Encina Hall, Bechtel Conference Center
Panel Discussion followed by Keynote with Dr. Chelsea Clinton & Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Researchers analyzed three decades of sanctions on foreign aid to assess their impact on health. They hope the work can help government officials better understand and address how foreign policy decisions affect the well-being of local populations.
The COVID-19 crisis was a profound stress test for health, economic, and governance systems worldwide, and its lessons remain urgent. The pandemic revealed that unpreparedness carries cascading consequences, including the collapse of health services, the reversal of development gains, and the destabilization of economies. The magnitude of global losses, measured in trillions of dollars and millions of lives, demonstrated that preparedness is not a discretionary expense but a foundation of macroeconomic stability. Countries that invested early in surveillance, resilient systems, and inclusive access managed to contain shocks and recover faster, proving that health security and economic security are inseparable.
For the Asia-Pacific, the path forward lies in transforming vulnerability into long-term resilience. Building pandemic readiness requires embedding preparedness within fiscal and development planning, not as an emergency measure but as a permanent policy function. The region’s diverse economies can draw on collective strengths in manufacturing capacity, technological innovation, and strong regional cooperation to institutionalize the four pillars— globally networked surveillance and research, a resilient national system, an equitable supply of medical countermeasures and tools, and global governance and financing—thereby maximizing pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. Achieving this will depend on sustained political will and predictable financing, supported by the catalytic role of multilateral development banks and international financial institutions that can align public investment with global standards and private capital.
The coming decade presents a narrow but decisive window to consolidate these gains. Climate change, urbanization, and ecological disruption are intensifying the probability of new zoonotic spillovers. Meeting this challenge demands a shift from episodic response to continuous readiness, from isolated health interventions to integrated systems that link health, the environment, and the economy. Strengthening regional solidarity, transparency, and mutual accountability will be vital in ensuring that no country is left exposed when the next threat emerges.
A pandemic-ready Asia-Pacific is not an aspiration but an imperative. The lessons of COVID-19 call for institutionalized preparedness that transcends political cycles and emergency budgets. By treating health resilience as a global public good, the region can turn its experience of crisis into a model of sustained, inclusive security for the world.
Building a Pandemic-Ready Asia-Pacific
Gordon founded the Social Entrepreneurship Collaboratory (SE Labs) at Stanford, Harvard and Princeton. He teaches about the design, development and leadership of innovative social impact ventures in global health and environmental sustainability.
At Stanford, Gordon is director of the Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation Lab (SE Lab)- Human & Planetary Health and is a faculty fellow of the Center for Innovation in Global Health. He is a Lecturer in the School of Medicine, Division of Primary Care and Population Health/Dept. of Medicine, and an advisor in the Distinguished Careers Institute (DCI), and the Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program, and cofounder of the Stanford Sustainable Societies Lab.
At Harvard, Gordon taught jointly on the faculties of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health (Health Policy & Management) and the Harvard Kennedy School (Management, Leadership & Decision Sciences) and served as an Expert-in-Residence (EiR) at the Harvard Innovation Lab (i-Lab), and affiliated faculty at the Center for Primary Care, Harvard Medical School (HMS). He was faculty director of the Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation Lab (SE Lab) for US & Global Health, an incubator course taught in a new interdisciplinary, collaborative model based at the i-Lab. He has also served as an Entrepreneur-in-Residence (2013-2014) at Harvard Business School in the Rock Center for Entrepreneurship, on the Faculty of Arts & Sciences in the Sociology Department, at the Harvard Kennedy School, on the Leadership & Management faculty, and as a principal of the Hauser Center for Non-Profit Organizations (2004-2007). Gordon served as one of the founding faculty of the $10 million Reynolds Fellows Program in Social Entrepreneurship, a Center for Public Leadership and Harvard President’s interdisciplinary fellowship initiative that paid full tuition and stipend for graduate students from the Harvard Kennedy School, School of Public Health and Graduate School of Education.
At Princeton, Gordon served as Dean’s Visiting Professor in Entrepreneurship in 2009-2010. Working together with the School of Engineering & Applied Science, the [Woodrow Wilson] School of Public & International Affairs, and the Faculty of Arts & Sciences, he launched a new set of programs and prizes in social innovation and entrepreneurship in collaboration with students, faculty and alumni.
At Stanford in 2001-2002, Gordon created the SE Lab, a Silicon Valley and technology–influenced, interdisciplinary incubator for social impact ventures and global problem solving. Gordon taught on the Public Policy Program and Urban Studies Program faculties (School of Humanities & Sciences) and served as a faculty affiliate at the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and a Program Officer at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Many of the talented students and fellows in Gordon’s SE Labs have won the top awards of prestigious idea and business plan competitions, including those at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton and MIT.
Gordon is a co-author in the edited volume Frontiers in Social Innovation (N. Malhotra, ed., Harvard Business Review Press, 2022) and Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change (A. Nicholls, ed., Oxford University Press, 2006/2008) and served as a founding member of the Oxford/Ashoka led University Network for Social Entrepreneurship. His interest in entrepreneurship is informed by work in both the private and nonprofit sectors in the U.S. (New York, Cambridge, Palo Alto), Europe (London, Paris) and Asia (Hong Kong), as CEO of a medical technology company (EDAP Technomed, USA) and in international strategy consulting (Bain & Co. Ltd.).
Gordon is married to Sara Singer- they on occasion teach together at Stanford, have a daughter Audrey and son Jason, and live in the Frenchman's Hill residential section of campus.
At the national level, the United States struggled to effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: federal policy was delayed and inconsistent, supply shortages were widespread, and political pressure undermined accurate public health guidance. At the state and local levels, however, there was a great deal of variation in terms of the capacity to respond to COVID. While indicators of state capacity often focus on “formal” indicators like institutional resources, staffing, and finances, translating formal capacities into effectively implemented policies is neither a simple nor an automatic process.
In “Building the Plane While Flying,” Didi Kuo and Andrew S. Kelly draw our attention to the importance of informal indicators of public health capacity. These include strong relationships within and across government agencies, the embeddedness of health officers in local communities, and prior experience with responding to disasters, among other factors. The authors argue that local governments with strong informal capacity were better able to communicate with and learn from one another, as well as to gain the trust of community members, during the pandemic. Conversely, localities with otherwise strong formal capacities often failed to respond to the challenges at hand. This is because they were unable to effectively leverage their relationships and organizational networks.
Kuo and Kelly’s paper is informed by qualitative analysis of California’s public health institutions as well as in-depth interviews with health officers across seventeen Northern, Central, and Southern California counties. The interviews illuminate the concrete processes by which local governments responded (or struggled to respond) to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the paper’s key contributions is to push us to conceptualize state capacity more broadly and to focus on the factors that drive not just policy development, but policy implementation.
The bulk of the paper disaggregates informal capacity into its various mechanisms and processes. Each of these proves to be crucial in explaining different pandemic outcomes at the local level. One such mechanism is coordination within local governments. To illustrate this, consider public health officers, who enjoy broad legal powers to protect public health as well as financial resources and personnel at their disposal. By law, officers possess significant capacities to mitigate health crises. Yet across the interviews, health officers reported that effectively implementing COVID-19 policy required their cooperation and communication with a host of actors, including the County Counsel (the county’s top lawyer), Chief Administrative Officer, and Board of Supervisors, which is charged with appointing health officers.
Closely related to intra-governmental coordination is the importance of autonomy, particularly in the face of political pressure. For example, boards of supervisors sometimes undermined the public guidance provided by health officers. (This guidance could range from the need to close schools to officers simply communicating truthfully with localities about COVID-19 risks.) Overcoming efforts by board members to ignore or muzzle officers required coordination between those actors who were more insulated from political pressure.
Another key component of informal capacity was prior experience responding to emergencies and California’s myriad of natural disasters, such as fires, floods, or mudslides. Health officers from more experienced counties noted their ability to draw upon established emergency procedures and partnerships. For example, some counties had previously cooperated with each other, as well as with independent agencies like the Red Cross, to provide aid and shelter to those affected by wildfires. These experiences — for which no amount of financial resources or personnel can substitute — served as templates to help coordinate COVID-19 policy responses.
Informal capacity also depended upon health departments effectively communicating with the public. Many departments initially lacked the infrastructure to do this, and therefore relied on cooperation with other actors like school superintendents, sheriffs, and community leaders. Some counties created toolkits to improve their community’s understanding of personal protective equipment (PPE) or even produced local TV shows. Still others scheduled conference calls with local hospitals, faith leaders, and nursing homes. Given that many of these communication efforts were improvised, public health officers stressed the importance of formalizing coordination between state and nonstate actors so as to improve emergency preparedness in the future.
In addition to coordination within local governments, effective policy-making and communication required coordination across governments. One such institution was the Association of Bay Area Health Officers (ABAHO), founded in the 1980s during the HIV/AIDS epidemic. ABAHO members had also coordinated policy responses to the H1N1 outbreak. These cross-county partnerships enabled early, rapid, and unified responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. By contrast, the authors find that regions without such networks faced greater challenges in developing and implementing public policy.
A final aspect of informal capacity is the social embeddedness of health officials in their communities. This includes partnerships with leaders of businesses and faith groups, teachers, and restaurant owners. Not only did these partnerships increase the scope of outreach, but they also often established relationships that had not existed beforehand. Gaining a foothold in local communities thus increased the likelihood that community members would support policies and enabled local governments to access hard-to-reach populations.
Kuo and Kelly’s analysis of informal capacity should give us pause when considering existing indices of public health preparedness; some of these have ranked the United States quite high despite its often ineffective responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. That this mismatch occurs is arguably a function of observers prioritizing formal capacities. For federal, decentralized countries like the US, informal capacities and relationships are essential not only for delivering services but for generating legitimacy and trust among those receiving services.
*Research-in-Brief prepared by Adam Fefer.
CDDRL Research-in-Brief [3.5-minute read]
Public health infrastructure varies widely at the local, state, and national levels, and the COVID-19 response revealed just how critical local health authority can be. Public health officials created COVID policies, enforced behavioral and non-pharmaceutical interventions, and communicated with the public. This article explores the determinants of public health capacity, distinguishing between formal institutional capacity (i.e., budget, staff) and informal embedded capacity (i.e., community ties, insulation from political pressures). Using qualitative data and interviews with county health officers in California, this article shows that informal embedded capacity—while difficult to measure—is essential to public health capacity. It concludes by relating public health capacity to broader issues of state capacity and democracy.
Shorenstein APARC's annual report for the academic year 2023-24 is now available.
Learn about the research, publications, and events produced by the Center and its programs over the last academic year. Read the feature sections, which look at the historic meeting at Stanford between the leaders of Korea and Japan and the launch of the Center's new Taiwan Program; learn about the research our faculty and postdoctoral fellows engaged in, including a study on China's integration of urban-rural health insurance and the policy work done by the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL); and catch up on the Center's policy work, education initiatives, publications, and policy outreach. Download your copy or read it online below.
Hanwen Zhang is an academic editor at the Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions. He grew up in Shanghai, China and graduated in 2024 with a B.A. in Sociology and Psychology from Middlebury College, where he studied public beliefs and decision-making about inequality. While at SCCEI, Hanwen will be working with the Rural Education Action Program and hopes to use his cross-cultural background to build a community for scholars.
Yunwei is a Postdoctoral Scholar at Stanford University, with a background training in global health economics. Prior to joining Stanford, she earned a PhD in Health Policy and Management (Economics Track) from the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2024. Her research explores innovative solutions for effective delivery of public health interventions in resource-limited settings with rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Her current research agenda is centered on integrating digital health technologies to develop comprehensive and tailored interventions for children and mothers living in resource-limited settings during crucial developmental stages, aiming for both effectiveness and scalability.
Shorenstein APARC's annual report for the academic year 2022-23 is now available.
Learn about the research, publications, and events produced by the Center and its programs over the last academic year. Read the feature sections, which look at Shorenstein APARC's 40th-anniversary celebration and its conference series examining the shape of Asia in 2030; learn about the research our postdoctoral fellows engaged in; and catch up on the Center's policy work, education initiatives, publications, and policy outreach. Download your copy or read below: