Policy Analysis
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Subtitle

This paper empirically investigates the labor market effects of China’s 2007 VAT reform, which significantly reduced the tax cost of capital investment. Employing city-by-year variation in the reform, we demonstrate that the tax cuts increased the earnings of skilled workers and left the earnings of the unskilled workers unaffected. Moreover, we find limited impacts of the reform on employment for both skill groups. These results suggest that the tax incentives increased the relative demand for skills, thus resulting in a higher income inequality between skilled and unskilled workers.

Journal Publisher
Labour Economics
Authors
Hongbin Li
Hongbin Li
Lingsheng Meng
Lingsheng Meng
Paragraphs

Shorenstein APARC's annual report for the academic year 2023-24 is now available.

Learn about the research, publications, and events produced by the Center and its programs over the last academic year. Read the feature sections, which look at the historic meeting at Stanford between the leaders of Korea and Japan and the launch of the Center's new Taiwan Program; learn about the research our faculty and postdoctoral fellows engaged in, including a study on China's integration of urban-rural health insurance and the policy work done by the Stanford Next Asia Policy Lab (SNAPL); and catch up on the Center's policy work, education initiatives, publications, and policy outreach. Download your copy or read it online below.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Annual Reports
Publication Date
Authors
Authors
Melissa Morgan
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

A warming planet. Backsliding in democracy at home and abroad. Competition with China. And active war in Europe. Broadening conflicts in the Middle East.

The world today is facing no shortage of overlapping, multilateral challenges. At a recent panel titled, “Global Threats Today: What's At Stake and What We Can Do About It,” scholars from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) had an opportunity to delve deeper into what the data says about how these global threats are evolving, and how we should be thinking about how to address them.

The discussion, which was held as part of Stanford University's 2024 Reunion and Homecoming weekend, was moderated by Michael McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute, and featured Marshall Burke, Didi Kuo, Amichai Magen, Oriana Skylar Mastro, and Steven Pifer.

In the highlights below, each scholar shares what they wish people understood better about climate change, the war in Ukraine and Russia's aggression, China's strategy for building power, the health of American democracy, and how the fighting between Israel and Hamas fits into the geopolitical struggle between democracies and autocracies.

Their full conversation can be heard on the World Class podcast, and the panel can be watched in its entirety on YouTube.
 

Follow the link for a full transcript of "Global Threats Today: The 2024 Edition."


Illiberal Actors Are on the Move  |  Amichai Magen


Around the world, we are seeing a new axis of influence coalescing. Some have called it the "axis of misery" or the "axis of resistance." It is composed of Russia and Iran and North Korea, with a lot of Chinese involvement as well. It is transforming our international system in unbelievable ways. It is united by the desire to dismantle the liberal international order, and we're starting to see the nature and the interconnectivity of this new axis of chaos much more clearly. 

You see North Korean soldiers fighting for Putin in Ukraine. You see Putin helping the Houthis attack international Western shipping in Yemen. We see North Korean tunnel technology turn up in Lebanon with Hezbollah and then with Hamas in Gaza. The interconnectivity is something that we really need to know much more about.

Historically, emperors, kings, dukes, used to spend 50% of their resources on preparing for war or waging war. But in the post-Second World War era, we built a critical norm that we've called the liberal international order. And the miracle of the liberal international order is that we've managed to take global averages of defense spending from about 50% to a global average of about 7%. And the resulting surplus wealth has allowed us to invest in education, health, and scientific discovery.

What is at stake now is the possibility of a return of a norm where states are destroyed and disappear. And we have currently three states in the international system, at the very least — Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan — that are at risk of annihilation. To that end, we must articulate a positive strategic vision for the Middle East that will strive towards a two state solution, that would give the Palestinian people the dignity and the freedom that they deserve alongside a safe and secure Israel, and that will leverage the new spirit of cooperation that exists in the Middle East.

If we allow the norm of the non-disappearance of state to erode and collapse, we will go back to the law of the jungle, where we will have to spend so much more money on the wrong things. That is what is at stake in Ukraine, in the Middle East, and with Taiwan.
 

Amichai Magen

Amichai Magen

Visiting Fellow in Israel Studies at the Freeman Spogli Institute
Full Profile


Challenges to Democracy Come From Within |  Didi Kuo


Many people think that the threat to democracy comes from outside our borders, particularly from countries like Russia and China that are asserting themselves in new and aggressive ways.

But the real threat to democracies that we're seeing across the globe is coming from within. Leaders come to power through democratic means, but then they begin to erode power from within. They attack the electoral system and the process of democratic elections, and they take power from other branches of government and aggregate it to themselves within the office of the executive. 

The good news is there are examples of countries like France, Brazil, and Poland where illiberal leaders have been stopped by pro-democracy coalitions of people who came together. These coalitions don't necessarily agree with each other politically, but they've come together and adapted in order to foreclose on these anti-democratic forces. 

That flexibility and adaptability is the reason democracies succeed. We see this over and over again in the the United States. When our institutions have become out of date, we've changed them. We extended suffrage, first to Black Americans who were formerly enslaved, then to women, then to Native Americans. We eliminating poll taxes and rethought what it means to have a multiracial democracy. We have a long track record of making changes.

Today in 2024, some of our democratic institutions are antiquated and don't reflect our contemporary values. This is a moment where we should lean into that flexible strength of democracy and think about institutional reforms that will both strengthen our system against illiberal creep and help us better achieve the ideals that we aspiring to as a people.
 

Didi Kuo

Didi Kuo

Center Fellow at the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law
Full Profile


Ukraine Is Not Fated to Lose |  Steven Pifer


There's a narrative that's taking place that Russia is winning the war, Ukraine is losing, and it's only a matter of time. And it is true that Russia has captured a bit more territory than they occupied at the start of the year. But they've only achieved that at enormous cost.

As of September, the Pentagon says Russia had lost 600,000 dead and wounded soldiers. To put that in context, in February of 2022 when this major invasion began, the total Russian military — not just the army, but the total Russian military — was 1.1 million people. And the British Ministry of Defense earlier this week assessed that Russia now is losing 1,200 soldiers killed or severely wounded per day. You have to ask how long that's sustainable.

When I talk to Ukrainians, they still regard this war as existential. They're very determined to win, and we need to do a better job of supporting that. A stable and secure Europe is vital to America's national security interests, and you're not going to have a stable and secure Europe unless there's a stable and secure Ukraine. So we need to both provide them the weapons they need and relieve some of the restrictions we currently have and allow the Ukrainians to use those weapons to strike military targets in Russia.

Because we have to ask ourselves: what does an emboldened Vladimir Putin do if he wins in Ukraine? I don't think his ambitions end with Ukraine, perhaps not even with the post-Soviet space. There's going to be a much darker Russian threat hovering over Europe if Putin wins. So let's not count the Ukrainians out.
 

Man smiling

Steven Pifer

Affiliate at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and The Europe Center
Full Profile


China Isn't Going Away Anytime Soon  |  Oriana Skylar Mastro


There is a lot of discussion right now about the fact that the economy in China is slowing down and its demography is undergoing significant changes. What I'm here to tell you is that the challenge of China is not over, and is not going to be over any time soon. China has built power in a different way than the United States, and we have to reassess how we understand that power if we want to effectively deter, blunt, and block them from acting out in ways that threaten our partners and allies.

Since the 1990s, China has developed a significant amount of political, economic, and military power. They've gone from having an economy smaller than France’s  to the second largest in the world. They've gone from not being involved in international institutions to a great degree, not even having diplomatic relations with major countries like South Korea, to now having stronger and greater diplomatic networks, especially in Asia, than the United States.

What we really need to understand is that the U.S.-China competition is not about the United States or about China; it's about the rest of the world, and how the rest of the world sees us and how China interacts with us. The balance of power is shifting, and we have to be a lot smarter and a lot faster if we want to make sure it shifts in favor of our interests.

The United States hasn't had a comprehensive strategy towards the developing world in a long time. And we are running out of time to get that balance right in Asia. We don't have the right stuff. We don't have it in the right numbers, and it's not in the right place. Some of this is about deterring war over Taiwan, but it's also about generally maintaining peace and stability in Asia.
 

Oriana Skylar Mastro

Oriana Skylar Mastro

FSI Center Fellow at the Asia-Pacific Research Center and the Center for International Security and Cooperation
Full Profile


We're Doing Better (But Not Enough) on Climate Change |  Marshall Burke


Many people don't recognize how much progress we're actually making on climate issues. Emissions have fallen by 20% since 2005. We're actually speeding up the amount of substantial progress being made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and dealing with the core climate change problem, which is the human emission of greenhouse gasses.

In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act and the subsequent implementation of various rules the Biden administration has championed has given a huge boost in transitioning our economy to greener energy technologies, transportation technologies, and other kinds of infrastructure. We're moving a lot of cash to get that done, and the president is trying to get as much of it out the door as he can before his term ends.

Globally, the progress has been less rapid. Emissions are roughly flat. But overall, we're still making progress. I co-teach an undergraduate class on climate change, and we've had to update our slides on how much warming we're expecting over the next century. We thought it was going to be four degrees Celsius. Now we think it's going to be something between two and three degrees Celsius.

But the flip side of that is that we're still going to get warming of two to three degrees Celsius. We're already experiencing warming of about a degree Celsius, which is about two degrees Fahrenheit, and it's projected that we're going to get another three to five degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That is a lot of warming, and we are not prepared to deal with it. We need to do much more on mitigation and much more on adaptation if we're going to meet the realities of living in a changing climate.

So we've had progress on the one hand, but there's still a lot of work left to do in the coming decades.
 

Marshall Burke

Marshall Burke

Deputy Director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment
Full Profile


Get additional analysis from scholars at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies by following us on X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTube, and by subscribing to our newsletters and updates.

Read More

group of people standing on steps of Encina Hall at the 2024 Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue
News

Driving Climate-Resilient Infrastructure and Inclusive Industrialization: Highlights from the Third Annual Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue

Held at Stanford and hosted by the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, the third annual Dialogue convened global leaders, academics, industry experts, and emerging experts to share best practices for advancing Sustainable Development Goal 9 in support of economic growth and human well-being.
cover link Driving Climate-Resilient Infrastructure and Inclusive Industrialization: Highlights from the Third Annual Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue
People report high levels of dissatisfaction with democracy in countries where corruption is endemic.
News

How Corruption at the Top Erodes Support for Democracy

News of high-level dishonesty and graft can reduce people’s trust in government — and their fellow citizens.
cover link How Corruption at the Top Erodes Support for Democracy
Lisa Einstein
News

Lisa Einstein to Lead Artificial Intelligence Efforts at Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

Einstein, an alumna of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, was Stanford’s first dual master’s degree recipient in computer science (artificial intelligence concentration) and international policy (cyber policy and security specialization).
cover link Lisa Einstein to Lead Artificial Intelligence Efforts at Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
All News button
1
Subtitle

At a panel during Stanford's 2024 Reunion weekend, scholars from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies shared what their research says about climate change, global democracy, Russia and Ukraine, China, and the Middle East.

Date Label
Authors
Heather Rahimi
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Why do authoritarian regimes charge political opponents with non-political crimes when they can levy charges directly related to opponents' political activism?

On October 3, 2024, Stanford Professor of Communication, Jennifer Pan, presented her recent research answering this question. Professor Pan and her research collaborators used experimental and observational data from China and found that, “disguising repression by charging opponents with non-political crimes undermines the moral authority of opponents, minimizing backlash and mobilization while increasing public support for repression.”

During the lecture, Pan detailed the survey she and her collaborators conducted in China and shared a case study using data from Weibo to illustrate how China uses select charges to manipulate the public's view of influential dissidents and induce self-censorship among other dissidents in an act of disguised repression.


 

SCCEI China Briefs: Translating academic research in evidence-based insights

SCCEI produced a China Brief based off of Professor Pan’s paper on disguised repression in China. Read the brief here for a synthesized recap of the paper. 
 



Watch the recorded lecture to learn more about the research and her findings. 
 

 

Read More

Shipping containers at a loading dock
News

Decoding China’s Economic Slowdown: A Roundtable Discussion

The Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions and Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis co-organized a closed-door roundtable on China's recent economic slowdown and produced summary report of the discussion.
cover link Decoding China’s Economic Slowdown: A Roundtable Discussion
Craig Allen speaks at SCCEI 2024 conference
News

Silicon Showdown: Craig Allen Unpacks the Competition for Technology Leadership between the U.S. and China

Craig Allen, the President of the U.S.-China Business Council, spoke on the evolving dynamics of technological leadership between the U.S. and China and their implications for the rest of the world.
cover link Silicon Showdown: Craig Allen Unpacks the Competition for Technology Leadership between the U.S. and China
All News button
1
Subtitle

Why do authoritarian regimes charge political opponents with non-political crimes when they can levy charges directly related to opponents' political activism? Professor Pan presents her newest research during a Fall 2024 SCCEI event.

Date Label
Authors
Michael Breger
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The United States remains a leader in the global economy, yet over the past decade, it has taken a sharp turn away from its traditional support of free, rules-based trade. Since 2016, Washington has withdrawn from international trade agreements it once championed, opting for a more unilateral approach and pivoting from many of the obligations and norms it had shaped and insisted others honor to make trade fair, equitable, and mutually beneficial. How did the United States arrive here, and what steps should it take to leverage its strengths in the global trade system moving forward?

APARC visiting scholar Michael Beeman addresses these questions in his new book Walking Out: America’s New Trade Policy in the Asia-Pacific and Beyond (published by APARC, distributed by Stanford University Press). As a former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Japan, Korea, and APEC, Beeman brings an insider’s perspective to the recent transformation of U.S. trade policy. He provides a timely analysis of the forces driving this shift, examines its implications for America’s role in the global economy, and offers prescriptions for a robust U.S. trade policy that still serves American interests while allowing for compromise among competing ones.

Join Dr. Beeman on campus for our book launch event on October 17. Reserve your spot today >

Beeman joined APARC Communications Manager Michael Breger to discuss his new book. Listen to the conversation on our SoundCloud or YouTube channels. You can also download a transcript of the conversation.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our event invitations and scholar updates >


A Departure From the Norm


In Beeman's analysis, the tactic of "walking out" as a means to renegotiate international agreements reflects a fundamental shift in U.S. trade policy, marked by a rejection of established conditions, obligations, and norms that had previously facilitated global trade and reduced conflict. This shift has had significant repercussions, as Washington has increasingly distanced itself from the principles it once championed, such as non-discrimination, transparency, openness, and reciprocity in trade. The change represents more than the inability to agree to a specific trade deal. According to Beeman, it is a rejection of Washington's long-held principles in pursuit of new goals.

Beeman attributes the collapse of the decades-long bipartisan consensus supporting free trade to a domestic political climate, where “the emergence of America’s zero-sum-centered politics [is] the new, defining feature of its political system.” In this new system, trade is viewed not as mutually beneficial but as a competition for limited resources. This transformation began gaining traction during the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which galvanized new political movements, like the Tea Party and the so-called New Right, that simultaneously criticized free trade agreements.

Acknowledging the effects of domestic politics on trade policy, Beeman explores how the current political landscape, marked by extreme division, shapes trade decisions and reflects broader societal tensions. The author draws parallels between historical trade policy and the contemporary environment, noting that just as the 1930s saw dramatic swings in U.S. tariff policies, today’s new political geometry is “forged from extreme new levels of domestic political division [...] On trade, it is a geometry of acute angles and no longer one of curves and tangents.”

This political backdrop has resulted in an increasingly politicized trade policy that hampers efforts to find consensus. Beeman emphasizes that the transformation of U.S. trade policy is not merely a reflection of external pressures but a byproduct of internal political dynamics that redefine the goals and assumptions underpinning U.S. trade strategy.

“As a set of social values and domestic priorities in search of a means to express themselves through America’s external trade policies, [the Biden] Administration attempted to explain its approach in ways that often only raised contradictory distinctions.”
Michael Beeman

Trade Policy Tensions
 

Among the many trade agreements that the U.S. has recently abandoned was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). According to Beeman, internal divisions regarding the TPP's stringent rules and demands — especially concerning auto manufacturing — highlighted a rift between America's expectations of its trading partners and its willingness to accept compromise.

Various rules and regulations dictated by the TPP stoked domestic contention and “had scrambled the usual pathways to achieve the vote margins needed for these agreements. [They] also revealed the sharp new tension between what America expected and wanted from others and what it was willing to agree upon and accept for itself.” The Biden administration's decision to abandon its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) trade agreement in late 2023 further illustrated ongoing tensions in U.S. trade policy, underscoring a lack of coherent strategy following the TPP's collapse.

The book explores how the Trump and Biden Administrations have grappled with the contradictions in their trade policies. While Robert Lighthizer, the former trade representative under Trump, embraced a confrontational approach, Beeman criticizes the fallout from these decisions, arguing they often left established commitments unfulfilled and damaged international relationships. But Beeman also maintains that the Biden Administration's attempts to repair and redefine trade relationships have resulted in a series of inconsistent policies, reflecting internal domestic tensions yet to be resolved.

“As a set of social values and domestic priorities in search of a means to express themselves through America’s external trade policies, [the Biden] Administration attempted to explain its approach in ways that often only raised contradictory distinctions.” Once these “became harder to explain and justify, [it] began developing what amounted to a new theory of global trade disorder and dysfunction in an attempt to more convincingly frame its decisions.”

According to Beeman, disruptions from Covid-19 were a “helpful backdrop,” but, he argues, “if set against the vastly more immense challenges of the late 1940s and early 1950s, when America made an intentional policy choice to work with other countries to commit to open, rules-based trade to lead the world out of crisis, the problems of 2020-21 were challenges that policymakers from that time undoubtedly would have preferred.”

Instead of the mutually beneficial approach the United States took to foreign global trade after World War II, now we see the "us versus them" approach driven by the same zero-sum arguments that have transformed America's domestic and foreign policy.
Michael Beeman

Barriers to Progress
 

The current political landscape has made it challenging for Congress to reach a consensus on trade issues. The failure to renew the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which provided tariff relief to developing countries, exemplifies the paralysis in U.S. trade policy. Beeman remarks upon how, “after the bipartisan mainstream that advanced open and freer trade […] was swept away by America’s New Right and progressive Left, their shared interest in adding new and ever more conditions to America’s imports was insufficient to overcome their sharp disagreements over which conditions to add.” For Beeman, the inability to agree on new conditions for trade reflects broader ideological divides that hinder progress.

Ultimately, Beeman warns that America’s zero-sum approach to trade may lead to a cycle of self-inflicted isolation. He argues that this shift is not solely a reaction to China’s rise but represents a deeper ideological rift in American politics. “International trade adds a foreign, or external, dimension to zero-sum thinking that has facilitated a surprising degree of alignment between the New Right and the progressive Left,” he writes, specifically the “zero-sum belief that America is made worse off by freer trade, which benefits ‘them.’” Such an alignment has created an environment where bipartisan support for trade agreements has eroded, complicating efforts to establish a coherent and effective trade policy moving forward.

An essential read for anyone interested in the international political economy of trade and the future of America’s role in the global economy, “Walking Out” highlights the urgent need for the United States to reconcile its domestic divides to reestablish its role in the global economy. The current trajectory, characterized by a rejection of its foundational principles, risks fostering new conflicts with allies and adversaries alike, contradicting the original goals of the international trading system.

Read More

side view encina hall
News

Open Faculty Positions in Japanese Politics and Foreign Policy, Korean Studies, and Taiwan Studies

Stanford University seeks candidates for a new faculty position in Japanese politics and foreign policy, a faculty position in Korean Studies, and a new faculty position on Taiwan. All three appointments will be at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and affiliated with Shorenstein APARC.
cover link Open Faculty Positions in Japanese Politics and Foreign Policy, Korean Studies, and Taiwan Studies
People enjoy lunch at a Chinese community centre
News

New Study Reveals Geopolitical Rivalries Shape Attitudes Toward Immigrants

Researchers including Stanford sociologist Kiyoteru Tsutsui, the deputy director of APARC and director of the Japan Program at APARC, find that geopolitical rivalries and alliances significantly shape citizen perceptions of immigrants.
cover link New Study Reveals Geopolitical Rivalries Shape Attitudes Toward Immigrants
All News button
1
Subtitle

A new book by APARC Visiting Scholar Michael Beeman offers a timely analysis of the shift in United States' foreign trade policy, examines its recent choices to “walk out” on the principles that had defined the global trade system it had created, and offers recommendations for a redefined and more productive trade policy strategy.

Date Label
0
Visiting Scholar at APARC, 2024-2025
you_jung_lee_2024_headshot.jpg

You Jung Lee joins the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) as visiting scholar for the 2024-2025 academic year. She is a journalist for the Korea Economic Daily, having spent over 10 years covering areas including international affairs and, most recently, construction and the real estate market. While at APARC, she will be conducting research examining Korea's housing and real estate market, its policies and financial structure, and comparing Korea's system to that of the U.S.

Date Label
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

China’s economy registered an average annual growth of 9.5% from the start of reforms in 1978 until 2019. Throughout this period, economic performance was a key indicator of China’s success and served as a critical pillar of the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy. Over the past five years, however, China’s leadership has taken an ideological turn under Xi Jinping, and economic growth has no longer been a top priority.

To examine the myriad factors behind China’s recent economic slowdown and, more importantly, consider where China might be headed, the Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions and Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis co-organized the fourth in their series of closed-door roundtables. Held in April 2024 and conducted under the Chatham House Rule, the roundtable brought together leading experts on the Chinese economy for a discussion focused on the following questions:

  1. What is the mix of determinants — cyclical, structural, and political — for slower economic growth in China?
  2. How much can China’s recent economic woes be attributed to Beijing’s own policy mistakes, and how much to tensions between China’s hybrid Leninist political regime and the dynamism of a market economy?
  3. What are the potential political, social, and geopolitical consequences of the slowdown?
  4. If the slowdown continues, or even worsens, could the leadership’s priorities shift? If so, what policy measures or structural reforms might reverse the slowdown and preempt some of the broader consequences?
     

In partnership with Asia Society Policy Institute's Center for China Analysis

Read More

tier_cities_feature.jpg
News

Experts Convene Roundtable to Discuss China’s Property Sector Slowdown

The Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions and Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis co-organized a closed-door roundtable on the extent, causes, and implications of China’s current property sector slowdown and produced a summary report of the discussion.
cover link Experts Convene Roundtable to Discuss China’s Property Sector Slowdown
PCB circuit board of electronic device
News

Experts Convene Roundtable to Discuss China’s Industrial Policy

The Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions and Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis co-organized a closed-door roundtable on the scope, impact, and implications of China’s industrial policy and produced a summary report of the discussion.
cover link Experts Convene Roundtable to Discuss China’s Industrial Policy
All News button
1
Subtitle

The Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions and Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis co-organized a closed-door roundtable on China's recent economic slowdown and produced summary report of the discussion.

Authors
Katherine Viti
Kyrylo Korol
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Many of us go to law school interested in public policy as well as in law, but it is a rare opportunity when students get to do legal research, write a policy report—and present that report to decision-makers in Washington, D.C. For those of us enrolled in Policy Practicum: Regulating Legal Enablers of Russia’s War on Ukraine, our experience went beyond learning theory and skills. The research class provided a platform to support the fight for justice globally and to reiterate the importance of lawyers in safeguarding democracy. And for one of us, it was also the opportunity to aid his own country, Ukraine, and its people in an existential war and to ensure that the voices of people from afar are heard and considered.

As Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine dragged into its third year, we were part of a group of Stanford Law School students researching how U.S.-based policy solutions could contribute to Ukraine’s war effort. In the policy lab, Professor Erik Jensen led students through two quarters of work to develop a policy report on the problem of legal professionals helping to evade sanctions (lawyer-enablers) in the context of the war in Ukraine. The policy lab’s client was the International Working Group on Russian Sanctions at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, led by Professor Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia.

Read the full article in Stanford Lawyer.

All News button
1
Subtitle

Stanford Law School students research and advocate for stronger regulation of lawyer-enablers of Russian sanctions evasion, led by professor Erik Jensen.

Paragraphs

Lawyers represent a significant threat to the integrity of the U.S. sanctions regime. This report analyzes that threat in the context of Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine. Sanctions, particularly individual sanctions, are a central weapon in the United States’ national security arsenal. This report recommends that Congress, federal agencies, and state bar associations implement a comprehensive regulatory regime for lawyers engaging in certain transactional work to ensure U.S. lawyers are no longer enablers of sanctions evasion.

This report recommends amending the Banking Secrecy Act (BSA) to subject financial transactional work completed by lawyers to the same anti-money laundering and anti-sanctions evasion requirements to which banks are subject. Lawyers would be required to verify the true identity of their clients when completing financial transactions on their behalf and file reports with the government on suspicious client activity. This requirement would prevent oligarchs from gaming the U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) system by using lawyers instead of banks for these transactions. Congress must also fully fund the agencies that would implement this new law: the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). FinCEN must issue comprehensive rules clarifying lawyers’ obligations under the BSA, and OFAC must amend its regulations to plug a critical gap in the current sanctions implementation framework. Finally, state bar associations must require that lawyers be trained on their new obligations.

This report begins with a description of the problem: oligarchic wealth, how that wealth supports Putin’s regime, and how U.S. lawyers enable sanctions evasion (Part I). It then gives an overview of the current regulatory landscape (Part II). Next, it presents how six other countries regulate lawyers as potential enablers of sanctions evasion and other crimes, including money laundering (Part III). Finally, it proposes a comprehensive legislative and regulatory regime to solve the lawyers-as-enablers problem (Part IV).

About the Law and Policy Lab

Under the guidance of faculty advisers, Law and Policy Lab students counsel real-world clients in such areas as education, copyright and patent reform, governance and transparency in emerging economies, policing technologies, and energy and the environment. Policy labs address problems for real clients, using analytic approaches that supplement traditional legal analysis. The clients may be local, state, or federal public agencies or officials, or private non-profit entities such as NGOs and foundations. Typically, policy labs assist clients through empirical evidence that scopes a policy problem and assesses options and courses of action. The methods may include comparative case studies, population surveys, stakeholder interviews, experimental methods, program evaluation or big data science, and a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Faculty and students may apply theoretical perspectives from cognitive and social psychology, decision theory, economics, organizational behavior, political science or other behavioral science disciplines.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Reports
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Stanford Law School Law and Policy Lab, 2023-24 Spring
Authors
Erik Jensen
Kyrylo Korol
Sarah Manney
Katherine Viti
Lexi Curnin
Bryce Tuttle
Nathaniel Quigley
Tengqin (Max) Han
Garrett Walker
Frishta Quigley
Danny Sharp
Gabriel Bernardes
Moira Lieto
Gretchen Knaut
Book Publisher
Policy Practicum: Regulating Professional Enablers of Russia’s War on Ukraine (Law 809M)
Authors
Jonathan Rabinovitz
Parth Sarin
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

It was 5 p.m. Pacific Time on a Wednesday. While Silicon Valley was ending its workday, dozens of tech professionals from around the world were logging on to Zoom to participate in Ethics, Technology + Public Policy for Practitioners. The seven-week course was taught digitally in fall 2023 by Rob Reich, Mehran Sahami, and Jeremy M. Weinstein, three professors whose disciplinary grounding spans philosophy, computer science, and public policy, at Stanford University, supported by the course’s managing director, Megan Mellin, MSM ’19.

Read the full article from Stanford Digital Education.

All News button
1
Subtitle

In its fourth year, "Ethics, Tech + Public Policy for Practitioners," taught by Rob Reich, Mehran Sahami, and Jeremy M. Weinstein, experiments with setting up long-term communities of professionals interested in responsible tech governance.

Subscribe to Policy Analysis