited by Heather Gerken, Guy Charles and Michael Kang, CUP, 2011; and “Redistricting Commissions: A Better Political Buffer?” in The Yale Law Journal, volume 121, 2012. He is currently working on a book about political reform in the US.
In-person: William J. Perry Conference Room (Encina Hall, 2nd floor, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)
Online: Via Zoom
Encina Hall, C150
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Didi Kuo is a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University. She is a scholar of comparative politics with a focus on democratization, corruption and clientelism, political parties and institutions, and political reform. She is the author of The Great Retreat: How Political Parties Should Behave and Why They Don’t (Oxford University Press, forthcoming) and Clientelism, Capitalism, and Democracy: the rise of programmatic politics in the United States and Britain (Cambridge University Press, 2018).
She has been at Stanford since 2013 as the manager of the Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective and is co-director of the Fisher Family Honors Program at CDDRL. She was an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America and is a non-resident fellow with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She received a PhD in political science from Harvard University, an MSc in Economic and Social History from Oxford University, where she studied as a Marshall Scholar, and a BA from Emory University.
The event will be broadcast live from this webpage and YouTube.
Join the third annual conference of Big Data China, a collaborative project by CSIS Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics and Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions (SCCEI). China experts in the policy and academic communities will discuss the key challenges in U.S.-China relations, recent shifts in China's economic governance, and the global implications of technology competition with China.
Moderator: Scott Kennedy, CSIS
Panelists:
Wendy Cutler, Asia Society Policy Institute
Bonnie S. Glaser, German Marshall Fund Indo-Pacific
Dennis Wilder, Georgetown University
Moderator: Scott Rozelle, Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions
Panelists:
Ling Chen, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Andrew Polk, Trivium China
Margit Molnar, OECD
Logan Wright, CSIS
Moderator: Ilaria Mazzocco, CSIS
Panelists:
Greg Allen, CSIS
Rebecca Arcesati, MERICS
Samm Sacks, Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center
Kevin Xu, Interconnected
![[Left to right]: Michael McFaul, Marshall Burke, Steven Pifer, Oriana Skylar Mastro, Didi Kuo, and Amichai Magen on stage.](https://fsi9-prod.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/styles/375x211_x2/public/2024-10/fsi_reunion_2024_panel_hero.png?h=c4d9845d&itok=tBJruaUE)
