No. We should exempt workers earning the lowest wages.

Social Security faces a serious funding problem. The program takes in too little money to pay all that has been promised to future beneficiaries. Government forecasters predict Social Security’s reserve fund will be depleted between 2030 and 2034. There are two basic ways we can eliminate the funding gap: cut benefits or increase contributions. A common proposal is to increase the age at which workers can claim full retirement benefits. For people nearing retirement today, the full retirement age is 66. As a result of a 1983 law, that age will rise to 67 for workers born after 1959.

When policymakers urge us to raise the retirement age, they are proposing to increase the full retirement age beyond 67, possibly to 70, for workers now in their 30s or 40s. This saves money, but it also cuts monthly retirement benefits by the same percentage for every worker, unless workers delay claiming benefits. The policy might seem fair if workers in future generations could all expect to share in gains in life expectancy. However, new research shows that gains in life expectancy have been very unequal, with the biggest improvements among workers who earn top incomes. Life expectancy gains for workers with the lowest incomes have been small or negligible.

If the full retirement age were raised, future retirees with high lifetime earnings can expect to receive some compensation when their monthly benefits are cut. Because they can expect to live longer than today’s retirees, they will receive benefits for a longer span of years after 65. For low-wage workers, there is no compensation. Since they are not living longer, their lifetime benefits will fall by the same proportion as their monthly benefits. Thus, “raising the retirement age” is a policy that cuts the lifetime benefits of future low-wage workers by a bigger percentage than it does of future high-wage workers.

The fact that low-wage workers have seen small or negligible gains in life expectancy signals that their health when they are past 60 is no better than that of low-wage workers born 20 or 30 years ago. This suggests their capacity to work past 60 is no better than it was for past generations. A sensible policy for cutting future benefits should therefore preserve current benefit levels for workers who have contributed to Social Security for many years but have earned low wages.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in CQ Researcher.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

A months-long political crisis in Kiev came to an end on April 14, when Ukraine’s Rada (parliament) approved a new prime minister. Expectations that the government will move on needed reforms and anti-corruption measures, however, are low.

Kamikaze prime minister?

The previous prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, had served since the Maidan Revolution in February 2014. Early on, Yatsenyuk equated his tenure to a kamikaze mission, noting that the reforms the government would adopt would carry heavy political costs. He proved right. By early 2016, his National Front party, which won over 22 percent in the October 2014 party-list vote in the Rada elections, polled in the low single digits. 

Reports of a widening rift between Yatsenyuk and President Petro Poroshenko grew last autumn, though they still had reason to stay together. The National Front party and Poroshenko Bloc formed the core of the majority coalition in the Rada, and neither party could expect to fare well in early parliamentary elections.

Early on, Yatsenyuk equated his tenure to a kamikaze mission, noting that the reforms the government would adopt would carry heavy political costs.

The crisis took a twist in mid-February, when the Rada passed a resolution expressing disapproval of the work of Yatsenyuk and his cabinet…but then failed to pass a vote of no-confidence that would have led to Yatsenyuk’s dismissal.

Speculation nevertheless intensified over his looming replacement, with American-born Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko mooted as a possibility. Volodymyr Hroysman’s name also came into play. Hroysman, a member of the Poroshenko Bloc, is closely connected to the president. He had a reputation as a reformer and effective mayor of the city of Vinnytsia, though his performance as Rada speaker was mixed. For example, he opposed the finance ministry’s proposed tax reform, even though it was a requirement of Ukraine’s program with the International Monetary Fund. 

When Yatsenyuk announced his resignation on April 10, Hroysman appeared the front-runner to succeed him. His appointment took longer than expected, however, as he reportedly rejected some suggestions from the president’s camp for ministers, seeking to put in place his own people instead. Backroom negotiations and a fair amount of horse-trading as parties jockeyed for ministerial positions took place April 11 to 13. Finally, the Rada approved Hroysman on April 14.

Low reform expectations

At first glance, the composition of the new cabinet is a far more political group than its predecessor, which comprised many technocrats. It is devoid of names with established reputations for pressing reform or fighting corruption. My conversations on the margins of the Kiev Security Forum on April 14 to 15 turned up few expectations that the new cabinet will proceed with the kinds of reform actions and, in particular, measures to combat corruption that the country needs.

The International Monetary Fund will watch the cabinet’s actions before it considers releasing an additional tranche of funding for Ukraine. One unsettling sign: The incoming finance minister suggested that some adjustments might be sought in the IMF’s criteria. Historically, when Ukrainian finance ministers seek adjustments to IMF criteria and programs, they do not aim for changes that will accelerate reform.

At first glance, the composition of the new cabinet is a far more political group than its predecessor.

Some in Kiev worry about the close relationship between Hroysman and Poroshenko. But that relationship may have one upside: it ties Poroshenko more closely to the prime minister and his success or failure. Too often in the past, Ukrainian presidents have stood some distance from the prime minister, positioning themselves to escape responsibility for difficult government policies rather than throwing their full political weight behind the prime minister’s efforts.

Poroshenko did not fully back Yatsenyuk. As one Ukrainian observer put it, the president often seemed more interested in explaining or rationalizing the status quo rather than trying to change it. Now, if Hroysman and the new cabinet fail to deliver, it will reflect more directly on Poroshenko.

A friendly push

If my Ukrainian interlocutors are correct, the new government will pursue the needed reforms at best only half-heartedly. Among other things, that could leave in place the current system in which oligarchs exercise outsized and unhealthy political influence. That will impede Ukraine’s prospects of getting on the path to becoming a modern European state. 

The International Monetary Fund, United States, and European Union should help the Ukrainian president and prime minister make the right decisions: to press forward a program of genuine reform and, at long last, a real anti-corruption campaign. The West should make clear that further assistance will depend on such actions. 

       

       

Spring has sprung and once again Publish What You Fund has issued its Aid Transparency Index (ATI). Once again most of the multilateral development banks (MDBs) receive high grades rated as very good. And once again I ask whether those grades are well deserved? At the heart of my question is whether aid agencies are disclosing sufficient information during the critical implementation stage of a project.

Last year we reviewed the practices of 8 aid agencies, 7 of which consistently receive the highest accolades in the ATI. What was evident from our review was the serious asymmetry of the type of aid data released to the public. A major target at Busan in 2011 when donors made commitments to aid transparency and in the establishment of the ATI has been the reporting of aid flows and the projects approved by each agency. There has been growing emphasis since then on reporting information on the results of those projects. But there has been very limited progress in the release of information during project implementation.

The importance of such information should be obvious. It is during project implementation that the various stakeholders need to monitor project progress, report on issues requiring attention, and make changes to ensure achievement of the desired results. It is insufficient to only disclose who wins a contract; consideration should be given to publishing the contracts, reporting on its execution, and disclosing amendments to the contracts. And it is not enough to simply publish the resettlement action plan for a project; how that plan is being implemented must be reported. Real time reporting is the key to being able to adapt and make changes as projects evolve.

Adapting the ATI

It is very evident that the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and the ATI have had a major positive impact on raising the level of transparency of aid agencies. Discussions with various agencies illustrate how they are keen to getting higher scores each year, carefully analyzing the indicators to guide their actions. However, with only a limited focus and weighting of reporting on project implementation in the ATI, there is no incentive to fill this important gap. 

In its 2016 report, Publish What You Fund has indicated that it will be reviewing its indicators later this year and intends to raise the bar. It would be timely to include information on project implementation in those revisions. One challenge is how to develop indicators that are similarly relevant across a wide variety of aid agencies. Implementation information is most critical for agencies that finance longer-term projects, especially infrastructure, such as the MDBs.  One option is to consider a set of indicators to better “incentivize” the relevant agencies and refer to these as ATI+.

Reviewing the use and abuse of protecting deliberative information

The MDB’s, in their major disclosure reforms since 2010, adopted a principle that “deliberative” information would not be disclosed in order to foster candid and open dialogue within the organization and between the organization and the client country. As per the World Bank’s policy, “The Bank, like any institution or group, needs space to consider and debate, away from public scrutiny.” This excludes emails, notes, and other exchanges either internally or with member countries.

As a result, the project supervision reports, which managements use to monitor projects under execution and are generally published twice a year, were divided between disclosed versus undisclosed sections. The undisclosed sections would offer space for reporting on confidential project concerns including potential corruption. Our review of the disclosed reports suggests that most aid agencies’ task managers tend to take a cautious approach, placing most information in the undisclosed sections. Stakeholders outside the MDB, such as local civil society groups, then, often only see truncated information.

While the adoption of the “deliberative” principle is understandable, its application places a serious responsibility on management to ensure that this is applied with considerable restraint. The MDBs should review the application of this principle and assess the type of information released during implementation.

It is indeed time to raise the bar on transparency and to focus on the most critical information required to ensure results. This is not the moment for complacency with high grades.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

The Girls’ Education Imperative

In 1948, the world’s nations came together and agreed that “everyone has a right to education,” boys and girls and rich and poor alike. This vision set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been reinforced over the decades and today the girls who still fight to be educated are not cases for charity but actively pursuing what is rightfully theirs. In recent years, girls’ education has also received attention because, in the words of the United Nations, “education is not only a right but a passport to human development.” Evidence has been mounting on the pivotal role that educating a girl or a woman plays in improving health, social, and economic outcomes, not only for herself but her children, family, and community. Educating girls helps improve health: one study published in The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, found that increasing girls’ education was responsible for more than half of the reduction in child mortality between 1970 and 2009. The economic benefits are clear: former chief economist at the World Bank and United States Secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers concluded that girls’ education “may well be the highest-return investment available in the developing world” due to the benefits women, their families and societies reap. And because women make up a large share of the world’s farmers, improvements in girls’ education also lead to increased agricultural output and productivity.

Progress in Girls’ Education

Given the importance of girls’ education, for girls’ own dignity and rights and for a broad sweep of development outcomes, it is no surprise that global agendas have focused heavily on it. For more than two decades, girls’ education has been recognized as a global priority and incorporated into development targets, which has rallied governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), foundations and international organizations. From the 1990 Education for All (EFA) Goals to the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and to the 2000 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), girls’ education has been a priority, particularly in international development communities. Perhaps the most influential of these has been the MDGs, which reinforce parts of the EFA goals by focusing two of their eight goals on education, namely on achieving universal primary education and achieving gender parity in both primary and secondary school.

Progress in enrolling children, especially girls, into primary school is seen by many as a development success story. Indeed there is much to celebrate. Since 1990, the number of girls in low-income countries enrolling in primary school has increased two-and-a-half times, from 23.6 million to nearly 63 million in 2012. This has translated into a large increase in the girl-boy ratio in low-income countries, from 82 to 95 girls per 100 boys in primary school. For low- and lower-middle-income countries combined, the number of girls enrolled reached over 200 million girls in 2012, an almost 80 percent increase, and globally two-thirds of countries have near-equal numbers of boys and girls enrolled at the primary level. 

In 1990, in South and West Asia, there were only 74 girls enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys, but by 2012 the region had achieved equal numbers of boys and girls in school.

This progress was largely made by the leadership of developing country governments that prioritized expansion of primary schooling opportunities and by the global community’s support of governments focused on reaching the MDGs. Some of the biggest gains have been in regions struggling the most. In 1990, in South and West Asia, there were only 74 girls enrolled in primary school for every 100 boys, but by 2012 the region had achieved equal numbers of boys and girls in school. Similarly, sub-Saharan Africa, which had the lowest levels of girls in school in 1990, has experienced marked improvement, with the girl-boy ratio increasing from 83 to 92 girls per 100 boys in primary school.

The focus on getting girls into school has helped close gender gaps in relation to other factors too, such as wealth and location of residence. The fact that family income and urban or rural locality are now the most likely indicators of school enrollment is a big victory for girls’ education. The World Inequality Database on Education (WIDE) shows that in India, for example, 38 percent of girls and 25 percent of boys of primary school age were not in school in 1992. By 2005, that gap had narrowed to 24 percent of girls and 22 percent of boys. However, today the gap between the richest and poorest children’s attendance is much starker—37 percent of children from the poorest 20 percent of families versus just 11 percent of the richest 20 percent are out of school. And in many areas, girls actually outpace boys, especially at higher levels of education. In one third of countries, there are now more girls than boys enrolled in secondary school. Also, girls often do better once in school, with boys making up 75 percent of grade-repeaters in primary school.

Downloads

• Download the paper (PDF)

       

Since 2000, China has emerged as Africa’s largest trading partner and a major source of investment finance as well. Large numbers of Chinese workers and entrepreneurs have moved to Africa in recent years, with estimates running as high as one million. China’s engagement with Africa has no doubt led to faster growth and poverty reduction on the continent. It is also relatively popular: In attitude surveys, 70 percent of African respondents have a positive view of China, higher than percentages in Asia, the Americas, or Europe.

While China’s deepening engagement with Africa has largely been associated with better economic performance, its involvement is not without controversy. This is particularly true in the West, as typical headlines portray an exploitive relationship: “Into Africa: China’s Wild Rush,” “China in Africa: Investment or Exploitation?,” and “Clinton warns against ‘new colonialism’ in Africa.” 

My forthcoming study, "China’s Engagement with Africa: From Natural Resources to Human Resources," aims to objectively assess this important new development in the world. It has six main findings:

1. First, on the scale of China’s activities in Africa: The media often portrays China’s involvement as enormous, potentially overwhelming the continent. According to data from China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), the stock of Chinese direct investment in Africa was $32 billion at the end of 2014. This represents less than 5 percent of the total stock of foreign investment on the continent. Stocks naturally change slowly. But the "World Investment Report 2015" similarly finds that China’s share of inward direct investment flows to Africa during 2013 and 2014 was only 4.4 percent of the total. Of course, direct investment is not the only form of foreign financing. The Export-Import Bank of China and China Development Bank have also made large loans in Africa, mostly to fund infrastructure projects. In recent years, China has provided about one-sixth of the external infrastructure financing for Africa. In short, Chinese financing is substantial enough to contribute meaningfully to African investment and growth, but the notion that China has provided an overwhelming amount of finance and is buying up the whole continent is inaccurate.

2. The second main finding from the study concerns China’s direct investment and governance. China has drawn attention by making large resource-related investments in countries with poor governance indicators, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Sudan. These deals are certainly part of the picture when it comes to China’s engagement with Africa. But the more general relationship between Chinese direct investment and recipients’ governance environments is different. After controlling for market size and natural resource wealth, total foreign direct investment is highly correlated with measures of property rights and rule of law, as one might expect. This is true both globally and within the African continent. China’s outward direct investment, on the other hand, is uncorrelated with measures of property rights and the rule of law after controlling for market size and natural resource wealth. In this sense, Chinese investment is indifferent to the governance environment in a particular country. While China has investments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, and Sudan, those are balanced by investments in African countries that have relatively good governance environments. South Africa, for instance, is the foremost recipient of Chinese investment. Furthermore, some of the big resource deals in poor governance environments are not working out well, so Chinese state enterprises may well rethink their approach in the future.

3. A third main finding emerges from examining MOFCOM’s registry of Chinese firms investing in Africa. In the aggregate data on Chinese investment in different countries, the big state enterprise deals naturally play an outsized role. MOFCOM’s database on Chinese firms investing in Africa, on the other hand, provides a snapshot of what small- and medium-sized Chinese firms—most of which are private—are doing in Africa. Unlike the big state-owned enterprise investments, these firms are not focused on natural resource extraction. The largest area for investment is service sectors, with significant investment in manufacturing as well. Many African economies welcome this Chinese investment in manufacturing and services.

4. The fourth finding relates to infrastructure finance. In recent years infrastructure financing has expanded and helped many African countries begin to rectify infrastructure deficiencies. Africa has been receiving about $30 billion per year in external finance for infrastructure, of which China provides one-sixth. Chinese financing is a useful complement to other sources, particularly as traditional finance from multilateral development banks and bilateral donors is concentrated on water supply and sanitation. Likewise, private participation in infrastructure is primarily aimed at telecommunications. China has filled a niche by focusing on transportation and power.

   Chinese financing of infrastructure has also enabled Chinese construction companies to gain a firm foothold on the continent. Evidence suggests that Chinese companies have become highly competitive, crowding out African construction companies. This is an area where a trade-off seems to exist between, on the one hand, getting projects completed quickly and cheaply and, on the other, facilitating the long-term development of a local construction industry.

5. This point leads to the fifth finding of the study. There are a lot of Chinese workers in Africa; the total is disproportionately high when compared to the amount of financing that China has provided and compared to migrants from other continents. This is a tentative conclusion because the data on this issue are particular weak. But estimates of Chinese migrants in Africa exceed one million. Many migrants initially move to Africa as workers on Chinese projects in infrastructure and mining and then, perceiving good economic opportunities, stay on. Similar to the dilemma confronting the continent’s construction industry, African countries face a tradeoff here: Chinese workers bring skills and entrepreneurship, but their large numbers limit African workers’ opportunities for jobs and training. The popular notion that Chinese companies only employ Chinese workers is not accurate, but the overall number of Chinese workers in Africa is large. Africa may want to take a page from China’s playbook and limit the ability of foreign investors to bring in workers, forcing them to train local labor instead.

The popular notion that Chinese companies only employ Chinese workers is not accurate, but the overall number of Chinese workers in Africa is large.

6. A final important finding of the study is that the foundation for the Africa-China economic relationship is shifting. China’s involvement in Africa stretches back decades, but the economic relationship accelerated after 2000, when China’s growth model became especially resource-intensive. It made sense for resource-poor China to import natural resources from Africa and to export manufactures in return.

These patterns of trade and investment are now likely to gradually shift in response to changing demographics. The working-age population in China has peaked and will shrink over the coming decades. This has contributed to a tightening of the labor market and an increase in wages, which benefits Chinese people. Household income and consumption are also rising. Compared to past trends, China’s changing pattern of growth is less resource-intensive, so China’s needs for energy and minerals are relatively muted. At the same time, China is likely to be a steady supplier of foreign investment to other countries, and part of that will involve moving manufacturing value chains to lower-wage locations.

Africa’s demographics are moving in the opposite direction. In fact, they resemble China’s at the beginning of its economic reform 35 years ago. About half of Africa’s population is below the age of 20, which means the working-age population will surge over the next 20 years, and will probably continue growing until the middle of the century or later. Roughly speaking, Africa needs to create about 20 million jobs per year to employ its expanding workforce. Twenty years from now, it will need to create 30 million jobs per year. Africa’s demographics present both an opportunity and a challenge. It is unrealistic to expect the China-Africa economic relationship to change overnight. Nor would it be reasonable to expect large volumes of Chinese manufacturing to move to the continent in the near future; it would be more natural for value chains to migrate from China to nearby locations such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. But if even small amounts of manufacturing shift, this could make a significant difference for African economies, which are starting out with an extremely low base of industrialization. And it is useful to have a long-term vision that an economic relationship that started out very much centered on natural resources should shift over time to a greater focus on human resources.

For more on China’s engagement in Africa, check out the Brookings event hosted by the John L. Thornton China Center and the Africa Growth Initiative this Wednesday, July 13, at 3:30pm. 

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

One of the foundational notions of digital financial services has been the distinction between payment rails and services running on the rails. This is a logical distinction to make, one easily understood by engineers who tend to think in terms of hierarchies (or stacks) of functionalities, capabilities, and protocols that need to be brought together. But this distinction makes less sense when it is taken to represent a logical temporal sequencing of those layers.

It is not too much of a caricature to portray the argument —and, alas, much common practice— like this: I’ll first build a state-of-the art digital payments platform, and then I’ll secure a great agent network to acquire customers and offer them cash services. Once I have mastered all that, then I’ll focus on bringing new services to delight more of my customers. The result is that research on customer preferences gets postponed, and product design projects are outsourced to external consultants who run innovation projects in a way that is disconnected from the rest of the business.

This mindset is understandable given limited organizational, financial and human resource capabilities. But the problem with such narrow sequencing is that all these elements reinforce each other. Without adequate services (a.k.a. customer proposition), the rails will not bed down (a.k.a. no business case for the provider or the agents). In businesses such as digital payments that exhibit strong network effects, it’s a race to reach a critical mass of users. You need to drive the entire stack to get there, as quickly as possible. Unless, you develop a killer app early on, as M-PESA seems to have done with the send money home use case in the Kenyan environment.

It is tough for any organization to advance on all these fronts simultaneously. Only superhero organizations can get this complex job done. I have argued in a previous post that the piece that needs to be parceled off is not the service creation but rather cash management: that can be handled by independently licensed organizations working at arms length from the digital rails-and-products providers.

What are payment rails?

Payment rails are a collection of capabilities that allow value to be passed around digitally. This could include sending money home, paying for a good or a bill, pushing money into my or someone else’s savings account, funding a withdrawal at an agent, or repaying a loan. The first set of capabilities relates to identity: being able to establish you are the rightful owner of the funds in your account, and to designate the intended recipient in a money transfer. The second set of capabilities relates to the accounting or ledger system: keeping track of balances held and owed, and authorizing transactions when there are sufficient funds per the account rules. The third set of capabilities relates to messaging: collecting the necessary transaction details from the payment initiator, conveying that information securely to the authorizing entity, and providing confirmations.

Only the third piece has been transformed by the rise of mobile phones: we now have an increasingly inclusive and ubiquitous real-time messaging fabric. Impressive as that is, this messaging capability is still linked to legacy approaches on identity and accounting. Which is why mobile money is still more an evolution than a revolution in the quest for financial inclusion.

The keepers of the accounts —traditionally, the banks— are, of course, the guardians of the system’s choke points. There is now recognition in financial inclusion circles that to expand access to finance it is not enough to proliferate the world with mobile phones and agents: you need to increase the number and type of account keepers, under the guise of mobile money operators, e-money issuers or payment banks. But that doesn’t change the fundamental dynamics, which is that there still are choke point guardians who need to be convinced that there is a business case in order to invest in marketing to poor people, that there are opportunities to innovate to meet their needs, and that perhaps all players can be better off if only they interoperated. A true transformation would be to open up these ledgers, so anyone can check the validity of any transaction and write them into the ledger.

That’s what crypto-currencies are after: decentralizing the accounting and transaction authorization piece, much in the same way as mobile phones have decentralized the transaction origination piece. Banks seek to protect the integrity of their accounting and authorizations systems —and hence their role as arbiters of financial transactions— by hiding them behind huge IT walls; crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin and Ripple do the opposite: they use sophisticated protocols to create a shared consensus for all to see and use.

The other set of capabilities in the digital rails, identity, is also still in the dark ages. Let me convince you of that through a personal experience. My wallet was stolen recently, and it contained my credit card. I can understand the bank wanting to know my name, but why is the bank announcing my name to the thief by printing it on the credit card, thereby making it easier for him to impersonate me? The reason is, of course, that the bank wants merchants to be able to cross check the name on the card with a piece of customer ID. But as you can imagine, my national ID got stolen along with my credit card, and because of that the thief knows not only my name but also my address. That was an issue because I also kept a key to my house in the wallet. None of this makes sense: why are these “trusted” institutions subverting my sense of personal security, not to mention privacy?

The problem is that the current financial regulatory framework is premised on a direct binding of every transaction to my full legal identity. As David Porteous and I argue in a recent paper, what we need is a more nuanced digital identity system that allows me to present different personas to different identity-requesting entities and choose precisely which attributes of myself get revealed in each case, while still allowing the authorities to trace the identity unequivocally back to me in case I break the law.

The much-celebrated success of mobile money has so far really only transformed one third (messaging) of one half (payment rails) of the financial inclusion agenda. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

      

Steven Pifer joined Bernard Gwertzman to discuss Vice President Joseph Biden's recent trip to Ukraine and Georgia and how it was meant to balance President Barack Obama's Moscow summit earlier in the month.

Bernard Gwertzman: Vice President Joseph Biden has just completed a trip to Ukraine and Georgia to reassure both of those former Soviet republics that the American desire to "reset" relations--Biden's words in Munich last February--with Russia were not meant at their expense. But he also had what one Biden aide called "tough love" for both of them. Could you elaborate on this trip?

Steven Pifer: That was the first point of the trip: to reassure Kiev and Tbilisi that the United States remains interested in robust relations with Ukraine and Georgia, and that we will work to keep open their pathways to Europe and the North Atlantic community. When I was in Ukraine about five or six weeks ago, what I heard from the Ukrainians was a concern--and I suspect there is a parallel concern in Georgia--that the effort to reset relations with Russia would somehow come at Ukraine's expense. So part of the trip by the vice president was to assure both Ukraine and Georgia that the United States is not going to undercut relations with those two countries as it tries to develop relations with Russia. You've seen points made by this administration, indeed going back to the Munich speech itself, saying the reset of relations would not mean recognition of a Russian "sphere of influence" over the former Soviet states, and then repeated assurances that the United States supports the rights of countries such as Ukraine and Georgia as sovereign states to choose their own foreign policy course.

Gwertzman: What was also interesting to me was that in his speech in Ukraine, Biden was virtually demanding that the Ukrainian leadership get their act together. In Georgia, I don't think he was publicly as tough. Can you elaborate on the "tough love" part of the visits?

Pifer: Let me start with Ukraine. Certainly the primary goal of the visit was to reassure Ukraine, but there was also a tough message there. In Ukraine, it's not only due to the presidential election, but you've had a situation in the past year and a half where the government really hasn't functioned because of infighting between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. It's meant that Ukraine has passed up opportunities to accomplish some important things. A big part of the vice president's message in Kiev was to say, "You need to put aside political differences, come together as mature political leaders, find compromises, and get things done."

He also singled out the importance of Ukraine getting serious about reforming its energy sector. This is a huge national security vulnerability for Ukraine because they have a distorted price structure where people buy natural gas at prices that don't begin to cover the cost of the gas that Ukraine buys from Russia. As a result, Naftogaz, the national gas company, is perpetually in debt to Russia and on the verge of bankruptcy. That creates vulnerabilities for Ukraine.

Part of the vice president's message was, "You need to get serious about this." Part of the problem in Ukraine is if you are a household, you are probably paying a price that amounts to less than 30 percent of the actual cost of the gas bought from Russia. It's no wonder why Naftogaz is always in financial straits. But it's not just an economic problem because of the way it factors into the Ukraine-Russia relationship. It creates a national security issue for Ukraine. So there are two aspects to the tough message: One, the need for political leaders to get together, compromise, and produce good policy; and second, the special importance of tackling this energy security issue.

Read the full interview » (external link)

      

Event Information

Register for the Event

Recent events in Ukraine have raised important questions about Russian ambitions in the former Soviet space and the future political perspectives of the countries caught between Russia and the European Union. These countries are facing substantial obstacles in their efforts to maintain balanced relations with the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation because of increased Russian political, economic and military pressures. In Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing turmoil in the East threaten the Ukrainian government's ability to maintain its independence and the sovereignty of Ukraine. Georgia and Moldova have expressed their intention to sign Association Agreements with the European Union, but increasingly face the prospects of destabilizing Russian economic sanctions and even the possible rekindling of their “frozen conflicts” in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

On April 29, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) will host the ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine—Ambassadors Archil Gegeshidze, Olexander Motsyk and Igor Munteanu—as well as Eric Rubin, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, to discuss the dilemmas of these countries and possible solutions. Fiona Hill, director of CUSE, will introduce the speakers and moderate the discussion.

After opening remarks, panelists will take questions from the audience.

Audio

• A Discussion with the Ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20140429_ambassadors_transcript

       

       

Policy Brief #178

One of the strongest narratives in U.S. history has been the contribution made by talented, hard-working and entrepreneurial immigrants whose skills and knowledge created a prosperous new country. Yet today, the nation’s immigration priorities and outmoded visa system discourage skilled immigrants and hobble the technology-intensive employers who would hire them. These policies work against urgent national economic priorities, such as boosting economic vitality, achieving greater competitiveness in the global marketplace and renewing our innovation leadership.

In the long term, the nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. In the short term, policymakers should focus on reforms that are directly related to increasing the "brain gain" for the nation—creating new jobs and producing economic benefits—to produce tangible and achievable improvements in our immigration system.

	RECOMMENDATIONS
	Rebalance U.S. immigration policies to produce a "brain gain," with changes to visas that will allow employers to access workers with the scientific and technological skills they need to improve economic competitiveness, employment and innovation Tie immigration levels to national economic cycles to meet changing levels of need Use digital technologies to modernize the current visa system

Background

Immigrants are now one-tenth of the overall U.S. population—a situation that defies facile stereotyping. Immigrants have made significant contributions to American science and economic enterprise, most notably in the areas of high-tech and biotech.

• Immigrants’ productivity raises the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by an estimated $37 billion per year
   
• More than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses launched between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder
   
• In Silicon Valley, more than half of new tech start-up companies were founded by foreignborn owners
   
• In 2005, companies founded by immigrants produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers
   
• Nearly a quarter of the international patents filed from the United States in 2006 were based on the work of foreign-born individuals (more than half of whom received their highest degree from an American university)
   
• Economists calculate that, as a result of immigration, 90 percent of native-born Americans with at least a high-school diploma have seen wage gains
   
• Historically, immigrants have made outsize contributions to American science and technology, with Albert Einstein perhaps the leading example. One-third of all U.S. winners of Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology were born in other countries Far from "crowding out" native-born workers and depressing their wages, well-educated, entrepreneurial immigrants do much to create and support employment for Americans.

In order to fully reap the benefits of the worldwide talent market, U.S. immigration policy must be reoriented. Current policy is significantly—and negatively—affected by the unintended consequences of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that made family unification its overarching goal. Although the law may have contributed to the high-tech boom by removing long-standing, country-specific quotas and expanding immigration from places with strong science and engineering education programs, its main effect was to enable immigrants to bring in family members, without regard for the new immigrants’ education, skill status or potential contributions to the economy.

Thus, in 2008, almost two-thirds of new legal permanent residents were family-sponsored and, over the past few years, the educational attainment of new immigrants has declined.

U.S. employers have a large, unmet demand for knowledge workers. They are eager to fill jobs with well-trained foreign workers and foreign graduates of U.S. universities—particularly those with degrees in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics—the "STEM" fields that continue to attract too few U.S.-born students. In 2008, the "Tapping America’s Potential" business coalition reported that the number of U.S. graduates in STEM had been stagnant for five years, and that number would have to nearly double by 2015 to meet demands.

Meanwhile, the United States is falling behind in the pace of innovation and international competitiveness. Evidence for the decline in innovation is the decreasing U.S. share of international patents. In 2009, for the first time in recent years, non-U.S. innovators earned more patents (around 96,000) than did Americans (93,000). Only a decade earlier, U.S. innovators were awarded almost 57 percent of all patents.

To date, Congress—for a variety of reasons, including partisanship—has stalled in addressing the problems of immigration and immigration policy. Unfortunately, this inaction extends to problems hampering the nation’s economy that, if remedied, could help the United States grow employment, pull out of the current recession more quickly and improve its position in the global economy.

Game-Changing Policy Reforms

Rebalance Fundamental Goals

The goals of U.S. immigration policy should be rebalanced to give priority to immigrants who have the education and talent to enhance America’s economic vitality, by stimulating innovation, job creation and global competitiveness. At the same time, it should decrease emphasis on family reunification (other than parents and children of U.S. citizens). Changing the composition of the immigration stream, even without increasing its size, would result in a "brain gain" for the United States.

Other countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, strategically craft immigration policy to attract skilled and unskilled workers, making the benefits easy to see and strengthening public support for immigration in the process. Canada, for example, explicitly targets foreign workers to fill positions for which there are not enough skilled Canadians. Applicants for admission to the country accumulate points based on their field of study, educational attainment and employment experience. Upon reaching the requisite number of points, the applicant is granted a visa. Some 36 percent of all Canadian immigrant visas are in the "skilled-worker" category, as opposed to only 6.5 percent in the United States.

An interesting by-product of this strategy—which is both clearly articulated and of obvious benefit to the national economy—is that Canadians see the benefits of the policy and, as a result, immigration is far less controversial than in the United States. In 2005 polling by The Gallup Organization, only 27 percent of Canadians wanted to decrease immigration, whereas 52 percent of U.S. citizens did. And, three times as many Canadians (20 percent) as Americans (seven percent) actually wanted to increase it.

An obvious place to begin the rebalancing process would be with the many foreign students who come to the United States for education in scientific and technology fields. They are familiar with our culture and speak English. Many would like to stay and build careers here. But, under current visa rules, most are sent home as soon as they graduate. A complete policy reversal is needed, with automatic green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. science and technology programs.

In fact, the United States should make it as easy as possible for these highly trained students to stay, since the expansion of job opportunities in India, China and other growth-oriented countries now offers them attractive options. Our current counterproductive policy, quite simply, puts the United States in the position of training our global competitors.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, in a December 2009 Meet the Press interview, said about immigration: "We’re committing what I call national suicide. Somehow or other, after 9/11 we went from reaching out and trying to get the best and the brightest to come here, to trying to keep them out. In fact, we do the stupidest thing, we give them educations and then don’t give them green cards."

Universities collectively invest huge sums in the development of these students. In addition, research suggests that increasing the number of foreign graduate students would increase U.S. patent applications by an estimated 4.7 percent and grants of university patents by 5.3 percent.

Another strategic policy change would be for the federal government to take U.S. workforce and economic conditions into account when setting immigration levels and annual H-1B visa numbers for scientists and engineers. Such a flexible approach would reflect labor market needs, protect American workers’ jobs and wages, and dampen public concerns about employment losses during lean economic times.

Revamp the Antiquated Visa System

Increase the Number of Visas for Highly-skilled Workers

Today’s visa programs for high-skilled workers are not large enough to fill the numerical demand for such employees and are too short in duration. For example, H-1B visas for workers in "specialty occupations" are valid for a maximum of six years. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, the federal government increased the annual allocation of H-1B visas for scientists and engineers to 195,000. The rationale was that scientific innovators were so important for the country’s long-term economic development that the number set aside for those specialty professions needed to be high. Since 2004, that number has returned to its former level, 65,000—only a third of the peak, despite rapid technologic change in almost every field, such as information, medicine, energy and logistics.

Most of these visas are allocated within a few months of becoming available. Even in recessionplagued 2009, applications exceeded the supply of visas within three months. Almost half of the visa requests came from U.S. employers, most of them in high-tech industries. Clearly the demand for visas is greater than the supply, and a minimal step would be to raise the set-aside for high-skilled workers to the previous, 195,000 level.

Only a small percentage of aliens with student visas and aliens with H-1B visas are able to change directly to legal permanent resident status—about seven percent of each category, according to a study published in 2005—although about half of H-1B visa-holders eventually become legal permanent residents. Such an uncertain path is not conducive to career (or employment) planning in a competitive environment.

Several additional small programs support talented scientists and entrepreneurs. These, too, could be aligned with economic goals, expanded or more effectively promoted:

• The O-1 "genius" visa program allows the government to authorize visas for people with "extraordinary abilities in the arts, science, education, business, and sports." In 2008, around 45,000 genius visas were granted. The clear intent is to encourage talented people to migrate to America. However, the current program is too diffuse to have much impact on the level of scientific and technological innovation talent in the United States.
   
• The EB-5 visa program offers temporary visas to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in the nation’s rural or "targeted employment areas" or at least $1,000,000 in other areas. If the investment creates at least ten jobs, the visa automatically becomes a permanent green card. The program is authorized by Congress to offer approximately 10,000 visas per year, but it is significantly underutilized—about 500 EB-5 visas a year were granted between 1992 and 2004. In 2009, 3,688 people did become legal permanent residents under the "employment creation (investors)" category, a number that includes spouses and children.

According to a March 2009 report from the Department of Homeland Security, the causes of the persistent underutilization of this program include "program instability, the changing economic environment, and more inviting immigrant investor programs offered by other countries." The report makes a number of recommendations designed to streamline program administration and encourages greater efforts to promote the program overseas.

Update the Visa System Infrastructure

Aside from questions about the number of visas allowed, the infrastructure for considering and granting visas needs a major upgrade. Currently, the U.S. visa process requires people seeking entry to provide paper copies of sometimes hard-to-obtain documents. Often these are lost in the system and must be submitted repeatedly. Obtaining a visa can take months and, in some cases, years. Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act has slowed the process even further.

The visa system should adopt digital technology to reduce both errors and delays. Further, if the nation’s immigration policy moves toward a more credential-based approach, any new electronic processes should be designed to minimize the potential that false documents regarding an individual’s education and experience will be accepted.

Tie Immigration Levels to National Economic Indicators

To ease U.S.-born workers’ understandable worries about job competition from immigrants, Congress should tie overall annual levels of immigration to the unemployment rate and growth in the Gross Domestic Product. Immigration levels can be adjusted up or down depending on the level of economic conditions. These fluctuations should occur automatically, triggered by authoritative statistical reports.

Political Hurdles to Immigration Reform

U.S. news reporting on immigration focuses heavily on illegality and largely ignores the benefits of immigration. Sadly, important news organizations follow the tradition set in the 19th century, when many journalists railed against groups of newcomers, such as immigrants from Ireland and China. Immigration opponents’ unfavorable media narratives, often widely publicized, have a discernible impact on public opinion and affect policymaking. The economic, social, and cultural benefits of immigration are rarely reported.

The State of Public Opinion

Immigration does not rank high on Americans’ lists of the country’s most important problems. In 2008, only four percent of Americans (mostly people from Southwestern border states concerned about illegal entry) thought immigration was the country’s most important problem. Even during 2007’s acrimonious national debate about comprehensive reform, 60 percent of Americans believed new arrivals benefit the country. But public opinion can shift quickly, which makes politicians wary. Fifty-seven percent of voters in the November 2010 mid-term election considered immigration a "very important" issue, ranking it 7th and on a par with taxes and national security/war on terror, according to the Rasmussen report.

The Need for Reform Follow-Through

Administration and enforcement of immigration laws and visa programs are complex, in part because federal, state and local officials are involved in various aspects and are overseen by multiple federal agencies. Aligning the goals of these different entities to put an emphasis on the brain gain can help build support for policy improvements.

As the report of a 2009 Brookings Forum on Growth Through Innovation pointed out with regard to promoting innovation more broadly, "while the actions we need to take are clear and reasonably simple to outline, our political culture erects insurmountable barriers to long-term planning, funding and implementation."

Achieving an Improved Immigration Policy

It will be difficult to achieve comprehensive, coherent policy reform in the face of many competing goals and interest groups and in the current polarized political environment. The task is made more difficult by the divided authority over immigration matters within Congress, involving several committees and subcommittees with competing interests and different political dynamics. Individual members of Congress tend to focus on local concerns, forestalling consideration of broad, long-term national interests.

In the past, elected officials have overreacted to specific episodes of problems related to immigrants or anti-immigrant sentiments in developing policy, rather than taking into account long-term national economic priorities. Just as deleterious, stalemate and inaction have prevented needed reforms, despite a frustrating status quo for employers who need talented scientists and engineers, and who could hire many more Americans if they could fill key slots with skilled workers they cannot find in their local workforce.

A spectrum of experts has suggested creation of a broadly representative, independent federal immigration commission that could develop specific policies under parameters set by Congress. Proposals for such a body have the common themes of depoliticization, insulating members from parochial political pressures and relying on technical experts. Given past missteps and the current policy stalemate, it makes sense to consider such proposals seriously, in the hope that all aspects of immigration—especially those that affect U.S. economic vitality—receive the thoughtful attention they need.

Conclusion

The immigration policy reforms in this paper focus on those that would have swift and direct positive impact on the nation’s economy. Clearly, these are not the only reforms the system needs. A fairer, more comprehensive immigration policy also would:

• Develop more effective and cost-effective border control strategies
   
• Strengthen the electronic employment-eligibility ("e-verify") system and add an appeals process
   
• Improve the immigration courts system and the administration of immigration law
   
• Work harder to integrate immigrants into American life and teach them English and
   
• Create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants with requirements that applicants learn English, pay back taxes, and pay fines.

Meanwhile, a number of the needed corrections to the system as it affects national economic goals, employment, innovation, and global competitiveness can be addressed, including:

• Tying visa and immigration levels to U.S. economic indicators, in order to assuage American workers’ concerns about threats to employment and wage levels
   
• Creation of an automatic green card for foreign graduates of U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics educational programs and other steps to make staying in the United States a desirable option
   
• Expansion of visa programs (especially H-1B for highly skilled workers) and making more effective the O-1 and EB-5 visa programs and
   
• Creating a modern, electronic visa system.

Downloads

• Download Policy Brief

       

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A few influential Americans have begun to suggest that the United States should reduce its long-standing security commitment to Taiwan. Some say that Taiwan itself has chosen to improve relations with China, so the island has less need for advanced U.S. weaponry and a defense pledge. Others argue that Washington, to avoid unnecessary tensions with a rising China, should accommodate Beijing on the most neuralgic issue—Taiwan.

The first group overstates the limits of the ongoing Taiwan-China détente. True, progress has been made in normalizing, liberalizing, and institutionalizing the economic relationship. But, to the disappointment of many Chinese, none has occurred on political and security issues, because the Taiwan public is not ready to go there and serious conceptual differences exist on how to get there anyway. So the prospects for cross-Strait relations in the near-term are for modest, incremental progress only, or a stall.

The second group misunderstands the benefits and costs of a significant American accommodation to China regarding Taiwan (e.g. by sharply cutting back arms sales). In fact, Washington has frictions with China on a growing list of issues. Conceding to Beijing on Taiwan will not help us elsewhere. Moreover, our friends and allies (e.g. Japan and Korea) will worry that the United States might sacrifice their interests next for the sake of good relations with China. Finally, the primary reason China has failed to incorporate Taiwan on its terms is not U.S. arms sales but because its negotiating position is unacceptable to the Taiwan public.

As China rises and seeks to reshape East Asia more to its liking, how the United States responds will be a critical variable. It needs the right mix of accommodation and firmness. Giving way on Taiwan will neither pacify Beijing nor assure our allies.

---

Introduction

Should the United States abandon Taiwan? Until recently, even to pose such a question would have been unthinkable in Washington. While the U.S. relationship with Taiwan may have had its ups and downs over the past six decades, but the strong American commitment has endured. But now, individuals who previously served in senior positions in the U.S. government are calling it into question. Theirs is not a modest proposal, and it deserves careful examination.

Some observers believe that Taiwan has become a strategic liability. They remind us that China regards the settlement of the Taiwan problem as its internal affair, yet the United States continues to provide the island with advanced weaponry and at least an implicit pledge to come to its defense. They echo Chinese diplomats who argue that our arms sales are the major obstacle to good U.S.-China relations. (These diplomats also assert that U.S. arms sales both discourage Taipei to negotiate seriously with Beijing and encourage Taiwanese politicians who have separatist agendas.) Therefore, it is argued, the United States needs to reconsider fundamentally its security support for Taiwan.

The most prominent voice for this point of view is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. He argues that the hostility that arms sales foster in Beijing precludes whatever strategic cooperation a declining United States can secure from a rising China. Moreover, he says, “it is doubtful that Taiwan can indefinitely avoid a more formal connection with China,” and points to some version of the unification formula Beijing used for Hong Kong as a possible basis. That in turn would end the island’s need to depend on the United States for its security.[1] Others in this camp, more or less, include retired admiral Bill Owens, retired ambassador Chas Freeman, Charles Glaser of George Washington University, and the members of a policy panel assembled by the Miller Center of the University of Virginia.[2]

To make the conversation even more interesting, there are two other versions of this abandonment idea, ones that start with how Taiwan has changed since 2008:

• At least one conservative Congressman, a long-time supporter of Taiwan, believes that Taiwan was now working with an “autocratic China,” and since he opposes autocracy, the island’s government no longer deserved his support.[3] That is, Taiwan has abandoned U.S. values, which is bad, so he has abandoned Taiwan.
   
• A Portland State University scholar has argued that Taiwan seems to have decided that its own best interests require it to accommodate to China and rely much less on the United States (as Finland accommodated the Soviet Union during the Cold War). But in his view, this is good for Washington because it eliminates a long-time burden.[4]  And a Taiwan scholar recently argued that it was in the island’s own interest to get out of the middle of the China-U.S. rivalry.[5]

In the abstract, it should not be surprising that some Americans are rethinking U.S. support for Taiwan. We live in a new world. China’s power and international role are growing. It is in the interest of the United States to maximize areas of cooperation and mutual benefit with Beijing where possible, even as we demonstrate firmness when it overreaches (as it has). It is not in the U.S. interest to act in ways that lead Chinese leaders to conclude that America pursues a policy of containment. So, this logic goes, perhaps Washington should end commitments that are so offensive to China that it will not cooperate with the United States on projects of strategic value to us. Moreover, as the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) becomes more capable, America may find it harder operationally to honor its commitments to Taiwan, even if it wished to do so.

Taiwan Shifts Strategy

To sort through these competing ideas, it is necessary to understand how U.S.-China-Taiwan relations have changed in the last five years and what it means for U.S. policy.

For twenty-five years, Taiwan has faced a serious dilemma. On the one hand, many Taiwan companies benefit from investing in China to produce goods for the Chinese and international markets. On the other hand, China wishes to end Taiwan’s separate political status on terms similar to that used for Hong Kong, which most Taiwan people oppose. From around 1995 to 2008, Taiwan’s response to China’s political goals was to emphasize the island’s sovereignty, which only led Beijing to fear that Taiwan’s leaders intended to create a totally independent country. China in turn built up military capabilities to deter what it feared, which only made Taiwan more anxious. Washington worried that this action-reaction spiral might lead to war, and it periodically opposed some of Taipei’s initiatives.

Ma Ying-jeou won Taiwan’s 2008 presidential election by articulating a different vision: that the island could better preserve its prosperity, freedom, dignity, and security by engaging China rather than provoking it. Engagement would focus first on enhancing economic cooperation, thus avoiding contentious and unproductive political arguments. Expanding business ties would yield concrete benefits for both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Opening Taiwan universities to Mainland students would fill out enrollments and expose Chinese young people to a democratic society. In short, Ma believed, Taiwan could give China such a large stake in peace that it would not dare to risk that stake by coercing the island into submission. He made significant progress during his first term in removing obstacles to business and liberalizing trade, most notably in reaching an Economic Cooperation Framework agreement with China in 2010, the first step toward creating a free-trade area. Taiwan bounced back fairly quickly from the global economic crisis and had 4 percent growth in 2011. A growing stream of Chinese tourists buoyed some sectors of the Taiwan economy, and the number of Mainland students grew steadily.

Ma had another reason for engaging China: the United States. Taipei’s relations with Washington had suffered before 2008 because U.S. officials feared Taiwan’s political initiatives would spark a Chinese over-reaction, creating a conflict that might require American intervention. The reduction of tensions that Ma’s policies brought about calmed Washington’s fears and increased U.S. confidence that Taiwan’s intentions were constructive. The Bush and Obama administrations responded by improving U.S.-Taiwan relations, by approving three large arms-sales packages and extending other benefits.

Yet Ma’s China policy was not a total accommodation to Chinese wishes. Even though Beijing in 2009 exerted pressure on Taiwan to move toward political and security talks, Ma pushed back, and for good reason. The Taiwan public was not yet ready to support them, particularly the approximately 25 percent who retain the goal of total independence. In any case, there were serious conceptual differences between the two sides, specifically whether Taiwan was a sovereign entity for purposes of cross-Strait relations and the island’s international role. On the security side, China continued to build up its military capabilities relevant to Taiwan—particularly ballistic and cruise missiles. According to one think-tank’s analysis, an intensive missile barrage by the PLA can now ground Taiwan’s air force in the very early stages of a conflict, and Taiwan’s current defense strategy depends on its aircraft getting off the ground.[6] So Ma has spurned Chinese proposals for a peace accord because he does not see how it would improve Taiwan’s security, and his caution has persisted to this day.

In effect, Ma has pursued a mixed or hedging strategy toward China: engage it in areas that both benefit Taiwan and encourage Chinese restraint (economics and education); deflect Beijing on proposals that are not in the island’s interests (politics and security); and preserve a good relationship with the United States (to guard against the worst). A significant part of the Taiwan public—known as the Green Camp—was not happy with Ma’s mix of engagement and firmness. They feared he had put the island on a slippery slope to subordination and unification on China’s terms. The Greens would have preferred more firmness and less engagement. Yet so far, Ma’s strategy has the backing of the majority of island’s public, usually known as the Blue Camp. In the last election apparently, around 55 percent of voters approved of his approach while 45 percent remained skeptical or deeply opposed. 

Back to the Question of Abandonment

The fact that Ma is hedging the island’s bets should be reassuring to Americans who worry that Taiwan is, in effect, “abandoning the United States” for the sake of relations with China. Such strategic appeasement would only be happening if Taipei were willing to concede to Beijing on political and security matters. Yet Taiwan has been unwilling to abandon its claim that it is a sovereign entity and accept a solution similar to that applied to Hong Kong. Instead, it asserts what Ma calls “the sovereignty of the Republic of China.” Moreover, Taipei sees a continuing need for a deterrent against China’s use of its growing military capabilities. Even as it sees the value of enhancing Beijing’s stake in peace, it does not fully trust statements of peaceful intentions. And it is certainly not prepared to terminate its special security relationship with the United States.[7]

The more difficult question is whether the United States, for the sake of its own relationship with China, should, in effect, abandon Taiwan. China believes that U.S. political and security support for Taiwan is the primary reason it has not achieved its unification goal, because it fortifies the confidence of the island’s leaders that they can get away with refusing to negotiate on PRC terms. So Beijing believes that if it could induce Washington to end arms sales to Taiwan’s military, drop even an implicit commitment to defend the island if attacked, and support unification, its problem would be solved. So China would be very pleased if the United States abandoned Taiwan, and has suggested that if only Washington ended arms sales, U.S.-China relations would be problem free.

American analysts have offered several compelling reasons why the United States should not dissociate itself from Taiwan as long as Taiwan desires American support:[8]

• Although Taiwan has at times been the most important source of U.S.-China conflict, it is not the only one. For example, Beijing’s goals in East Asia are not limited to bringing the island back into the PRC fold. In addition, it seeks to expand its security perimeter away from its eastern and southern coast, where it was for decades. That in turn has meant that the PLA navy and air force are operating increasingly in the traditional domain of U.S. and Japanese forces.[9] Removing Taiwan as a problem would in no way end or reduce this mutual impingement; it would only change its location. Taiwan aside, Beijing would still regard American “socialization” as negative.
   
• U.S. allies and partners—Japan, the Republic Korea, and others not necessarily in the Asian region—have have much at stake in Washington’s future approach to Taiwan. Simply put, a United States that would abandon Taiwan could abandon them. Of course, there may be hypothetical reasons why America might withdraw support that stem from Taiwan’s policies rather than its own commitment. So the reasons for any abandonment would be important. But the fear remains.
   
• Whatever China says, U.S. arms are actually not the reason that Beijing has been unable to bring Taiwan “into the embrace of the Motherland.” More to the point, China has not been able to persuade Taiwan’s government and public to accept its formula, which is called “one country, two systems” and was the one used for Hong Kong. If China were to make an offer that was actually to Taiwan’s liking, it would not refuse because of U.S. arms sales. Of course, a weak and friendless Taiwan might conclude that it had no choice but to settle on whatever terms it could extract. But that is not an outcome to which Washington should be a party (nor is it really in China’s interest to gain Taiwan through intimidation).
   
• Finally, how a status quo United States and a reviving China cope with each other—their key foreign policy challenge for the rest of the century—will be played out over the next few decades in a series of test cases. North Korea, maritime East Asia, and Iran are a few of them. Taiwan is another. While active U.S. opposition to Taiwan’s unification with the Mainland would understandably lead Beijing to infer that our intentions are hostile across the board, supporting Beijing’s approach when Taipei objects would be a serious demonstration of weakness.

Should the United States concede to China on Taiwan, the lessons that Beijing would learn about the intentions of the United States would likely discourage its moderation and accommodation on other issues like Korea or maritime East Asia; in that respect, America’s friends and allies are right. Continuity of U.S. policy toward Taiwan will not guarantee that China’s actions in other areas will support the status quo, but it increases the likelihood that it will. Conversely, a China that addresses its Taiwan problem with creativity and due regard to the views on the island says something positive about what kind of great power the PRC will be. A more aggressive approach, one that relies on pressure and intimidation, signals reason for concern about its broader intentions. In this regard, Taiwan is the canary in the East Asian coal mine.

A Slippery Slope?

Even if Taipei does not make a proactive strategic decision to appease Beijing, and even if Washington does not seek to curry Chinese favor by sacrificing Taiwan’s interests, there remains the possibility that Taiwan might undermine itself through inattention or neglect. That is, Taiwan might assume that Beijing’s intentions are so benign that it is prepared to accept some version of the status quo over the long term. Yet China has a different objective—ending Taiwan’s de facto independence more or less on its terms—and it may not have infinite patience. The danger is, therefore, that a frustrated China might seek to exploit the power asymmetry between the two sides of the Strait and intimidate Taiwan into accepting “an offer it can’t refuse.”

So what can Taiwan do to forestall that day? The first thing is to not create the impression in Beijing that the door on unification is closing forever—which Taiwan is currently doing. In addition, there are things it can do at the margin to strengthen itself and therefore increase the confidence needed to resist PRC pressure.

• Economically, sustain the island’s competitiveness in shifting to a knowledge-based economy, and by liberalizing its economic ties with all its major trading partners, not just China. This will require eliminating some protectionist barriers, but the structural adjustment thus created will work to Taiwan’s benefit.
   
• Politically, reform the political system so that it does a better job of addressing the real challenges that Taiwan faces (rather than focusing on relatively superficial issues).
   
• Also politically, foster a clearer sense of what it means to say that Taiwan or the ROC is a sovereign entity, not just for its role in the international system but also regarding cross-Strait relations.
   
• Militarily, enhance the deterrent capabilities of Taiwan’s armed forces in ways that raise the costs and uncertainties for Beijing if it were ever to mount an intimidation campaign.

None of these forms of self-strengthening will be easy. But they will buoy Taiwan’s psychological confidence and reduce the chances of PRC pressure in the first place.

Because the United States has an interest in China approaching its Taiwan “test case” in a constructive manner—that is, avoiding intimidation and accommodating Taiwan’s concerns—it should help Taiwan where it can to improve its odds. The most obvious ways are economically, by drawing Taiwan into the circle of high-quality liberalization, and militarily, by supporting innovative and cost-effective ways to enhance deterrence.

Downloads

• Download the policy brief

       

One of the foundational notions of digital financial services has been the distinction between payment rails and services running on the rails. This is a logical distinction to make, one easily understood by engineers who tend to think in terms of hierarchies (or stacks) of functionalities, capabilities, and protocols that need to be brought together. But this distinction makes less sense when it is taken to represent a logical temporal sequencing of those layers.

It is not too much of a caricature to portray the argument —and, alas, much common practice— like this: I’ll first build a state-of-the art digital payments platform, and then I’ll secure a great agent network to acquire customers and offer them cash services. Once I have mastered all that, then I’ll focus on bringing new services to delight more of my customers. The result is that research on customer preferences gets postponed, and product design projects are outsourced to external consultants who run innovation projects in a way that is disconnected from the rest of the business.

This mindset is understandable given limited organizational, financial and human resource capabilities. But the problem with such narrow sequencing is that all these elements reinforce each other. Without adequate services (a.k.a. customer proposition), the rails will not bed down (a.k.a. no business case for the provider or the agents). In businesses such as digital payments that exhibit strong network effects, it’s a race to reach a critical mass of users. You need to drive the entire stack to get there, as quickly as possible. Unless, you develop a killer app early on, as M-PESA seems to have done with the send money home use case in the Kenyan environment.

It is tough for any organization to advance on all these fronts simultaneously. Only superhero organizations can get this complex job done. I have argued in a previous post that the piece that needs to be parceled off is not the service creation but rather cash management: that can be handled by independently licensed organizations working at arms length from the digital rails-and-products providers.

What are payment rails?

Payment rails are a collection of capabilities that allow value to be passed around digitally. This could include sending money home, paying for a good or a bill, pushing money into my or someone else’s savings account, funding a withdrawal at an agent, or repaying a loan. The first set of capabilities relates to identity: being able to establish you are the rightful owner of the funds in your account, and to designate the intended recipient in a money transfer. The second set of capabilities relates to the accounting or ledger system: keeping track of balances held and owed, and authorizing transactions when there are sufficient funds per the account rules. The third set of capabilities relates to messaging: collecting the necessary transaction details from the payment initiator, conveying that information securely to the authorizing entity, and providing confirmations.

Only the third piece has been transformed by the rise of mobile phones: we now have an increasingly inclusive and ubiquitous real-time messaging fabric. Impressive as that is, this messaging capability is still linked to legacy approaches on identity and accounting. Which is why mobile money is still more an evolution than a revolution in the quest for financial inclusion.

The keepers of the accounts —traditionally, the banks— are, of course, the guardians of the system’s choke points. There is now recognition in financial inclusion circles that to expand access to finance it is not enough to proliferate the world with mobile phones and agents: you need to increase the number and type of account keepers, under the guise of mobile money operators, e-money issuers or payment banks. But that doesn’t change the fundamental dynamics, which is that there still are choke point guardians who need to be convinced that there is a business case in order to invest in marketing to poor people, that there are opportunities to innovate to meet their needs, and that perhaps all players can be better off if only they interoperated. A true transformation would be to open up these ledgers, so anyone can check the validity of any transaction and write them into the ledger.

That’s what crypto-currencies are after: decentralizing the accounting and transaction authorization piece, much in the same way as mobile phones have decentralized the transaction origination piece. Banks seek to protect the integrity of their accounting and authorizations systems —and hence their role as arbiters of financial transactions— by hiding them behind huge IT walls; crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin and Ripple do the opposite: they use sophisticated protocols to create a shared consensus for all to see and use.

The other set of capabilities in the digital rails, identity, is also still in the dark ages. Let me convince you of that through a personal experience. My wallet was stolen recently, and it contained my credit card. I can understand the bank wanting to know my name, but why is the bank announcing my name to the thief by printing it on the credit card, thereby making it easier for him to impersonate me? The reason is, of course, that the bank wants merchants to be able to cross check the name on the card with a piece of customer ID. But as you can imagine, my national ID got stolen along with my credit card, and because of that the thief knows not only my name but also my address. That was an issue because I also kept a key to my house in the wallet. None of this makes sense: why are these “trusted” institutions subverting my sense of personal security, not to mention privacy?

The problem is that the current financial regulatory framework is premised on a direct binding of every transaction to my full legal identity. As David Porteous and I argue in a recent paper, what we need is a more nuanced digital identity system that allows me to present different personas to different identity-requesting entities and choose precisely which attributes of myself get revealed in each case, while still allowing the authorities to trace the identity unequivocally back to me in case I break the law.

The much-celebrated success of mobile money has so far really only transformed one third (messaging) of one half (payment rails) of the financial inclusion agenda. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

      

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

On October 17, the Brookings Project on International Order and Strategy hosted a discussion with Brookings Senior Fellow Robert Kagan and MIT Professor Barry Posen on U.S. grand strategy. Amid a background of seeming geopolitical upheaval, the discussion focused on whether the United States should pursue a strategy that seeks to maintain U.S. pre-eminence and global leadership or whether the United States can or must adopt a more restrained posture.

In his May 2014 New Republic essay "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," Kagan argued that the United States has an enduring responsibility and capacity to shape the world order.

Posen is the Ford international professor of political science and director of the security studies program at MIT. He is the author of the new book, Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy (Cornell University Press, 2014). Posen argues that consistent U.S. overreaching has led to numerous failures and unexpected problems and cannot be sustained. Posen urges the United States to adopt a strategy of restraint in the future use of U.S. military strength.

Brookings Fellow Jeremy Shapiro moderated the discussion.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #USStrategy

Audio

• U.S. Grand Strategy: World Leader or Restrained Power?

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20141017_us_grand_strategy_transcript

      

On October 17, the Brookings Institution’s Project on International Order and Strategy hosted two of the most prominent thinkers on American grand strategy to discuss whether Washington should remain forward-leaning in its posture, or if it should adopt a more restrained approach to global engagement.

The event was moderated by Brookings Foreign Policy Fellow Jeremy Shapiro, and featured a debate between Brookings Foreign Policy Senior Fellow Robert Kagan and Barry Posen, Ford International Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kagan argued that the United States has an enduring responsibility and capacity to shape the world order and must remain actively engaged abroad to prevent the international order from collapse. Posen, on the other hand, warned against American overreach in foreign policy and urged Washington to embrace restraint, focusing on its own national security interests and limiting engagement – particularly military - abroad.

In their discussion of the Middle East, both scholars sought to define American regional interests with greater precision. Posen argued that “affective” relationships, such as those with Israel, do not explain the U.S. defense budget dedicated to the region or contingency plans for the region. Posen also disputed the view that oil is the primary driver of U.S. regional policy, suggesting that threats to major suppliers could be managed with a less robust regional security commitment than Washington has traditionally maintained.

Kagan argued that President Obama is more intellectually inclined toward Posen’s strategy of restraint than most of his predecessors, and yet he too has been drawn into the Middle East. “It can’t just be pure stupidity that has had the United States involved in the Middle East as consistently as it has been for almost 70 years now, taking the place of the previous powers that had been involved in the Middle East,” he said.

Posen discussed U.S. efforts against the Islamic State group (also called ISIS or ISIL). He noted that President Obama’s rhetoric on ISIS has gone beyond what is prudent, describing the strategy as one of “containment that’s augmented by the promise of future counter-offensives and destruction.” Washington’s current strategy, Posen argued, has demobilized allies by enabling them to skirt responsibility for the crisis.

Posen and Kagan differed in their interpretations of the track record of American interventions in the region. Posen criticized American understanding of the causes and effects of intervention, saying that it is easier to oust a government than to generate internal consensus or transform a country into a stable democracy. By contrast, Kagan argued that the U.S. has never invaded a Middle Eastern country with the purpose of rearranging domestic politics.

There was little discussion of terrorism and nuclear proliferation, though Posen identifies these two threats as major items on which the U.S. should remain engaged. More information about Posen’s arguments can be found in his new book, Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy (Cornell University Press, 2014). Kagan’s argument for continued pre-eminence and engagement in grand strategy can be found in his influential May 2014 New Republic essay “Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire.”