Policy Analysis
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.
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.
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.
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.
New Study Reveals Geopolitical Rivalries Shape Attitudes Toward Immigrants
Hero Image
Walking Out: America’s New Trade Policy in the Asia-Pacific and Beyond
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
1
Visiting Scholar at APARC, 2024-2025
you_jung_lee_2024_headshot.jpg

You Jung Lee joined 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 conducted 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.
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.
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
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.

Hero Image
Bryce Tuttle, JD ’26 (BA ’20), Kyrylo Korol, JD ’25, Sarah Manney, JD ’24 (BA ’18), Erik Jensen, and Max (Tengqin) Han, JD ’24 in Washington, DC.
Bryce Tuttle, JD ’26 (BA ’20), Kyrylo Korol, JD ’25, Sarah Manney, JD ’24 (BA ’18), Erik Jensen, and Max (Tengqin) Han, JD ’24 in Washington, DC.
Sarah Manney
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
Book Publisher
Policy Practicum: Regulating Professional Enablers of Russia’s War on Ukraine (Law 809M)
Authors
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.

Hero Image
In an earlier iteration of the course, Professor Jeremy Weinstein lectured to students via Zoom in an experimental multi-screen format. Copyright and credit: Bob Smith, MSME, ’82
In an earlier iteration of the course, Professor Jeremy Weinstein lectured to students via Zoom in an experimental multi-screen format. Copyright and credit: Bob Smith, MSME, ’82
Bob Smith, MSME, ’82
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.

Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) is thrilled to share the news that Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and Director of Stanford’s Ford Dorsey Masters in International Policy Program, has been selected as the recipient of the 2024 Fred Riggs Award for Lifetime Achievement in International and Comparative Public Administration.

Widely considered one of the most prestigious awards in the field of public administration, the Fred Riggs Award was established by SICA, the Section on International and Comparative Administration of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), in 1985 to recognize those who have made significant, substantial, and widely recognized contributions to the conceptual, theoretical, or operational development of international, comparative, or development administration. In their announcement of the award, SICA noted that “Dr. Fukuyama and Dr. Fred Riggs share a curiosity about diverse societies, interdisciplinarity, and a broad conception of our field” and that Fukuyama’s long-standing dedication to academic research in comparative public administration earned him this distinguished recognition.

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 most recent book, Liberalism and Its Discontents, was published in May 2022.

Dr. Fukuyama's selection for the award underscores his profound impact on the field of public administration. In his nomination letter, Dr. Alasdair Roberts, professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, shared that his “sophisticated discussion of concepts and problems in the field has been combined with concern for careful empirical investigation.”

SICA Chair Aroon P. Manoharan added, “It is impressive to note that [Fukuyama’s] works have been widely cited and significantly impacted the field. [His] 2004 book State-Building has been cited more than 4,400 times (Google Scholar), and [his] 2013 article "What is governance?" in Governance in 2013 has been cited more than a thousand times. Dr. Roberts also notes that [Fukuyama is] "one of those rare scholars capable of engaging and informing public policy without any loss of scholarly rigor and depth." [His] essays "America in Decay" (Foreign Affairs) and "In Defense of the Deep State" (Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Administration) have been enormously influential to the broader community on the crucial issues in administration and governance.”

“I’m really proud to receive this award,” Fukuyama said. “My own field of political science does not take public administration with anything like the seriousness it deserves. Public administration plays a vital role in the shaping of societies worldwide.”

I’m really proud to receive this award. My own field of political science does not take public administration with anything like the seriousness it deserves. Public administration plays a vital role in the shaping of societies worldwide.
Francis Fukuyama
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow, FSI

In addition to his scholarly endeavors, Dr. Fukuyama has been actively involved in various institutions and associations dedicated to public service and administration. He served in the US Department of State on two occasions and is currently on the board of the Volcker Alliance, an organization founded by Paul Volcker dedicated to promoting public service. His notable engagements, including the Donald C. Stone Lecture at the 2023 ASPA Annual Conference, have resonated deeply with the public administration community.

Please join us in offering our heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Fukuyama on his well-deserved honor. It is a testament to his hard work, dedication, and enormous international contributions to public administration and policy. He will receive the award on April 12, 2024, at ASPA’s annual conference in Minneapolis, MN.

Read More

Construction on a building in Sri Lanka
Q&As

Stanford Researchers Explore the Challenges Created By and Reforms Needed to Improve China’s Belt and Road Initiative

Francis Fukuyama and Michael Bennon share their insights on the potential implications of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) on global development finance, as well as suggestions for reforms that could bolster international stakeholders’ ability to manage any potential debt crises arising from BRI projects.
Stanford Researchers Explore the Challenges Created By and Reforms Needed to Improve China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Solving Public Policy Problems
News

Reimagining Public Policy Education at Stanford and Beyond

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law is proud to announce the launch of a new free massive open online course aimed at providing participants with a foundational knowledge of the best means for enacting effective policy change in their home countries.
Reimagining Public Policy Education at Stanford and Beyond
Hero Image
Francis Fukuyama
Francis Fukuyama. Photo credit: Djurdja Padejski
Djurdja Padejski
All News button
1
Subtitle

The Fred Riggs Award for Lifetime Achievement in Public Administration is an academic award given annually by the Section on International and Comparative Administration of the American Society for Public Administration.

Paragraphs

White nationalism remains an often overlooked terror threat amongst the many national security risks facing the United States and Russian Federation. While typically grounded in domestic theaters, white nationalist groups have increased the frequency and scale of their armed activities by incorporating aspects of transnational cooperation that are tactics often used by larger terrorist networks. This trend has raised questions regarding the ways in which white nationalism represents a new type of international technology-enabled terror threat toward the United States and Russian Federation and how policy makers can best address this challenge. This research paper will explore how white nationalist groups in the United States and Russian Federation have sought cooperation with one another through wider ideological and strategic alignment. This paper will also explore the respective communication techniques of these groups, which have been enabled through the internet and new technologies. This paper will conclude with a reflection on potential avenues of cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation, drawing on previous examples of collaboration among government officials and non-state actors in combating terrorism.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Conference Memos
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
The Stanford US-Russia Journal
Authors
Number
No. 1
-
Claire Adida

Perspective-getting and correcting misconceptions are common interventions to promote inclusion toward outgroups. However, each strategy has limitations. Information corrections yield ambiguous effects, and empathy-based interventions may reproduce the biases they are meant to alleviate. We develop a theoretical framework that clarifies the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy, and offer a design to identify the conditions under which they are most effective. Using three studies on refugee inclusion with nearly 15,000 Americans over three years, we find that information and perspective-getting affect different outcomes. Perspective-getting affects warmth, policy preferences, and behavior, while information leads to factual updating only. We show that combining both interventions produces an additive effect on all outcomes, that neither strategy enhances the other, but that bundling the strategies may prevent backfire effects of information. Our results underscore the promise and limits of information and perspective-getting for promoting inclusion, highlighting the benefits of integrating the two strategies.

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Claire Adida is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at UC San Diego. She is also a faculty affiliate with the UCSD Policy Design and Evaluation Lab, the UCSD Future of Democracy Initiative, the Stanford Immigration Policy Lab, the Evidence in Governance and Politics Groups, and the Center for Effective Global Action (CEGA). Professor Adida uses quantitative methods to study how countries manage new and existing forms of diversity. Her work has appeared in the American Political Science Review, the Quarterly Journal of Political Science, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Comparative Political Studies, the Journal of Experimental Political Science, Public Opinion Quarterly, PLoS ONE, and several other very prestigious outlets. She has written two books on immigrant exclusion, her 2010 Cambridge University Press book on Immigrant Exclusion and Insecurity in Africa and her 2016 Harvard University Press co-authored book on Why Muslim Integration Fails in Christian-Heritage Societies. Professor Adida’s work has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Hellman Foundation, and the Evidence in Governance and Politics Group. Professor Adida serves on the editorial board of the American Political Science Review and is an Associate Editor at the Journal of Experimental Political Science. She received her PhD in political science from Stanford University in 2010.

William J. Perry Conference Room (Encina Hall, 2nd floor, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford)

Open to Stanford-affiliates only

Claire Adida
Subscribe to Policy Analysis