Policy Analysis
Paragraphs

In contrast to its decentralized political economy model of the 1980s, China took a surprising turn towards recentralization in the mid-1990s. Its fiscal centralization, starting with the 1994 tax reforms, is well known, but political recentralization also has been under way to control cadres directly at township and village levels. Little-noticed measures designed to tighten administrative and fiscal regulation began to be implemented during approximately the same period in the mid-1990s. Over time these measures have succeeded in hollowing out the power of village and township cadres. The increasing reach of the central state is the direct result of explicit state policies that have taken power over economic resources that were once under the control of village and township cadres. This article examines the broad shift towards recentralization by examining the fiscal and political consequences of these policies at the village and township levels. Evidence for this shift comes from new survey data on village-level investments, administrative regulation and fiscal oversight, as well as township-level fiscal revenues, expenditures, transfers (between counties and townships) and public-goods investments.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
The China Quarterly
Authors
Jean C. Oi
Kim Singer Babiarz
Scott Rozelle
Paragraphs

When seeking to build high quality and cost-effective infrastructure in rural villages, a fundamental question is: Who is better at doing so? Should the village leadership or a government agency above the village finance and/or manage the construction of the infrastructure project? To answer this question, we surveyed all rural road projects in 101 villages in rural China between 2003 and 2007 and measured the quality and per kilometer cost of each road. According to our analysis, road quality was higher when more of the project funds came from the government agency above. Moreover, projects had lower cost per kilometer when the village leaders managed the road construction. Overall, our findings suggest that to build high quality and cost-effective rural roads village leaders and government agencies should collaborate and each specialize in a specific project role.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Journal of Development Economics
Authors
Ho Lun Wong
Scott Rozelle
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
All News button
1
Authors
Amy Zegart
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

In a world complicated by terrorism, cyber threats and political instability, the private sector has to prepare for the unexpected. Amy Zegart, CISAC co-director, the Hoover Institution’s Davies Family Senior Fellow, and co-author (along with Condoleezza Rice) of Political Risk: How Businesses And Organizations Can Anticipate Global Insecurity, explains lessons learned in keeping cargo planes moving, hotel guests protected – and possibly coffee customers better served.  

Hero Image
All News button
1
-

The Republic of China on Taiwan spent nearly four decades as a single-party state under dictatorial rule (1949-1987) before transitioning to liberal democracy. This talk is based on an ethnographic study of street-level police practices during the first rotation in executive power following the democratic transition (i.e. the first term of the Chen Shui-bian administration, 2000-2004). Summarizing the argument of a forthcoming book, Dr. Jeffrey T. Martin focuses on an apparent paradox, in which the strength of Taiwan's democracy is correlated to the weakness of its police powers. Martin explains this paradox through a theory of "jurisdictional pluralism" which, in Taiwan, is  organized by a cultural distinction between sentiment, reason, and law as distinct foundations for political authority. An overt police interest in sentiment (qing) was institutionalized during the martial law era, when police served as an instrument for the cultivation of properly nationalistic political sentiments. Martin's fieldwork demonstrates how the politics of sentiment which took shape under autocratic rule continued to operate in everyday policing in the early phase of the democratic transformation, even as a more democratic mode of public reason and the ultimate power of legal right were becoming more significant.


Image
jmart
Jeffrey T. Martin is an assistant professor in the Departments of Anthropology and East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. He specializes in the anthropological study of modern policing, and has conducted research in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the USA. His research interests focus on historical continuity and change in police culture, especially as this culture reflects specific changes in the legal, bureaucratic, or technical dimensions of police operations. Prior to joining the University of Illinois, Dr. Martin taught in the Sociology Department at the University of Hong Kong, and in the Graduate Institute of Taiwan Studies at Chang Jung Christian University.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey T. Martin <i>Assistant Professor, Anthropology and East Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign</i>
Seminars
Authors
Nicole Feldman
News Type
Blogs
Date
Paragraphs

Facebook and Congress Must Create Regulations Together

Featuring Eileen Donahoe, executive director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator and Allison Berke, executive director of the Stanford Cyber Initiative. Both programs are housed at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). Written by Nicole Feldman.

For the past two days, the United States Senate and House of Representatives grilled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on everything from user privacy to platform bias to Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Though prompted by Cambridge Analytica’s improper use of user data, Zuckerberg’s testimony provided a broader platform to talk about Facebook’s role in today’s increasingly digital world and regulation for the tech industry as a whole. FSI scholars Eileen Donahoe and Allison Berke give us their top take-aways from Zuckerberg’s testimony.

 
Photo of Eileen Donahoe

Eileen Donahoe

 

There were two big “take-aways” from Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress this week.

Digital privacy is a form of security that matters to Facebook users and to citizens in our democracy.

The good news that came out of the hearings is that the American public and our representatives in Congress are waking up to the importance of citizens’ privacy in our democracy, as well as to the consequences of the loss of privacy for freedom and security. The Cambridge Analytica — Facebook saga has succeeded in bringing to public consciousness a significant security threat to our democracy, which until now has been relatively invisible in public debate: how failure to protect user’s digital privacy can have real world consequences for democratic processes, national security, and citizens’ liberty. Earlier un-nuanced assertions expressed by many in the technology community that “privacy is over” and users don’t care about how their data is shared, can no longer function as a dominant operating assumption. The hard reality ahead of us is how challenging it will be to protect citizens’ privacy in a context where digital platforms, tools and services are intertwined with our daily lives. The bottom line is that digital platforms now will be required to have much more nuanced conversations with their users about the tradeoffs of using free services in exchange for monetizing personal data. This will have consequences for Facebook’s business model and all freemium digital services.

Congressional hearings are not an adequate vehicle for educating legislators about how to regulate digital platforms.

The range of complex, multilayered challenges that must be tackled to optimally govern digital platforms in democracy cannot be addressed effectively through a brief set of public hearings. Many Senators and members of Congress displayed a lack of understanding of how Facebook works, which strands of the debate warrant deeper inspection, or which issues must be prioritized to protect the liberty and security of citizens on digital platforms. Representatives jumped around from one subject to the next — from political bias in restricting content on Facebook, to whether Facebook is a monopoly, to whether citizens own their data, to the efficacy of user consent to terms of service — without adequately framing any of these important subjects. In effect, the Senate and Congressional hearings themselves were shown to be poor vehicles for deepening regulators’ knowledge or helping progress toward an optimal approach to regulating Facebook or other digital platforms. Other than moving toward passage of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D), Mark Warner (D), and John McCain(R), which regulates political advertising on digital platforms in the same way as on television and radio, our representatives are not yet well-prepared to regulate digital services. A different mode of engagement between government representatives and technology companies must be developed, if legislators want to help protect citizens in the digital realm, while also allowing users to continue to enjoy the benefits of digital platforms they have come to rely upon in their daily lives.

 
Photo of Allison Berke, executive director of the Stanford Cyber Initiative at FSI.

Allison Berke, executive director of the Stanford Cyber Initiative at FSI. Working across disciplines, the Stanford Cyber Initiative aims to understand how technology affects security, governance, and the future of work.

Mark Zuckerberg prepared for his testimony as though expecting to face hostile opposing counsel. His notes — leaked, ironically, by a press photographer when left open on his table during a bathroom break — show prepared language to address calls for his own resignation, and for compensation for users whose data was improperly shared, though these topics were not raised during questioning. Despite promising to work with legislators on regulations, Zuckerberg stopped short of proposing specific measures. Though he voiced his support of the Honest Ads Act, when asked if he would return to Washington to aid its passage, he offered someone on his team instead and noted that he “doesn’t come to Washington too often.” The implications, both that he doesn’t need to and that he doesn’t want to be involved in forming regulations, revealed a relationship between Facebook and lawmakers with distance, shading from incomprehension to distrust to antagonism, on both sides.

Many of those watching the hearings noted the Senators’ and Representatives’ clunky and repetitive lines of questioning, their difficulty choosing the precise terminology to communicate the technological gist of their inquiries, and the inability of a five-minute oral format to properly convey — and convey strictly enough to reign in a witness looking for a question’s easiest possible interpretation — the nuance in, for example, the points made by Senators Blunt and Wicker about Facebook’s cross-platform tracking between a device hosting a logged-in Facebook app and a device registered to the same user but lacking the Facebook login.

One could imagine a more collegial relationship between Facebook and Washington DC, in which representatives would have discussed their questions with Zuckerberg and his team at greater length, and perhaps behind closed doors, and could use the testimonial hearing format to place prior agreements and understandings on the record. Facebook’s apparent openness to exploring regulation should be taken as an opportunity by policymakers, both to craft regulation that may need to be complex — to cover the myriad ways in which data can be collected and mixed, and to ensure that a savvy company can’t avoid both compliance and detection — and to forge a closer relationship between the tech giant and its community representatives. That may require Zuckerberg visiting Washington a little more often, and it will also require the acquisition of more technological knowledge and expertise by legislators and their staff, which may require them to visit Silicon Valley more, too.


Views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies or Stanford University, both of which are nonpartisan institutions.

 

Hero Image
All News button
1
-

The Consequences of Technological Developments for Politics and Government

Tuesday, April 24, 2018


Reception at 5:00pm. Talk from 5:30pm - 6:45pm.

RSVP required online.

The consequences of contemporary technological innovations for the lives and values of future generations are enormous. The wide range of expected – and unexpected – applications require rethinking governance arrangements, legal regimes, economic structures, and social relations. Exploration of such topics is the subject of the 2017-18 CASBS symposium series.

The first symposium, held in November 2017, focused on “AI, Automation, and Society.” Read about and view a video of that event here.

The second symposium, held in March 2018, involved “The Effects of Technology on Human Interactions.” View the event video here.

In this final installment of the 2017-18 series, CASBS presents a conversation featuring two 2017-18 CASBS fellows – Stanford professor Nate Persily, an expert on law, democracy, and the internet; and Carrie Cihak, a senior policy expert and practitioner at one of the most innovative county governments in the U.S. They will outline the challenges that recent technology-based advances pose to democracy, public policy, and governance systems. Social media platforms increasingly are viewed as vehicles for exploiting political discourse, rather than as democratizing forces. How should our institutions respond? Though modern technological innovations more easily connect people, what are the implications for issues of “digital equity,” government capacity, and regulatory frameworks? Though the positive impacts are substantial, how do we address the numerous negative impacts of the technology sector’s concentration in certain regional economies – including the San Francisco Bay Area and the greater Seattle area? These are just a few questions that will stimulate a thought-provoking discussion between the panelists and with the audience.

 


 

As Chief of Policy for King County Executive Dow Constantine, the highest ranking elected official of King County, WA, the 13th largest county in the United States, Carrie S. Cihak is responsible for identifying the highest priority policy areas and community outcomes for leadership focus and for developing and launching innovative solutions to issues that are complex, controversial and cross-sectoral. She is an architect of some of the county’s key initiatives, such as Best Starts for Kids as well as nationally-recognized work on equity and social justice. Prior to her work in Constantine’s administration, Cihak served for eight years as a senior-level analyst for the King County Council and as lead staff for the King County Board of Health. She also served as a staff economist on international trade and finance for President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. As a policy fellow during the 2017-18 academic year, Cihak is leading projects at CASBS and in King County that advance meaningful collaboration between academic researchers and governments. She is spearheading efforts in King County on evidence-informed decision making and is co-director of CASBS’s Impact Evaluation Design Lab, launched in March 2018. She is also using time at CASBS to explore the science and evidence-base of belonging, while working back home to help launch a cross-sector partnership called “You Belong Here,” which seeks to build civic muscle and inclusive growth in the Seattle region.


Nate Persily is the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, with appointments in the departments of political science, communication and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Prior to joining Stanford, Persily taught at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and as a visiting professor at Harvard, NYU, Princeton, the University of Amsterdam, and the University of Melbourne. His scholarship and legal practice focus on American election law or what is sometimes called the “law of democracy,” which addresses issues such as voting rights, political parties, campaign finance, redistricting, and election administration. He has served as a special master or court-appointed expert to craft congressional or legislative districting plans for Georgia, Maryland, Connecticut, New York and, most recently, North Carolina. He also served as the Senior Research Director for the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. In addition to numerous articles (many cited by the Supreme Court) on the legal regulation of political parties, issues surrounding the census and redistricting process, voting rights, and campaign finance reform, Persily is coauthor of an election law casebook, The Law of Democracy. As a fellow at CASBS supported by the Annenberg Foundation, he is examining the impact of changing technology on political communication, campaigns, and election administration. In 2016, he received an Andrew Carnegie Fellowship to pursue this work. Persily also co-directs the Stanford Project on Democracy and the Internet.

 

*There will be valet parking at the event.

Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University
75 Alta Road
Stanford, CA 94305

Nate Persily The James B. McClatchy Professor of Law Stanford Law School
Carrie Cihak Chief of Policy for King County Executive Dow Constantine King County, Washington
Lectures
-

Please note: RSVP's are full for this event. Please email PLABOON@STANFORD.EDU to add your name to the waitlist.

 

During its March 2018 National People’s Congress (NPC) meeting, the PRC’s national delegates voted nearly unanimously to eliminate term limits for China’s president and vice president. Alongside this dramatic announcement, the NPC further announced drastic re-organization of Party and state such that the Chinese state administration saw significant cuts, consolidation and centralization of power under the CCP.

At this watershed moment, leading experts on Chinese politics will examine what these Constitutional changes bode for China’s future and Xi Jinping’s rule. Are these game changers? Is China abandoning key parts of Deng Xiaoping’s legacy?  How will these affect China’s authoritarian resilience or governance system going forward?  What are the short- and long-term implications of this decision for China’s continuing stability, sustained economic growth and foreign policy?

Please join us for this special panel event with top China experts as they discuss the significance and implications of the recent NPC decisions and Constitutional amendments.


Image
fewsmith
Joseph Fewsmith is professor of international relations and political science at the BU Pardee School. He is the author or editor of eight books, including, most recently, The Logic and Limits of Political Reform in China (January 2013). Other works include China since Tiananmen (2nd edition, 2008) and China Today, China Tomorrow (2010). Other books include Elite Politics in Contemporary China (2001), The Dilemmas of Reform in China: Political Conflict and Economic Debate (1994), and Party, State, and Local Elites in Republican China: Merchant Organizations and Politics in Shanghai, 1890-1930 (1985). He is one of the seven regular contributors to the China Leadership Monitor, a quarterly web publication analyzing current developments in China. Fewsmith travels to China regularly and is active in the Association for Asian Studies and the American Political Science Association. His articles have appeared in such journals as Asian Survey, Comparative Studies in Society and History, The China Journal, The China Quarterly, Current History, The Journal of Contemporary China, Problems of Communism, and Modern China. He is an associate of the John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Studies at Harvard University and the Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer Range Future at Boston University.

 

Image
gallagher
Mary Gallagher is professor of political science at the University of Michigan as well as the director of the Kenneth G. Lieberthal and Richard H. Rogel Center for Chinese Studies. She received her Ph.D. in politics in 2001 from Princeton University and a B.A. from Smith College in 1991.  In 1989, she was a foreign student in China at Nanjing University. Gallagher later taught at the Foreign Affairs College in Beijing from 1996-1997 and was a Fulbright Research Scholar from 2003 to 2004 at East China University of Politics and Law in Shanghai, China. In 2012-2013, she was a visiting professor at the Koguan School of Law at Shanghai Jiaotong University. Her book, Authoritarian Legality in China: Law, Workers, and the State is out from Cambridge University Press this year. Gallagher have also written/edited several other books, including Contagious Capitalism:  Globalization and the Politics of Labor in China (Princeton 2005), Chinese Justice: Civil Dispute Resolution in Contemporary China (Cambridge 2011), From Iron Rice Bowl to Informalization:  Markets, Workers, and the State in a Changing China (Cornell 2011), and Contemporary Chinese Politics: New Sources, Methods, and Field Strategies (Cambridge 2010).

 

Image
miller
Alice Miller is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and lecturer in East Asian studies at Stanford. Miller first joined the Hoover Institution in 1999 as a visiting fellow. She also served as a senior lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, 1999-2014. Before coming to Stanford, Miller taught at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC. From 1980 to 1990, she was a professorial lecturer in Chinese history and politics at SAIS. From 1990 to 2000, she was an associate professor of China studies and, for most of that period, director of the China Studies Program at SAIS. She also held a joint appointment as adjunct associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Johns Hopkins from 1996 to 1999 and as adjunct lecturer in the Department of Government, Georgetown University, from 1996 to 1998. From 1974 to 1990, Miller worked in the Central Intelligence Agency as a senior analyst in Chinese foreign policy and domestic politics and as a branch and division chief, supervising analysis on China, North Korea, Indochina, and Soviet policy in East Asia. Miller has lived and worked in Taiwan, Japan, and the People’s Republic of China; she speaks Mandarin Chinese.

 

Image
Shih
Victor Shih is an associate professor of political economy at University of California, San Diego, and has published widely on the politics of Chinese banking policies, fiscal policies and exchange rates. He was the first analyst to identify the risk of massive local government debt, and is the author of Factions and Finance in China: Elite Conflict and Inflation. Prior to joining U.C. San Diego, Shih was a professor of political science at Northwestern University and former principal for The Carlyle Group.Shih is currently engaged in a study of how the coalition-formation strategies of founding leaders had a profound impact on the evolution of the Chinese Communist Party. He is also constructing a large database on biographical information of elites in China.

 

Joseph Fewsmith <br><i>Professor of International Relations and Political Science, Boston University, Pardee School</i><br><br>
Mary Gallagher <br><i>Professor of Political Science; Director, Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan</i><br><br>
Alice Miller <br><i>Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University</i><br><br>
Victor Shih <br><i>Associate Professor, School of Global Policy & Strategy, University of California, San Diego</i><br><br>
Conferences
Subscribe to Policy Analysis