Weaponized Corruption, Extreme Wealth, and Democratic Reordering: Insights from Asia
- Read more about Weaponized Corruption, Extreme Wealth, and Democratic Reordering: Insights from Asia
Corruption is typically understood as a sign of weak institutions and failed governance. But what if it is a deliberate political technology used to consolidate power, discipline rivals, and reshape political systems?
This is the argument advanced by University of Chicago sociologist Kimberly Kay Hoang in the latest episode of the APARC Briefing series. Drawing on years of ethnographic research across Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, Myanmar, Hong Kong, and Singapore, as well as offshore tax havens, Hoang uses a comparative Asian lens to show how both democratic and authoritarian governments strategically align with private capital, reinforcing elite power. Hoang joined APARC Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui to share core insights from her work.
Kimberly Kay Hoang speaks on the APARC Briefing series with host Kiyoteru Tsutsui.
Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis >
She argues that corruption discourse often operates as a political tool, widely seen across Asian political economies and increasingly evident in the United States during the Trump era. This rhetoric, she says, tends not so much to dismantle institutions but to reshape them, concentrating authority in the executive and weakening checks and balances. According to Hoang, these patterns reflect a broader global shift toward more oligarchic forms of governance, where political power is increasingly concentrated among transnational elites.
"We often think of corruption as a failure of governance – that it's a weak state, and weak states can’t govern," Hoang says. "But in Southeast Asia and in other parts of East Asia, it has become an instrument for governance. It's a way of consolidating political power, weaponizing corruption."
From Vietnam's Hostess Bars to Global Finance
Hoang's research journey began in an unexpected place: working 12-hour shifts in Vietnamese hostess bars in 2009-2010, shortly after the global financial crisis. What started as an ethnographic study of the sex industry and human trafficking in Vietnam evolved into something far larger: a story of Asian ascendancy and Western decline playing out in micro-transactions.
"I started to witness local Vietnamese men turning down deals with Western businessmen and taking extraordinary deals from investors from China, parts of Southeast Asia – Hong Kong and Singapore – and Korea, Taiwan," Hoang recalls. When she examined foreign direct investment data, "the numbers lined up to what I was seeing at a micro level."
But when she presented these findings in the United States, the response was skeptical, even hostile. "People would say, 'Okay, yes, the economy is in decline, but America still has the strongest military,' or 'China is really dependent on the American economy, so if the American economy collapses, so will China's,'" she remembers. "It was a huge oversight of American arrogance to just believe that [Asian ascendancy] was impossible."
Her continued research led her to follow not just the money but "the people who move the money" – from Vietnam and Myanmar to Hong Kong and Singapore, and ultimately to offshore tax havens in the British Virgin Islands, Panama, the Seychelles, and the Cayman Islands.
The Architecture of Global Capital
What Hoang uncovered was what she calls an "architecture of global capital" – an invisible financial infrastructure built by "hidden engineers" including specialized wealth managers, lawyers, and financial advisors who coordinate across borders to move elite wealth beyond the reach of any single nation-state.
The scale is staggering: approximately $7.6 trillion in household wealth is hidden offshore globally, with the top 0.01% avoiding about 25% of their tax obligations through legal structures and shell corporations.
"We have to move beyond national boundaries," Hoang argues, "because global oligarchs choose the sovereigns and choose the jurisdictions that govern their financial transactions and activities."
This system creates what Hoang describes in her book, Spiderweb Capitalism: How Global Elites Exploit Frontier Markets (Princeton University Press), as a web of legal and financial gray zones that allow wealth to compound while evading accountability.
Corruption as Governance Mechanism
Hoang’s work exposes the connections between the rise of global elites, corruption, and the emergence of oligarchic governance. Across both Asia and the United States, she explains, corruption discourse operates as a mechanism for reshaping democratic governance by means of dissolving the boundary between political authority and economic power.
"What does that mean? It means that we no longer rely on institutions," she says. "People who have executive authority can just go after their rivals."
This creates what Hoang calls "anticipatory compliance," a situation in which political and economic elites preemptively align themselves with power centers. The mechanism works through strategic ambiguity: when corruption charges can be selectively deployed, everyone becomes potentially vulnerable, leading to self-regulation through fear.
While this pattern is well-established in countries like China and Vietnam, Hoang sees similar dynamics emerging in the United States. "Under the Trump administration, we've seen charges of corruption being weaponized as a tool of governance," she notes, while emphasizing that elements of this already appeared under the Biden administration.
Democratic Reordering, Not Collapse
When explaining the impacts of corruption discourse on democratic governance, Hoang is careful to distinguish between democratic collapse and what she terms "democratic reordering." Rather than overtly capturing the state, global oligarchs work through existing institutions, gradually redefining their function through moralized narratives, weakened oversight, selective enforcement, and strategic risk management. The outward forms of democracy remain intact, but the independence of courts, election fairness, and accountability mechanisms are steadily eroded. "They increasingly serve concentrated elite interests."
In comparing the United States to China, Hoang notes a crucial difference: "China has a long view. They're playing a 50-year view [...] If we're in this constant [electoral] cycle, and we've delegitimized oversight and political authority, [...] we need to have stronger independent institutions that outlast whoever is in office."
Finding Hope in Resistance
Despite her sobering analysis, Hoang sees reasons for optimism. "What gives me hope is that, if you look carefully, there are a lot of resistance movements," she says. "I think there's a growing battle between the millionaires and billionaires."
She points to resistance not just from grassroots movements but from millionaires who "don't want to live in a billionaire oligarchy world, who feel economically precarious vis-à-vis the extreme inequality."
The challenge, she argues, is that both mainstream and social media highlight extremes while missing the middle-level discourse and resistance movements that are actively organizing.
Kimberly Kay Hoang is Professor of Sociology and the College, and Director of Global Studies at the University of Chicago. In addition to Spiderweb Capitalism, she is the author of Dealing in Desire: Asian Ascendancy, Western Decline, and the Hidden Currencies of Global Sex Work (University of California Press). Her forthcoming work examines U.S.-China power relations in offshore financial centers.
The full APARC Briefing conversation with Hoang is available on APARC’s YouTube channel.
Read More
Speaking on the APARC Briefing video series, University of Chicago sociologist Kimberly Kay Hoang examines the architecture of global capital and how corruption discourse is transforming governance and political order in Asia and the United States.
Colombia at a Crossroads: Ballots, Bullets, and the Future of Democracy
Colombians will vote for a new president on May 31, 2026, with a runoff scheduled for June 21 if no candidate secures more than 50 percent of the vote. These elections take place at a critical juncture for the country’s security strategy, institutional trajectory, and democratic resilience. While concerns about violence and public security remain central to voter decision-making, the electoral debate also encompasses broader, equally critical issues, including economic development, poverty reduction, institutional strength, victims' rights, and the stability and effectiveness of the presidency.
Democracy at the Ballot Box: The 2026 Electoral Cycle in Latin America is a new series, hosted by The Democracy Action Lab (DAL) at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) and DAL's Academic Consortium. This panel will examine the stakes of the 2026 election and the alternatives before voters. It will analyze the main dynamics shaping the electoral cycle, including the leading candidates, the coalitions and groups competing for power, and the broader political context in which the contest is unfolding. The discussion will also assess the likely implications of competing policy agendas, evaluate the principal risks facing the electoral process, identify the sources of democratic resilience that may help sustain it, and draw lessons for other Latin American countries confronting similar challenges.
SPEAKERS
- María Ignacia Curiel - Research Scholar & Research Manager, Democracy Action Lab (DAL)
- Oliver Kaplan - CDDRL Visiting Scholar & Associate Professor, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver
- Javier Mejía - Lecturer, Stanford University's Department of Political Science, Stanford Civics Initiative, and Affiliated Faculty of Stanford's Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) & Stanford's Center for Poverty and Inequality
- Michael Weintraub - Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Global Studies at Universidad de los Andes (Bogotá, Colombia), Director of the Center for the Study of Security and Drugs (CESED) in the Department of Economics, Member of The Democracy Action Lab's Academic Consortium
MODERATOR
Alberto Díaz-Cayeros — Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Professor, by courtesy, of Political Science, and Co-Director of DAL
Webinar open to the public via Zoom, if prompted for a password, use: 123456
María Ignacia Curiel
Encina Hall, Suite 052
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
María Ignacia Curiel is a Research Scholar at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and Research Affiliate of the Poverty, Violence and Governance Lab at Stanford University. Curiel is an empirical political scientist using experimental, observational, and qualitative data to study questions of violence and democratic participation, peacebuilding, and representation.
Her research primarily explores political solutions to violent conflict and the electoral participation of parties with violent origins. This work includes an in-depth empirical study of Comunes, the Colombian political party formed by the former FARC guerrilla, as well as a broader analysis of rebel party behaviors across different contexts. More recently, her research has focused on democratic mobilization and the political representation of groups affected by violence in Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Curiel's work has been supported by the Folke Bernadotte Academy, the Institute for Humane Studies, and the APSA Centennial Center and is published in the Journal of Politics. She holds a Ph.D. in Political Science and dual B.A. degrees in Economics and Political Science from New York University.
Oliver Kaplan
Encina Hall, C151
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
Oliver Kaplan is an Associate Professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. He is the author of the book, Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves (Cambridge University Press, 2017), which examines how civilian communities organize to protect themselves from wartime violence. He is a co-editor and contributor to the book, Speaking Science to Power: Responsible Researchers and Policymaking (Oxford University Press, 2024). Kaplan has also published articles on the conflict-related effects of land reforms and ex-combatant reintegration and recidivism. As part of his research, Kaplan has conducted fieldwork in Colombia and the Philippines.
Kaplan was a Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace and previously a postdoctoral Research Associate at Princeton University and at Stanford University. His research has been funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and other grants. His work has been published in The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, Conflict Management and Peace Science, Stability, The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, CNN, and National Interest.
At the University of Denver, Kaplan is Director of the Korbel Asylum Project (KAP). He has taught M.A.-level courses on Human Rights and Foreign Policy, Peacebuilding in Civil Wars, Civilian Protection, and Human Rights Research Methods, and PhD-level courses on Social Science Research Methods. Kaplan received his Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University and completed his B.A. at UC San Diego.
Singapore-Based Investigative Journalist Shibani Mahtani Wins 2026 Shorenstein Journalism Award for Excellence in Asia-Pacific Coverage
Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) is delighted to announce today, ahead of World Press Freedom Day, that Singapore-based investigative journalist Shibani Mahtani is the recipient of the 2026 Shorenstein Journalism Award for excellence in coverage of the Asia-Pacific region. The award recognizes Mahtani for her original, powerful reporting that has brought critical attention to the erosion of democracy and human rights across the region, particularly in Southeast Asia. She will receive the award at a public ceremony in the coming autumn quarter.
Until February 2026, Mahtani was an international investigative correspondent for the Washington Post. Her accountability-driven investigations across the Asia-Pacific have focused on the expanding economic and political influence of an increasingly assertive China and its implications in the region. Her work includes, among others, reports linking powerful criminal networks in Myanmar to the Chinese state and exposing brutal scam compounds in the country; examining Beijing’s influence on Chinese-language media in Singapore and its efforts to wield influence in Indonesia and elsewhere through vocational programs; scrutinizing China’s cross-national repression of Uyghur Muslims, especially in Central and Southeast Asia; and investigating how its promise of prosperity brought Laos debt and distress.
Mahtani joined the Washington Post in 2018 as the Southeast Asia and Hong Kong Bureau Chief. She reported extensively from Myanmar, the Philippines, Laos, and other parts of the region. Most notably, she chronicled China’s subjugation of Hong Kong, from the explosive protests in 2019, triggered by Beijing’s proposal to extradite locals to the mainland, through the systematic crushing of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement, to the dismantling of the city’s autonomy and the many ways it is changing.
Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis and commentary >
Her searing coverage of Hong Kong’s struggle includes a multimedia investigative report into Hong Kong police misconduct during the 2019 pro-democracy demonstrations, for which she earned a Human Rights Press Award, and an exclusive on the alleged torture of a key prosecution witness in Hong Kong’s highest-profile trial of pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai. Mahtani continued to pursue that story, most recently reporting on Lai’s 20-year prison sentence, even after losing her job when the Washington Post sharply reduced its International team as part of mass layoffs.
Mahtani is also the co-author of the 2023 book, Among the Braves: Hope, Struggle, and Exile in the Battle for Hong Kong and the Future of Global Democracy, a narrative history of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement that explores it through the eyes of people on the ground, culminating in the 2019 mass protests and Beijing’s crackdown.
Before joining the Washington Post, she was a correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and reported from Singapore, Myanmar, and Chicago.
“Shibani Mahtani’s journalism is defined by a courageous and relentless pursuit of speaking truth to power,” said APARC Director Kiyoteru Tsutsui. “Her work exemplifies the vital role of investigative reporting: to expose complex systems of repression and give voice to those who have been silenced. We are proud to honor her outstanding journalism with the Shorenstein Award.”
Sponsored and presented annually by APARC, the Shorenstein Award recognizes journalists and news media outlets that leverage a deep knowledge of Asian societies to share crucial insights with a global audience. The award carries a $10,000 cash prize and honors the legacy of APARC’s benefactor, Mr. Walter H. Shorenstein, and his twin passions for promoting excellence in journalism and understanding of Asia. It also demonstrates APARC’s commitment to journalism that persistently and courageously seeks accuracy, deep reporting, and nuanced coverage in an age when attacks are regularly launched against independent news media, fact-based truth, and those who tell it.
The selection committee for the award praised Mahtani’s investigations as groundbreaking and revelatory, noting that, in her coverage of Hong Kong, she has broken stories others would not – or could not – report.
The committee members are William Dobson, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy; Anna Fifield, a journalist and foreign affairs analyst, non-resident fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and recipient of the 2018 Shorenstein Journalism Award; James Hamilton, vice provost for undergraduate education, the Hearst Professor of Communication, and director of the Stanford Journalism Program, Stanford University; Louisa Lim, associate professor, Audio-Visual Journalism Culture and Communication at the University of Melbourne; and Raju Narisetti, partner and global leader at McKinsey Global Publishing, McKinsey & Company.
Twenty-four winners previously received the Shorenstein Award. Recent honorees include Chris Buckley, the chief China correspondent for the New York Times; Emily Feng, international correspondent for NPR covering China, Taiwan, and more; Netra News, Bangladesh's premier independent media outlet; The Caravan, India's premier magazine of long-form journalism; and Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa, co-founder and CEO of the Philippines-based news organization Rappler.
Information about the 2026 Shorenstein Journalism Award ceremony celebrating Mahtahni will be forthcoming in the autumn quarter.
Read More
Sponsored by Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, the 25th annual Shorenstein Journalism Award honors Mahtani for her exemplary investigations into the erosion of democracy in Hong Kong and China's growing global influence.
Research Explores How Voter Capacity Shapes Democratic Outcomes
Miriam Golden’s presentation in CDDRL’s Research Seminar on April 23, 2026, addressed a central puzzle in democratic politics: why are incumbent reelection rates systematically higher in richer democracies? Drawing on cross-national data, she demonstrates a strong positive relationship between national income and reelection rates, a pattern that is both statistically robust and theoretically unexpected. This empirical finding motivates a reassessment of two dominant frameworks — accountability theory, associated with John Ferejohn, and selection theory, associated with James Fearon. Accountability models suggest that voters reward good performance and punish poor performance, but they do not explain cross-national variation in reelection rates. Selection models argue that elections filter out low-quality politicians, implying that poorer countries with lower reelection rates must have dishonest or incompetent politicians, yet empirical evidence does not align well with these inferences.
Golden proposes an alternative framework centered on “capacity gaps,” introducing the resources that politicians have available and voters' ability to discern political performance as key missing parameters. In poorer countries, both state capacity and voter interpretive capacity are constrained. Governments face fiscal and administrative limitations that restrict policy delivery, while voters struggle to distinguish whether poor outcomes result from incompetence, corruption, or structural constraints. As a result, the informational conditions necessary for effective accountability break down. Golden further argues that informational signals are asymmetric: markers of “bad” types, such as corruption scandals, criminal convictions, or dynastic ties, are visible and salient, whereas markers of “good” types, such as competence or honesty, are diffuse and easily mimicked. In these settings, even honest, competent, and well-intentioned politicians are likely to lose office because they are indistinguishable to voters from the malfeasant and incompetent. Even high-performing politicians may not be rewarded electorally, and good types gain no consistent advantage in reelection.
To evaluate this framework, Golden presents multiple empirical investigations. First, she examines whether voters reward economic performance using within-country variation in GDP growth. The results show that higher growth increases reelection rates, but only in countries with high literacy levels. Since literacy roughly proxies voter discernment capacity, this suggests that performance matters electorally only when voters can interpret it. Second, she analyzes survey data from legislators in Italy and Pakistan to assess whether elections filter out low-quality politicians. She finds that politicians with “bad-type” markers, such as dynastic backgrounds or long tenure, exhibit higher tolerance for corruption yet continue to survive electorally, contradicting selection theory. Third, she tests whether poorer democracies have lower-quality politicians by examining education levels and relative salaries. She finds no meaningful differences in legislator quality across income levels and no relationship between salaries and reelection rates, further weakening selection-based explanations.
Overall, Golden’s approach reconciles several empirical anomalies: the income–reelection relationship, the conditional effect of economic performance, and the persistence of low-quality politicians. At the same time, important questions remain regarding causal identification and measurement, as proxies like literacy may capture broader development effects. Nonetheless, the framework offers a compelling shift in focus from politicians to voters, highlighting how limits in information processing can undermine both accountability and selection in democratic systems.
Read More
Miriam Golden presents a new framework linking state capacity and fiscal capacity to reelection patterns across countries.
- CDDRL Visiting Scholar Miriam Golden presented research examining why incumbent reelection rates are higher in wealthier democracies using cross-national data.
- She introduced a “capacity gaps” framework, arguing that voter ability to interpret performance shapes accountability and electoral outcomes.
- Findings show performance is rewarded only where voters can assess it, highlighting limits of accountability and selection in democracies.
Hungary’s 2026 Election Signals Democratic Shift
On Thursday, April 16, Daniel Kelemen (UC Merced) and CDDRL predoctoral fellow Hanna Folsz discussed the consequential outcome of the April 2026 Hungarian election: the victory of Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party over Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz Party in a Rethinking European Development and Security (REDS) seminar co-hosted by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and The Europe Center.
Daniel Kelemen opened the talk, first offering an overview of Viktor Orbán's rise to power. In 2010, Orbán won Hungary’s nationwide election with over two-thirds majority, a majority large enough to allow him to amend the constitution. Having suffered an electoral defeat in the past, Orbán worked to centralize his power. He captured referees — courts and independent bodies — seized control of the media, and demonized and undermined the opposition. Orbán effectively changed the rules of the game, tilting the electoral playing field.
Kelemen states that there are cases in which smaller authoritarian groups within a larger system are tolerated or protected by national parties because they deliver votes. Orbán operated with the support of Angela Merkel, the former Chancellor of Germany, who largely stopped the EU from taking action against Orbán. Orbán’s party, the Fidesz Party, was a part of Merkel’s EU-wide party, the European People’s Party (EPP), a center-right, Christian party. This support, along with the emigration of dissatisfied voters and continued funding from the EU, helped Orbán stay in power.
However, Orbán’s Fidesz Party was kicked out of the EPP in 2021. Merkel, who was a strong supporter of Orbán, left office in 2022. Orbán’s policy also became more extreme, raising more concern from European member states. In 2022, the EU Commission cut funding to Hungary, suspending 32 billion euros. Kelemen identifies this suspension of funds as an effective step against Hungary’s regime.
Kelemen then outlined the implications of Orbán’s fall for Hungary, the EU, and international actors, including Russia and the United States. For Hungary, it means full regime change, as the Tisza Party will likely take efforts to undo Orbán’s autocratic policy changes. For the EU, it means that policy on Ukraine and Russia will be different, because Orbán was using his veto to prevent support for Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. For the US and Russia, Russia lost its supporter and ear in the EU, and the Trump administration lost its closest ally in Europe. On a global note, Orbán was a key figure in trying to bring together far-right populists. After he was kicked out of the EPP, he formed a more autocratic-focused party called MEGA (Make Europe Great Again).
Hanna Folsz then took a closer, domestic look at the Tisza Party and how they triumphed over Orbán. As Kelemen discussed, Orbán's new electoral rules strongly favored large parties with rural bases, the characteristics of the Fidesz party. The Fidesz Party also controlled the media and enjoyed advantages in party financing. However, the Tisza Party, led by Peter Magyar, dominated the 2026 election, despite the electoral system being stacked against opposition parties.
Economic woes, corruption, and scandals surrounding Fidesz created broad voter discontent and set the stage for the Tisza Party’s victory. Tisza worked to create a broad coalition through extensive group-level campaigning, messaging that focused on competent economic governance and anti-corruption, and the idea of reclaiming patriotism. Magyar also extensively campaigned, holding rallies all over Hungary in localities of all sizes. The district candidates within the Tisza Party campaigned in a similar manner.
The Tisza Party focused its policy proposals on extensive welfare, public services improvement, the elimination of corruption, strengthening relationships with the EU and neighbors, and largely avoided divisive topics. The Party also distanced itself from the discredited and divisive established opposition parties, and they did not coordinate with past opposition parties.
Folsz outlined the lessons Hungary’s electoral outcome shows for democratic resistance against autocratization. The Hungarian case demonstrated the importance of connecting with voters and building credibility by campaigning a lot and across the country, including in rural constituencies. The Tisza Party also smartly presented a vision for a better future with concrete proposals, rooted in citizens’ core concerns– in this case, the economy and corruption, and distanced themselves from divisive opposition politicians and parties. The Tisza Party focused its messaging on unity and reclaiming patriotism from the far right.
The 2026 Hungarian election offered a rare example of democratic recovery in a system widely considered entrenched, raising important lessons for opposition movements confronting democratic erosion.
Read More
Scholars Daniel Keleman and Hanna Folsz examine the defeat of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz Party and the implications for Hungary and Europe.
- At a REDS Seminar hosted by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and The Europe Center seminar on April 16, 2026, Daniel Kelemen and Hanna Folsz discussed Hungary’s 2026 election and Viktor Orbán’s defeat by Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party.
- They analyzed how Tisza overcame media control, electoral rules, and institutional advantages favoring Fidesz through broad-based campaigning.
- The case highlights how opposition movements can challenge entrenched regimes and offers lessons for democratic recovery amid backsliding.
Rebuilding Democracy in Venezuela — Breaking the Paradox of Plenty: Can Venezuela Escape the Resource Trap?
"Rebuilding Democracy in Venezuela" is a four-part webinar series hosted by CDDRL's Democracy Action Lab that examines Venezuela’s uncertain transition to democracy through the political, economic, security, and justice-related challenges that will ultimately determine its success. Moving beyond abstract calls for change, the series will offer a practical, sequenced analysis of what a democratic opening in Venezuela would realistically require, drawing on comparative experiences from other post-authoritarian transitions.
Venezuela’s democratic future will be shaped not only by political transitions, but by how the country manages its most defining structural feature: vast natural resource wealth. Oil has historically been both a source of opportunity and a driver of institutional fragility, contributing to cycles of centralization, rent-seeking, and democratic erosion. As Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo — former oil minister of Venezuela and one of the architects of OPEC — famously warned, petroleum could become “the devil’s excrement,” bringing with it corruption, waste, and institutional decay.
As Venezuela looks ahead to a potential — yet elusive — democratic opening, a central question emerges: can the country escape the historical trap of resource dependence and build a model in which oil supports — not undermines — shared prosperity and democracy?
This session brings together leading thinkers on political economy, development, and global energy to explore how Venezuela can transform its resource wealth into a foundation for democratic stability, economic diversification, and shared prosperity.
SPEAKERS
- Paul Collier, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University
- Development Strategy
- Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy
- Challenges of State-Building and Institutional Development
- Terry Lynn Karl, Gildred Professor of Latin American Studies, Professor of Political Science, William and Gretchen Kimball University Fellow & Senior Research Scholar (by courtesy) of FSI/CDDRL, Stanford
- Political Constraint – Institutional Design
- Political Constraint – Institutional Design
MODERATOR
Héctor Fuentes, Visiting Scholar at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University
This is a hybrid event. In-person in Goldman Conference Room, Encina Hall East, 4th floor - E409; Livestream via Zoom. Registration required.
Terry L. Karl
Department of Political Science
Encina Hall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6044
Professor Karl has published widely on comparative politics and international relations, with special emphasis on the politics of oil-exporting countries, transitions to democracy, problems of inequality, the global politics of human rights, and the resolution of civil wars. Her works on oil, human rights and democracy include The Paradox of Plenty: Oil Booms and Petro-States (University of California Press, 1998), honored as one of the two best books on Latin America by the Latin American Studies Association, the Bottom of the Barrel: Africa's Oil Boom and the Poor (2004 with Ian Gary), the forthcoming New and Old Oil Wars (with Mary Kaldor and Yahia Said), and the forthcoming Overcoming the Resource Curse (with Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs et al). She has also co-authored Limits of Competition (MIT Press, 1996), winner of the Twelve Stars Environmental Prize from the European Community. Karl has published extensively on comparative democratization, ending civil wars in Central America, and political economy. She has conducted field research throughout Latin America, West Africa and Eastern Europe. Her work has been translated into 15 languages.
Karl has a strong interest in U.S. foreign policy and has prepared expert testimony for the U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court, and the United Nations. She served as an advisor to chief U.N. peace negotiators in El Salvador and Guatemala and monitored elections for the United Nations. She accompanied numerous congressional delegations to Central America, lectured frequently before officials of the Department of State, Defense, and the Agency for International Development, and served as an adviser to the Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the United States Congress. Karl appears frequently in national and local media. Her most recent opinion piece was published in 25 countries.
Karl has been an expert witness in major human rights and war crimes trials in the United States that have set important legal precedents, most notably the first jury verdict in U.S. history against military commanders for murder and torture under the doctrine of command responsibility and the first jury verdict in U.S. history finding commanders responsible for "crimes against humanity" under the doctrine of command responsibility. In January 2006, her testimony formed the basis for a landmark victory for human rights on the statute of limitations issue. Her testimonies regarding political asylum have been presented to the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Circuit courts. She has written over 250 affidavits for political asylum, and she has prepared testimony for the U.S. Attorney General on the extension of temporary protected status for Salvadorans in the United States and the conditions of unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody. As a result of her human rights work, she received the Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa from the University of San Francisco in 2005.
Professor Karl has been recognized for "exceptional teaching throughout her career," resulting in her appointment as the William R. and Gretchen Kimball University Fellowship. She has also won the Dean's Award for Excellence in Teaching (1989), the Allan V. Cox Medal for Faculty Excellence Fostering Undergraduate Research (1994), and the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Graduate and Undergraduate Teaching (1997), the University's highest academic prize. Karl served as director of Stanford's Center for Latin American Studies from 1990-2001, was praised by the president of Stanford for elevating the Center for Latin American Studies to "unprecedented levels of intelligent, dynamic, cross-disciplinary activity and public service in literature, arts, social sciences, and professions." In 1997 she was awarded the Rio Branco Prize by the President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, in recognition for her service in fostering academic relations between the United States and Latin America.
Francis Fukuyama
Encina Hall, C148
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science.
Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, has appeared in over twenty foreign editions. His book In the Realm of the Last Man: A Memoir will be published in fall 2026.
Francis Fukuyama received his B.A. from Cornell University in classics, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science. He was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation, and of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State. From 1996-2000 he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and from 2001-2010 he was Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. He served as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics from 2001-2004. He is editor-in-chief of American Purpose, an online journal.
Dr. Fukuyama holds honorary doctorates from Connecticut College, Doane College, Doshisha University (Japan), Kansai University (Japan), Aarhus University (Denmark), the Pardee Rand Graduate School, and Adam Mickiewicz University (Poland). He is a non-resident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rand Corporation, the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, and the Board of the Volcker Alliance. He is a fellow of the National Academy for Public Administration, a member of the American Political Science Association, and of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is married to Laura Holmgren and has three children.
(October 2025)
Global Populisms
Join us for the final event in a four-part webinar series hosted by the Democracy Action Lab — "Rebuilding Democracy in Venezuela." Tuesday, April 28, 10:00 - 11:15 am PT.
Black Politics and American Democracy
We meet at a moment of democratic upheaval in the United States, one in which questions of race and identity are at the heart of what many understand to be a crisis for American democracy. Against this backdrop, three scholars of Black politics gather to reflect on the politics of an ever diversifying Black public and what it tells us about the possibilities and limits of democratic life in the United States.
This conversation, presented by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law's Program on Identity, Democracy, and Justice, brings together Katherine Tate, Corey Fields, and Hakeem Jefferson to consider how Black politics is understood in the present moment. Rather than treating Black politics as singular or static, the discussion will take seriously the diversity of views, experiences, and political commitments that exist within Black communities, and the ways those differences matter for how people understand political life.
The event will begin with brief opening reflections from Tate and Fields, followed by a conversation with Jefferson, and will conclude with a moderated Q&A with attendees.
About the Speakers
Katherine Tate is one of the foremost scholars of Black politics in the United States and a Professor of Political Science at Brown University. She received her Ph.D. in political science from the University of Michigan.
Tate is the author of seven books, including the award-winning Black Faces in the Mirror and From Protest to Politics. Her most recent book, Gendered Pluralism (University of Michigan Press, 2023), is coauthored with Belinda Robnett. She is currently at work on a new manuscript focused on Black voters and the 2024 election. Her research and teaching focus on public opinion, government, and Black and women’s politics.
Corey Fields
Corey D. Fields is a sociologist whose work examines how identity shapes social life at both the individual and collective level. He received his Ph.D. in sociology from Northwestern University.
Fields is the author of Black Elephants in the Room: The Unexpected Politics of African-American Republicans (University of California Press, 2016). His research draws on a cultural perspective to explore the relationship between identity, experience, and meaning across a range of domains, including politics, work, and relationships. This year, he is a fellow at Stanford's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He is currently at work on projects examining how social and professional identities are constructed and expressed, including a study of African Americans in the advertising industry.
Hakeem Jefferson
Hakeem Jefferson is an assistant professor of political science at Stanford University and faculty director of the Program on Identity, Democracy, and Justice at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. He received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Michigan.
His research centers on questions of race, identity, and political behavior in the United States, with a particular interest in the political and social lives of Black Americans. He is the author of Respectability Politics, forthcoming with the University of Chicago Press. The book examines disagreement among Black Americans about how members of their own group should behave, especially around issues of discipline and punishment, and develops a theory of ingroup social control that shows how stigma and status influence those judgments.
Philippines Conference Room — Encina Hall Central, 3rd Floor
616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford
This event is in-person and open to the public. Live stream available via Zoom. Registration is required.
In Advanced Democracies, Politics May Be Moving Beyond Policy
On April 2, FSI Center Fellow Didi Kuo opened CDDRL’s Spring Research Seminar Series with a presentation titled “Beyond Policy: The Rise of Non-Programmatic Party Competition in Advanced Democracies.” The seminar examined whether policy continues to serve as the primary basis of political competition and voter-party linkage in advanced democratic systems.
Kuo began by outlining the traditional “programmatic” model of party competition, which assumes that political parties compete by offering distinct policy platforms and that voters make choices based on these policy differences. In this framework, democratic responsiveness emerges from the alignment between public preferences and party positions. Historically, such programmatic competition has been closely associated with democratic consolidation, strong institutions, and effective governance.
However, Kuo challenged this assumption by asking whether policy still plays a central role in contemporary politics. She presented evidence suggesting that political discourse, particularly in the United States, has shifted away from policy-focused communication. For example, recent political speeches were shown to contain fewer policy references and more grievance-based and retrospective language. This shift raised concerns that parties may increasingly rely on alternative strategies to mobilize voters.
The seminar then explored several non-programmatic forms of political competition. These included identity-based appeals, grievance politics, populism, and affective polarization. Kuo explained that these strategies emphasize emotional resonance, group identity, and symbolic representation rather than concrete policy proposals. In such contexts, voters may be motivated less by policy preferences and more by partisan identity or perceived cultural alignment. Importantly, these dynamics do not fully replace programmatic competition but instead reduce its relative importance.
Kuo also discussed theoretical and empirical research showing that many voters possess limited policy knowledge and often hold unstable or weakly structured policy preferences. As a result, factors such as party identification, emotion, and social identity can play a more significant role in shaping political behavior. This complicates the traditional view that democratic accountability operates primarily through policy evaluation.
To assess whether programmatic competition is declining, Kuo introduced new measurement strategies. These included expert surveys evaluating party cohesion and policy salience, as well as analyses of voter responses over time to determine whether individuals reference policy when expressing political preferences. The findings suggested a gradual decline in policy-based reasoning among voters, even in countries like the United States that have historically been highly programmatic.
Kuo concluded by considering the broader implications of this shift. A decline in programmatic competition may weaken democratic accountability, as voters become less likely to evaluate governments based on policy performance. It may also contribute to increased polarization and reduced willingness to compromise, as identity-driven politics tends to be more zero-sum. Ultimately, the seminar suggested that if policy is no longer the dominant mode of political competition, scholars may need to rethink core assumptions about how democracy functions.
In sum, Kuo’s presentation highlighted a significant transformation in advanced democracies: the growing importance of non-programmatic strategies in party competition and the potential consequences this shift holds for democratic governance.
Read More
Didi Kuo explores how non-programmatic competition is changing the relationship between voters, parties, and democratic institutions.
- In an April 2 research seminar at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Didi Kuo examined whether policy still drives party competition in advanced democracies.
- Kuo’s seminar showed parties increasingly rely on identity, grievance, and polarization alongside traditional policy-based appeals.
- The research suggests declining policy-based competition could weaken democratic accountability and reshape how scholars understand democratic governance.
A Blueprint for Healthier Political Parties
The crisis in American democracy is inseparable from the failings of our political parties. Parties are essential to organizing citizens’ engagement in democracy, managing debate and compromise, nurturing candidates, and setting out competing national and local agendas. But our major parties have largely failed to fulfill these responsibilities, albeit in different ways.
In October 2025, New America’s Political Reform program brought together 42 political scientists and sociologists, political practitioners, and organizational leaders for a first-of-its-kind convening to consider two questions: What would a healthier system of political parties look like, and how can we build it?
Key Findings
- Rebuild party organizations at the state and local level. Across much of the country, state and local parties no longer function as reliable civic institutions. They appear during election cycles and vanish afterward, leaving little ongoing connection between citizens and the political organizations that claim to represent them.
- Reconstruct the talent pipeline, both for party leaders and candidates. Parties once developed local activists into national leaders. Today, those pathways are unclear or inaccessible. Weak organizations, consultant-driven candidate recruitment, and financial barriers have narrowed opportunities for new candidates and internal leadership.
- Break the cycle of short-term incentives. Modern parties operate in an environment that rewards fundraising and the next election cycle over long-term organizing and institutional development. Predatory small-dollar fundraising tactics weaken trust and reinforce parties’ transactional relationships with voters.
- Strengthen parties as core democratic institutions. Parties are essential to organizing citizens’ engagement, managing debate, nurturing candidates, and translating electoral victories into policy wins. Election reforms and civic engagement matter, but without parties capable of channeling political energy into governing coalitions, democratic renewal will remain incomplete.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the participants of the “Blueprint for a Healthier Party System” convening hosted by New America’s Political Reform program in October 2025. The convening and resulting report were made possible by the generous support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Thanks also to Maresa Strano and Sarah Jacob of the Political Reform program, as well as our New America events and communications colleagues, for their organizational and editorial support throughout the project.
Editorial disclosure: The views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of New America, its staff, fellows, funders, or board of directors.
A convening organized by New America's Political Reform program reveals pathways to rebuild America’s political parties.