CDDRL Mosbacher director Francis Fukuyama spoke with Alexander Görlach for The WorldPost about U.S. President Donald Trump, the populist wave sweeping Europe and “fake news.” Read here.

"Since 1978, China’s authoritarian political system has been different from virtually all other dictatorships in part because the ruling Communist Party has been subject to rules regarding succession. Term limits for senior leadership have kicked in at regular 10-year intervals three times so far, and the party’s system of cultivating and training new leaders to replace the outgoing ones had allowed it to avoid the stagnation of countries like Egypt, Zimbabwe, Libya or Angola, where presidents ruled for decades. But all of this is out the window now because of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent announcement that term limits on the presidency will be abolished. This means that he will likely be China’s ruler for the rest of his life, turning at one stroke an institutionalized autocracy into a personal one. This builds upon the massive cult of personality he has been cultivating, with “Xi Jinping Thought” now canonized in the Constitution alongside Chairman Mao," writes CDDRL Mosbacher Director Francis Fukuyama in Washington Post. Read the article here. 

—SPICE: Offering teacher institutes since 1973—

In 1973, the roots of the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE) were established with the creation of the Bay Area China Education Program, which focused on the development of K–12 curriculum materials and teacher professional development. Only a year prior, President Richard Nixon had made his historic trip to China and many American students were able to view contemporary images of China on television for the first time in their lifetimes. Teachers who attended SPICE institutes on China in the 1970s often commented that they were at a loss about how to teach about China.

Forty-four years later, a new generation of educators expressed similar sentiments at a SPICE institute. However, the challenge wasn’t so much about the teaching of China but rather the teaching of North Korea. Thus, when Pulitzer Prize-winning author Adam Johnson spoke about his book, The Orphan Master’s Son, a New York Times bestselling novel about North Korea, teachers were riveted by his comments. Teachers were interested not only in ways that his novel could help them better understand contemporary North Korea but also in ways they could use the book to help their students gain a more balanced view of North Korea. The 22 teacher participants received copies of The Orphan Master’s Son to use in their teaching and were offered two SPICE curriculum units titled Inter-Korean Relations: Rivalry, Reconciliation, and Reunification and Uncovering North Korea.  

Co-sponsored by the National Consortium for Teaching about Asia (NCTA), the SPICE summer institute, July 24–26, 2017, had the objectives of (1) deepening teachers’ understanding of Asia, U.S.–Asian relations, and the Asian-American experience; (2) providing teachers with teaching resources; and (3) creating a community of learners. The institute featured lectures by Stanford faculty (like Johnson), U.C. Berkeley faculty, and other experts on a range of Asia- and Asian-American-related topics closely aligned with the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools standards, which were recently revised. Interactive curriculum demonstrations by SPICE staff were also offered.

One such standard focuses on recent economic growth in China. Following a lecture by Thomas Fingar, Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center Fellow, on “Recurring Themes in U.S.–China Relations,” a curriculum demonstration on the SPICE curriculum unit, China in Transition: Economic Development, Migration, and Education, was offered by its author, Rylan Sekiguchi of SPICE. One teacher remarked, “I teach about China, and it was so helpful to hear someone with such deep expertise [Fingar] speak about U.S.–Chinese history in a way that enriches my knowledge and understanding to bring back some bigger themes to my teaching. I can’t wait to bring this content back to my students [through the SPICE curriculum].” Other scholarly lectures on Japan and Korea were also followed by curriculum demonstrations by SPICE staff. This coupling of lectures and curriculum demonstrations has been a hallmark of SPICE since its inception.

Updated History-Social Science Framework standards on the Asian-American experience were also addressed at the institute. Dr. Khatharya Um, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, introduced the diverse cultural and historical backgrounds of the Asian-American student population which often comprises a significant percentage of students in schools in areas like the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. She emphasized the importance of acknowledging individual circumstances in minority student populations and breaking down commonly cited stereotypes of Asian Americans as being a critical element of effective teaching. One of the topics that she addressed was stereotypes of Japanese Americans that arose following the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor. Her lecture was coupled with the sharing of first-hand experiences by Dr. Joseph Yasutake, who was interned at the age of nine. Dr. Yasutake’s talk stimulated discussions on civil liberties, race relations, discrimination, and American identity among the teachers. “Hearing history from one who has experienced it as well as studied and taught the history is really wonderful,” said one institute participant. “This combination brings a great amount of authority and well as authenticity to the narrative he [Yasutake] provides.” The SPICE curriculum unit, Civil Rights and Japanese-American Internment, was recommended as a resource for teachers.

The institute brought together both experienced mentor teachers and those new to the field. Naomi Funahashi, who organized and facilitated the institute, remains in communication with many of the teachers and has noticed that a community of learners, who are committed to a long-term exploration of Asian and Asian-American studies, has grown from the institute. She reflected, “One of the unexpected outcomes of the institute was the recommendations that many of the teachers have written in support of their students’ applications to my online class on Japan called the Reischauer Scholar Program. My hope is that some of my students will someday attend SPICE institutes as teachers and that SPICE institutes will continue to serve teachers as they have since 1973 for many decades to come.”

SPICE is currently recruiting teachers to attend its 2018 summer institute for middle school teachers (June 20–22, 2018) and summer institute for high school teachers (July 23–25, 2018).

To stay informed of SPICE-related news, follow SPICE on Facebook and Twitter.

The migration of highly-skilled professionals from their home countries—a phenomenon known as brain drain—poses pressing challenges for less-developed countries. Some experts even question whether it is wise to invest in higher education in these countries, as the educated students and professionals may permanently leave for better opportunities elsewhere. Could brain drain, however, have a silver lining? What should less-developed countries do to be competitive in the war for global talent?

Professor Gi-Wook Shin, Director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, has co-published a working paper, “From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation and Linkage,” that examines these questions, drawing on case studies in Asia. In the following conversation, Shin sits down with Noa Ronkin, APARC’s associate director for communications and external relations, to explain his findings and their policy implications.

Why did you decide to study brain drain and the factors that motivate high-skilled professionals from less-developed countries to return to or engage with their home countries?

My research interest in this subject stems from my own personal experience. I was born, raised, and educated up to college in South Korea. When I left to attend graduate school in the United States, I had every intention to return to South Korea, yet I am still here. Am I a case of brain drain for South Korea? From a conventional perspective, the answer is yes. If, however, we examine the question from a different perspective, in the context of globalization and increasing human mobility, then the answer may not be so clear cut.

The research project that my co-author, Professor Rennie Moon and I discuss in this particular paper started when the Asia Development Bank (ADB) asked me to look at evidence for the development benefit of high-skilled, Asian migrant professionals to their home countries. International development agencies such as ADB are facing challenges to their efforts to build colleges in developing countries from experts who are concerned that such higher education aid may lead to a brain drain and who argue that it is better to invest in K-12 schools. Our study, however, paints a more complex picture of brain drain.

You claim that there is an upside to brain drain: that migration of high-skilled professionals can, in fact, have social and economic benefits for the home countries. Could you explain your argument?

Despite efforts to bring talent back home, some people will choose to remain in the host country after education. In the past, this was considered straightforward brain drain. However, such students and emigrants who gain footing in the host country may engage with their home countries through business visits or even short-term stays, if not returning permanently. We call these types of home-host interactions brain linkage. Engaged, high-skilled migrants who create such bridging between the host and home countries significantly enhance the social and economic fabric of the developing home countries.

In considering brain linkage, we must shift from a view that regards labor primarily as human capital to a new model of labor as social capital. This is a topic I elaborated on in my recent book, Global Talent: Skilled Labor as Social Capital in Korea, that I co-authored with Professor Joon-Nak Choi. When educated professionals permanently leave their home countries, it is true that those countries lose the totality of education, skills, and experience embodied by these individuals. But when they stay engaged with the home countries, these countries gain from the productive capacity embodied in the ties and networks linking many individuals and organizations. Social capital provides less tangible but equally important benefits, such as enhanced trust and cooperation, information sharing, and improved access to innovations. Therefore, in a global market economy, given the importance of transnational social capital, developing countries should focus less on preventing brain drain and more on encouraging brain circulation—that is, permanent return migration of young people sent for education abroad—and brain linkage

What did you find in your research that supports this argument?

We looked at empirical cases and policies in Asia that demonstrate that high-skilled migrant professionals actually make significant contributions to their home countries, beyond monetary remittances.

Taiwan, for example, has experienced significant brain circulation: in the late 1980s, many U.S.-educated Taiwanese engineers began to return home, through active government recruitment and opportunities created by the development of the semiconductor and electronics industries. Returnees became important investors and entrepreneurs, particularly in the design sector. Brain linkages also became important as a growing cohort of highly mobile Taiwan-born, U.S.-educated engineers began to work in the United States and Taiwan, regularly commuting across the Pacific, although they did not return permanently.

Or consider India, which is now the second-largest provider of international students to the United States after China. As in China and Taiwan, strong government development initiatives and waves of liberalization of regulations helped promote brain circulation. The significant role of Indian returnees in building the Indian information technology industry since the 1990s is well documented. India’s highly skilled diaspora also played an especially active role in establishing formal networks that promoted brain linkages.

That is why developing countries must continue to invest in higher education. Unless there is a critical mass of educated professionals in the home country, brain circulation and linkage would not be possible.

What are some of the policy recommendations that you make based on your findings?

Certainly there is a risk of brain drain for developing countries, but the alternative is isolating themselves from the world in an attempt to keep all their talent at home. The key question for developing countries is not how to prevent talented people from leaving for better opportunities, but how to convert a possible brain drain into brain circulation or brain linkage.

Developing countries should not be afraid of risking the loss of their talent; ironically, you have to lose before gaining. Let young people go and get their education and training, but identify the economic and social factors that are important in attracting or motivating migrant high-skilled professionals to return or engage with their home country, then design initiatives to cultivate talent for national development by implementing brain circulation and brain linkage policies. The focus should be on how to attract those people to engage, not how to prevent them from leaving. In our paper, we discuss permanent and temporary return programs, as well as diaspora engagement policies.

We also suggest that future research should include conducting more comprehensive studies that map talent flows in the Asia-Pacific region using a transnational social capital framework. Such research, as in our current study, has broad applications, for, ultimately, whoever wins the war for talent will prevail.

"There is growing consensus that populism constitutes a grave threat to liberal democracy, and to the liberal international order on which peace and prosperity have rested for the past two generations," writes Francis Fukuyama in the World Economic Forum. The fate of the global liberal order could be jeopardized due to rising populist powers and movements. Read the full article here.