Applications for Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan (SeEJ) are now open. This all-English online program aims to develop Japanese students’ creative thinking and problem-solving abilities to tackle social challenges. SeEJ is offered twice a year, in the fall and spring, through a collaboration between SPICE and the non-profit organization e-Entrepreneurship in Japan. The course is led by Irene Bryant in the fall and Makiko Hirata in the spring. It is available to Japanese-speaking high school students, in or from Japan, in their first and second years. The spring 2025 session will take place from early April to August.

The application form is now available at https://forms.gle/T2tX6hW9kXwo9xzB9. The submission deadline is March 22, 2025, at 11:59 PM Japan Time.

SeEJ provides students with the chance to interact with entrepreneurs and scholars from California and beyond who are working to solve social challenges. The program features virtual classes (VCs) held twice a month on Sundays. Throughout the course, students will complete two research projects—one individually and one as part of a group. The group project will be presented to a panel of guest judges, who will assess each team’s social innovation in addressing real-world issues. Participants who successfully finish the course will be awarded a Certificate of Completion from SPICE and NPO e-Entrepreneurship.

Applicants need to be available and committed to attending VCs held on the following Sunday mornings, Japan Time: 4/20, 5/4, 5/18, 6/1, 6/15, 7/6, 7/20, 8/10, and 8/24. Most classes will be from 10AM to 12PM, except for VC#1 and VC#7 which will be from 10AM to 12:30PM. In addition to the VCs, students will have assignments that will require about 3–5 hours per week for class preparation, individual assignments, and group work.

For more information about Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan, visit the program webpage. To apply, submit the online application by March 22.

Stanford e-Entrepreneurship Japan is one of several online courses offered by SPICE.

To stay updated on SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

3/13/25 EDIT: Application deadline updated from March 15 to March 22, 2025.

Today, state parties have played very weak roles in their national parties’ structures, Kuo said. “There’s also been much less reliance on the affiliated groups that once constituted the core of parties, such as labor unions, student groups, women's groups, and groups that really emerged in an era of the mass organization party.”

At the same time, she noted, while not a full convergence, an increasing similarity has arisen among the major parties regarding their economic approaches to governance and markets.

This holds two key implications, she said. First, this embrace of neoliberal orthodoxies has eroded the traditional distinctions between left and right that support the party systems. “Neither party really represents the working class through an economic agenda,” Kuo said.

She added, “There’s a lot of empirical evidence that these erosions of party differences in left and right generate more political instability. They produce more extremist candidates who can capitalize on the fact that voters aren't sure how to hold politicians to account when the policies are the same and also increases the level of anti-system messaging in political campaigns.”

The second implication is that these changes to party organization have resulted in more delegation to non-party groups – political strategists, consultants, and the private sector – that end up doing the work that parties historically did.

Meanwhile, the parties increasingly reflect an “educational cleavage” among voters that, along with increased outsourcing of governance to the private sector, has contributed to a rise of “plutocratic populism.”

In his remarks, Cain raised the issue of how campaign finance reform and other institutional changes, such as the introduction of primaries, contributed to the decline of strong political parties. Meanwhile, rapid changes in technology and global economics are playing roles in the political process.

“Globalization means we don't have stable neighborhoods anymore, that labor is going in and out, that we communicate in a completely different way than the way we used to, which makes it very hard to rely on the party machines,” he said.

Azari said parties are failing to live up to their central role in representing the citizenry and “empowering less powerful groups in society” that offer “a countervailing source of power to capital.” A turn to centrism or a “third way” by the Democratic Party in the 1990s reflected such a dynamic of disconnection.

“The political center is a nondescript place, a nonexistent voter, yet it looms large in the public imagination,” Azari added, quoting a line from Kuo's book.

Grumbach said that as a behaviorist, he seeks to understand the “neurology of the mass voter brain.” He cited a recent Quinnipiac survey that revealed how negatively Democratic voters now view Democratic members of Congress compared to poll results in October 2024. “It is a massive shift … the Democratic Party is ripe for a takeover.”
 

‘Democratic renewal’

Kuo, an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at the think tank New America, has written widely about democratization, capitalism, and political parties.

Kuo said, “I'll say that we are in a very bad place in American democracy that goes far beyond anything any one political party can do … I think that building stronger political parties very much needs to be part of democratic renewal.”

In a recent interview with CDDRL, Kuo noted, “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.”

Ambassador McFaul also views robust security guarantees for Ukraine as a foundational piece of a successful peace deal. In an article for Foreign Affairs, he used a recent history lesson as evidence against conceding too much while offering too little.

“The lessons from U.S. negotiations with the Taliban during Trump’s first term should inform the president-elect’s thinking about dealing with Putin. The Taliban and the Trump administration negotiated a deal that was highly favorable to the militant group but that the Biden administration nevertheless honored. Its terms included a cease-fire, a timeline for the departure of American forces, and the promise of a future political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The Taliban, however, did not commit to the agreement; instead, they used that peace plan as a way-station on their path to total victory. Appeasement of the Taliban did not create peace. Appeasement of Putin won’t either. Instead of just giving Putin everything he wants—hardly an example of the president-elect’s much-vaunted prowess in dealmaking—Trump should devise a more sophisticated plan, encouraging Ukraine to nominally relinquish some territory to Russia in exchange for the security that would come with joining NATO. Only such a compromise will produce a permanent peace.”

Comments by U.S. officials at the Munich Security Conference and in the days since has left McFaul deeply concerned about Ukraine's influence on the negotiations. Speaking on WBUR’s Here and Now program, he said:

"Zelenskyy is in the fight of his life right now. He is trying to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty, and he's willing to negotiate. But he is very worried he's going to be sold out by the Americans."

Negotiating with Russia

While Ukraine may be feeling sidelined, the groundwork for peace talks with Russia is already being laid in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

As former diplomats, McFaul and Pifer both have direct experience negotiating with the Russian Federation, and both agree that the Kremlin is an extremely shrewd and difficult negotiating partner that requires careful, strategic handling.

As the U.S. delegation continues to meet with their Russian counterparts, McFaul offered his advice on the basics of successful diplomacy via X.

In a post-Munich article for The National Interest, Pifer expands on that basic diplomatic framework with specific suggestions for the U.S. team:

• If Washington seeks to play an honest broker, senior American officials should not concede points to the Kremlin at the outset.
   
• Dismissive treatment of European allies on issues directly affecting their security will hardly increase prospects that they will assist U.S. efforts.
   
• Trump’s first call on ending the war should have gone to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, not Vladimir Putin, and the second set of calls should have gone to senior European leaders. Eagerness to engage with the Kremlin weakens their hand with their Russian counterparts. 
   

• Steps to build leverage with Russia by asking Congress to approve new military assistance for Ukraine, working with the G7 to transfer frozen Central Russian Bank assets to a fund for Ukraine, and tightening sanctions on Russia should be taken before engaging directly with Russia.

   

Assessing America on the Global Stage

Both Pifer and McFaul share concerns about how negotiations for the end to the war might impact the standing of the United States as a global leader.

Reacting to Vice President’s J.D. Vance’s keynote address at the Munich Security Conference, McFaul was unconvinced that the administration has accurately assessed the threats to America’s national security.

“For someone to come to Europe and say the biggest threat is censorship and a lack of democracy is just analytically incorrect. The data does not support that hypothesis. The greatest threat to Europe is Russia.” 

Ambassador Pifer echoed similar concerns about the United States’ national security priorities. In a discussion with Ian Masters on the Background Briefing podcast, he said:

“Over the past ten years, Putin has made Russia a major adversary to the United States. And it’s not just about the war in Ukraine; they’re moving across the board to try and challenge American interests. They want to weaken and diminish American influence and power.”

If left unchecked, Pifer warns that a sloppy performance negotiating in Ukraine could have far-reaching consequences for American national security.

“Vladimir Putin wants to have a U.S.-Russia negotiation to divide up spheres of influence in Europe. It would be a horrible mistake for the United States to fall into that trap.”

Taking a broad view of current trends in international security and the ripples flowing from the Munich conference, McFaul cautions against an over-reliance on coercive power, or the ability to influence nations to act vis-à-vis the threat of pain or disruption.

Coercive power, McFaul explains on Substack, tends to produce zero-sum outcomes—the powerful get more, and the weak get less.

In contrast, says McFaul, cooperative power typically produces win-win outcomes.

“Like market transactions in which the buyer and seller both benefit from the exchange, everyone is better off from international cooperation, both the weak and the strong.”

Looking to the coming weeks and months of potential negotiations and what it may signal about American leadership more broadly, McFaul urges policymakers to revisit the long-term, tried and tested benefits of cooperation, outreach, and allyship.

“It’s not too late to rethink this singular focus on coercive foreign policy tactics. The United States is not a monarchy or a country run by gangsters. Hopefully, our democratic institutions and norms will allow the American people to engage in a substantive discussion on the wisdom of only relying on coercive power for our security and prosperity.”

To stay up-to-date on the latest research, commentary, and analysis from our scholars, be sure to follow FSI on Bluesky, Threads, X, and Instagram, and subscribe to our newsletters.

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.

Can you talk to us a bit about your book, its research questions, context, and what inspired you to write it?

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.

Given that academic research often emphasizes the electoral functions of parties, should reforms focus on narrowing the scope of party roles to enhance public connection? How can parties prioritize their most responsive roles without deprioritizing critical functions like fundraising?

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.
 

A lot of academic research tends to focus on how parties are becoming more polarized, but there are a lot of cleavages developing within the parties themselves. How do you think the Democrats and Republicans differing approaches to mobilization and organization will shape the future of partisanship in the U.S.? Do these differences create opportunities for a realignment of political coalitions, and how might this frame how we view partisanship in the future?

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.

You mentioned that parties used to have a stronger social connection and representation role, which has now largely been replaced by social movements and NGOs. Should parties want to reclaim that function, how could they go about it? Would they need to replace NGOs, partner with them, or take another approach? How do you see this relationship evolving in the future?

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.
 

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

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.

On November 8, 2024, a film screening of Instruments of a Beating Heart was held at Stanford University that was followed by a conversation between filmmaker Ema Ryan Yamazaki, Professor Kiyoteru Tsutsui, and Dr. Mariko Yang-Yoshihara. The film screening was sponsored by the Japan Program, Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. Erin Tsutsui shared her reflections of the film. Erin is a student at Gunn High School, Palo Alto, California.

The award-winning documentary short Instruments of a Beating Heart by Ema Ryan Yamazaki captures a core essence of Japaneseness—discipline in the name of contributing to the greater good for a harmonious society. Set in a regular elementary school in Tokyo, the film tracks a seemingly trivial event of a first grader’s performance in her school’s end-of-year ensemble. Through its portrayal of practice sessions, the film demonstrates how the Japanese school system instills Japan’s famous collectivist mindset from a young age with an emphasis on compliance and respect for others. Protagonist Ayame is reduced to tears when her school teacher points out her lack of practice in front of her peers. However, with encouragement from her mentors and a newfound motivation to practice her music, she nails her performance, thus bolstering her work ethic and penchant for a greater community good. This mindset makes Japan function so well as a society with its clean roads, low crime rates, and timely trains, but it also exerts pressure to conform and can lead to a loss of self-respect and individuality.

I grew up in the United States, where people commend individuality and free will and celebrate being different from others. I also attended Japanese elementary schools, though only for a couple of weeks each year, and noticed the stark contrast in the way students behave. I now realize that what I observed in those schools represent different social norms that govern each country. Japanese students mop the floors and serve the food to each other, carrying the responsibility of maintaining their space and learning the importance of combined efforts. In the meantime, American schools have custodians and lunch servers to shoulder all the burden while students tend to their own interests.

Personally, I remember my elementary school years in America to be freeing and unrestrained, where I learned the value of my uniqueness from the next person and celebrated our differences. These values continue to shape me today, as I hold a strong sense of selfhood and understand the power of my voice. On the other hand, during my brief time attending a Japanese school, I was struck by how disciplined my peers were, considering the tremendous amount of homework and tasks assigned to them. I remember working with my new friends to clean our classroom floors, serve lunch, and finish massive academic tasks in the classroom. At the beginning it was overwhelming and somewhat puzzling, but over time I found it rewarding knowing I contributed to the well-kept communal space and accomplished tasks with my young friends.

It is evident to me now, having experienced the contrasting school systems, that the cultural norms and ideals are integrated into the nations’ citizens early on. Though Ayame felt dejected in the beginning, her teachers’ scolding and nurturing helped improve her discipline, and she ultimately performed well. That discipline of hers, combined with that of her classmates, made the orchestra work. The instrumental orchestra is quite symbolic of the value of working together to create a masterpiece, as a slip-up from any one ensemble member can disrupt the balance of the ensemble. Writ large, Japanese society functions well because Japanese citizens exercise their discipline to work together toward a greater good. For all its other problems, such as overbearing societal pressures and suppression of individual expressions, Japan has much to offer to other societies in how to run a well-functioning society.

To stay informed of SPICE news, join our email list and follow us on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

Applications are now open for the Virtual East Asia Seminar for High School Teachers, a free professional development opportunity for California high school teachers who wish to enhance their teaching of East Asia. Offered by the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE) and the National Consortium for Teaching about Asia (NCTA), this seminar will select 20 teachers to participate in four virtual sessions from March to May 2025.

The application form is now live at https://forms.gle/zCYyEaBFjyf4kAot5. The deadline to apply is February 28, 2025.

High school teachers in California are welcome to apply. Selected teachers will strengthen their content knowledge of East Asia by learning from experts in a series of private virtual seminars via Zoom on the following Tuesdays, 4:00 to 6:00pm Pacific Time: March 25, April 8, April 22, and May 6. Throughout the program, participants will explore and examine various aspects of East Asia, U.S.–Asia relations, and the Asian diaspora in the United States.

Participants will receive extensive teaching resources and an opportunity to discuss content and pedagogy in the classroom to help support their teaching of East Asia. Teachers who attend the four Zoom sessions, complete pre-assigned readings, and participate in group discussions will receive a $300 professional stipend and be eligible to receive three units of credit from Stanford Continuing Studies.

“We are excited to launch our virtual seminar on East Asia for high school teachers again in 2025,” said Naomi Funahashi, Manager of Teacher Professional Development at SPICE. “This initiative will provide an engaging platform featuring expert lectures, interactive discussions, and valuable curricular resources. Our goal is to equip educators with the tools and resources to explore the complex histories, societies, and cultures of East Asia and the diversity of the Asian American experience. Together, we hope to explore new insights and strategies that will enhance student learning and foster global awareness, while creating a vibrant community of teachers who are excited to learn and share fresh perspectives and innovative teaching strategies with one another.”

For more information about the Virtual SPICE/NCTA East Asia Seminar for High School Teachers, visit the program webpage. To apply, submit the online application by February 28, 2025.

To be notified of other professional development opportunities, join SPICE’s email list and follow SPICE on Facebook, X, and Instagram.

The Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) is delighted to share that Stanford Sociologist Gi-Wook Shin, the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea, director of APARC, and founding director of the Korea Program at APARC, is the recipient of the Korean American Achievement Award for his contributions to promoting Korean Studies, strengthening U.S.-Korea relations, and fostering transnational collaboration. The award was presented at the 122nd anniversary celebration of Korean American Day in San Francisco on January 11, 2025.

The Korean American Achievement Award recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the Korean American community’s academic, cultural, and civic development. Shin, a historical-comparative and political sociologist who is also a senior fellow at the Freeman Spoglli Institute for International Studies, has dedicated himself to addressing Korea’s contemporary challenges and bridging the United States and Korea. His work combines rigorous research with actionable policy insights, focusing on democracy, nationalism, societal development in Korea, migration, and international relations. He is also a sought-after media commentator on Korean affairs and U.S.-Korea ties.

Shin is the author and editor of 25 books and numerous articles. His most recent book is Korean Democracy in Crisis: The Threat of Illiberalism, Populism, and Polarization (Shorenstein APARC, 2022). Stanford University Press will publish his next book, The Four Talent Giants: National Strategies for Human Resource Development Across Japan, Australia, China, and India, in July 2025.

Under Shin’s leadership as its founding director, the Korea Program has become a renowned Stanford hub for interdisciplinary research and dialogue on contemporary Korea. The program celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2022, marking two decades of promoting education and exchange on Korea’s political, economic, and social evolution. Beyond academia, the program is a platform for fostering the next generation of leaders dedicated to advancing Korea’s future and strengthening Korea-U.S. ties.

Shin also spearheads the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL), an initiative committed to addressing emergent social, cultural, economic, and political challenges in Asia through interdisciplinary, policy-relevant, and comparative studies and publications.

The Korean American Day commemorates the arrival of the first Korean immigrants in the United States on January 13, 1903. The 122nd anniversary of Korean American Day was co-hosted by the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in San Francisco, the San Francisco & Bay Area Korea Center, and Korean organizations in Northern California. The event was held at the San Francisco & Bay Area Korea Center.

Congratulations to Professor Shin on this well-deserved honor! It is a testament to his leadership and contributions that enrich the Korea Program and APARC’s mission to deepen the understanding of Asia and strengthen U.S.-Asia relations.