Search

Begin New Search Political Geography China Content Type Policy Brief Publishing Institution University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) Publication Year within 10 Years Publication Year within 25 Years

1. How Does China’s Industrial Policy Support Specific Sectors?

Author:
Barry Naughton and Tai Ming Cheung
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
The brief summarizes discussions and findings from the workshop on China’s Industrial Policy: Sectors and Resources, which was hosted by the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) with support from the UC San Diego 21st Century China Center, on September 30–October 2, 2022. Held in La Jolla, California on the UC San Diego campus, the workshop examined Chinese industrial policies in the sectors in which China hopes to make the biggest technological leaps, including high-performance computing, artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, solar, robots, aerospace, and biotech. Participants from leading universities, think tanks, and industry, along with U.S. government representatives, shared their research and observations along China’s industrial policy life cycle, from formulation to implementation.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, Science and Technology, and Innovation
Political Geography:
China and Indo-Pacific

2. China and the U.S. Compete for Global Techno-Security Dominance

Author:
Tai Ming Cheung
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
In the struggle for global geostrategic and geoeconomic supremacy between the United States and China, the technosecurity sphere where economics, technological innovation, and national security meet has become a principal battleground. Two contrasting models are pitted against each other: China’s state-led top-down approach and the United States’ market-driven bottom-up system. Which of them will ultimately prevail will depend on how capable, robust, and adept they are in meeting the challenge of rapid and disruptive change? This brief examines the underpinnings of U.S.-China great power technosecurity competition and assesses what the countries’ different approaches imply for future techno-security rivalry.
Topic:
Security, Industrial Policy, Science and Technology, Strategic Competition, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

3. Global Value Chains, Risk Perception, and Economic Statecraft

Author:
Phoebe Moon
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Many countries, including the United States and China, have come to see economic statecraft as superior to armed conflict. Faced with a trading partner’s economic sanctions, some countries try to avoid risk by complying with or ignoring the coercer’s demands, but others retaliate and escalate conflict. In recent years, sanctions have been applied, not only to “rogue” states, but against trading partners. The United States and China, but also Japan, Australia, and Canada, were either the target or purveyor of economic coercion by or against trading partners in the last five years. However, not all resulted in trade wars. When, then, do economic sanctions lead to trade wars? This policy brief examines the ongoing Japan-South Korea trade dispute with a focus on how policymakers’ risk perceptions regarding global value chains (GVCs) can influence when trade wars take shape.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, National Security, Economy, Innovation, Global Value Chains, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

4. Maximizing the Benefits of Trade for Africa

Author:
Prince Paa-Kwesi Heto
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
African countries are increasingly integrating into global supply chains (GSC). Yet the linkages between African and foreign firms and the impact of GSC activities on the development prospects of African states is not well understood. This policy brief analyzes GSC trade between the U.S. and China, on the one hand, and Southern African Customs Union (SACU) member states on the other. It shows that, contrary to the conventional wisdom that SACU states export raw materials with few value-added products, SACU states are actually positioned further up in the supply chain hierarchy. They import intermediate inputs from China and export a substantial volume of intermediate goods to the U.S. rather than to China. Moreover, GSC trade is diversifying the countries’ exports and increasing their industrial capacity, positioning African countries to attract companies moving out of China, whether because of high production costs, supply chain disruptions, U.S. tariffs, or geopolitical tension between the U.S. and China. But SACU states will need to adopt smart policies to upgrade existing supply chains and position themselves to build or attract new GSCs to their region.
Topic:
Industrial Policy, National Security, Innovation, Trade, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
Africa, China, and Asia

5. U.S. Security Ties With Korea and Japan: Getting Beyond Deterrence

Author:
Stephen Haggard
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Japan and Korea—the United States’ two key allies in Northeast Asia—are both advanced industrial democracies facing similar constraints from a rising China and a nuclear North Korea. One would think that trilateral cooperation would be a cinch. Yet Japan and Korea have been at each other’s throats over simmering historical issues and differing approaches to China. Forging a trilateral alliance is highly unlikely. But strengthening cooperation is possible by focusing less on the military components of the alliance—i.e., providing extended deterrence—and more on new issues such as 5G, artificial intelligence (AI), and infrastructure, which can strengthen collective capabilities and make cooperation more appealing.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Security, Nuclear Power, Innovation, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Japan, China, North Korea, and Indo-Pacific

6. Why the U.S. Should Prioritize Security in Its 5G Roll Out

Author:
James Lee
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
5G technology promises to transform practically every sphere of life, from smartphones and self-driving cars, to remote surgery and virtual reality. Policies related to the rollout of 5G in the United States have tended to focus on mitigating security risks, but does protecting security come at the cost of expanding U.S. global influence—or does it simply cost too much? This policy brief by IGCC postdoctoral research associate James Lee analyzes the three main criteria for deciding what a “good” 5G policy should look like—security, global influence, and efficiency— and recommends that the United States’ 5G strategy prioritize security first, influence second, and efficiency third.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, International Security, Innovation, Strategic Competition, 5G, and Power
Political Geography:
China, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

7. A Crucial Link: Using Intellectual Property to Inform Global Supply Chain Policy

Author:
Philip C. Rogers
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with trade tensions and technological competition between the United States and China, have severely disrupted global supply chains. As businesses and policymakers grapple with “building back better” in a tense trade environment, they face the dilemma of balancing the traditional benefits of global production with the security demands of new geopolitical realities. This policy brief, part of a series on great power competition, highlights the productive role that intellectual property (IP) can play in navigating supply chain disruptions resulting from great power competition in a post-pandemic world. Rather than reinforcing the vicious cycle of techno-nationalist confrontation, it is possible for businesses and policymakers to promote virtuous cycles of competition with a more robust focus on intellectual property. Specifically, businesses and policymakers can look to IP licensing and allocation of rights to play a key role in tariff mitigation strategies and supply chain restructuring. At the same time, competitive pressures can lead to enhanced IP regimes in China and other economies, which argues for a more nuanced discussion of supply chains beyond physical relocation and economic decoupling.
Topic:
National Security, Intellectual Property/Copyright, Innovation, Strategic Competition, COVID-19, Supply Chains, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
China, Global Focus, and United States of America

8. The One-China Policy: Adapting to Tensions in the Taiwan Strait

Author:
James Lee
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Tensions are growing in the Taiwan Strait. Chinese warplanes have violated Taiwan’s air defense identification zone in record numbers, prompting fears of an invasion.1 2021 was the first year in which a potential crisis over Taiwan rose to the level of a “Tier 1 risk” in the Council on Foreign Relations’ Preventive Priorities Survey, which is an annual survey of American foreign policy experts.2 The United States faces a decision about what it can do to help prevent crossstrait tensions from escalating into war. A vital question is whether, and how much, the United States should change its “One-China policy.” Beginning with the Trump administration and continuing with the Biden administration, the United States has bolstered its support for Taiwan and become more assertive in resisting Beijing’s claims of sovereignty over the self-governing democracy.3 Although U.S. officials stress that the United States continues to adhere to the One-China policy, there is growing concern, as expressed by Daniel Russel of the Asia Society Policy Institute, that the United States is “edging closer and closer to the line that separates unofficial relations with official relations, which, in effect, could hollow out America’s One-China policy.”4 How much flexibility is built into the One-China policy, and what limits does the policy impose on what the United States can do to support Taiwan? To answer those questions, this policy brief explains what the One-China policy is and how it can exhibit both continuity and change. Analysis of the One-China policy often focuses on the Three U.S.-China Joint Communiqués, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the Six Assurances, which can create the impression that the One-China policy has not changed since those texts were formulated in the 1970s and 1980s.5 In fact, the One-China policy has been revised, such as in the Taiwan Policy Review during the Clinton administration.6 The One-China policy is neither set in stone nor completely fluid, and this policy brief identifies which elements are fixed and which elements are variable. It explains the OneChina policy at three levels: the fundamental position, the doctrinal statements, and the practices and conventions. These levels of policy range from the most abstract to the most concrete, but each is logically consistent with the others.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Security, Strategic Competition, and One-China Policy
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Asia, and Indo-Pacific

9. Defense Transparency Index 2019

Author:
IGCC
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
In an increasingly volatile world, mutual trust and confidence among defense establishments is critical. Growing arms competition and security anxiety in Northeast Asia, one of the most strategically important but politically volatile regions of the world, is increasing the demand for defense information, not only from governments and militaries but also from businesses, the media, and concerned citizens. The Defense Transparency Index (DTI), a project of the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, ranks six countries on their efforts to promote transparency in defense and national security. Included in the Index are the People’s Republic of China, Japan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the Republic of Korea, along with the external major powers most involved in the region—the United States and Russia. What constitutes “defense transparency” is contested, and there is a lack of agreed-upon definitions and standardized means of measurement. The DTI addresses this gap by providing a framework for defining and measuring defense transparency. We rank countries across eight indicators to come up with overall rankings and for each country, providing a rigorous measurement of this essential but contested concept. Countries score well for budgetary disclosures, issuance of defense white papers, and being transparent on their military capabilities. The DTI is presented at the annual Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue (NEACD), a multilateral forum for track-two diplomacy. NEACD, which was founded by Susan Shirk, seeks to reduce the risk of military conflict in the region and to lay the groundwork for an official multilateral process in Northeast Asia by providing a regular channel of informal communication among the six governments.
Topic:
Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, South Korea, North Korea, and United States of America