Announcing the 2025 OCPL Fellowship, Summer Reading List, & More!
The Oxford China Policy Lab Newsletter
Dear friends and colleagues,
Greetings from down under, where I recently concluded several meetings with China-facing and emerging technology policy actors in Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane, and Gympie (yes, there are indeed budding emerging tech policy stars in Gympie!). These Australian policy spaces are rich and diverse, reflecting the contours of Australia’s deeply complicated relationship with China and unique comparative advantages in emerging technology. On one hand, members of the Chinese diaspora have become deeply embedded in Australia’s social fabric and continue to become part of its uniquely multi-cultural identity: over half of Aussies have at least one overseas-born parent. On the other hand, Aussies have become increasingly wary of their relationship with China following years of influence operations and economic coercion – which mostly did not succeed (save for the lobsters and wine). In the emerging technology sphere, Australia possesses a budding spring of talent and is a powerhouse for critical minerals, especially in Queensland and Western Australia. And it’s on the precipice of engaging more deeply in important AI governance discussions, which could shape its future engagement with a growing international network of AI safety institutes as well as its potential regional leadership in AI discussions around Southeast Asia. In between policy discussions, I had lots of good brekkie, caught a bunch of sun, and met many good mates.
I share these snippets not simply because they are interesting to your friendly neighbourhood Aussie politics wonk, but because these dynamics illustrate a broader point: a country’s geographic, cultural, economic, ideological, and social position in the world will inevitably facilitate different geopolitical dynamics than you will see elsewhere. Such is the beauty of a multiplex world, to borrow Amitav Acharya’s famous analogy: geopolitics will play out in fundamentally different ways depending on where you are in the world. Wandering around places ranging from Bondi and Brissie illuminated the human stories bubbling beneath the surface of our structural theories of international politics. Building space to consider new perspectives and share them with others — as we try to do in Oxford — allows for a deeper understanding of the unique drivers of countries’ policies when navigating the international stage.
Here’s to multiplexity, and thanks to all the Aussies whose stories and perspectives enriched this short note.
Cheers,
Scott Singer
Co-Founder and Co-Director
Announcing the 2025 OCPL Fellowship
We are pleased to announce that we will soon accept applications for the third iteration of the OCPL fellowship. The fellowship aims to amplify fellows’ existing work and expertise, help them create original, rigorous research and policy outputs, connect them to key stakeholders in the field, and increase their literacy on pressing problems at the intersection of US-China relations and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, as well as other pressing global issues.
For the 2025 cohort, we are recruiting fellows and team leads whose research falls into one of three categories:
Implications, development, and governance of artificial intelligence (AI);
Semiconductor supply chains, digital and critical national infrastructures, economic and technological statecraft; or
Other pressing problems connected to China and US-China relations, including conflict risks and forms of mitigation, as well as China-facing capabilities and talent pipelines.
The application form and instructions will be posted in the coming weeks. An information session will be held on October 22, with details to be announced soon. Further details can be found on the OCPL website.
Our Activities
Scott co-authored The Future of International Scientific Assessments of AI’s Risks, which argues that no single institution can lead the world toward consensus on AI risk. Instead, it recommends that the UN publish periodic scientific reports on a broad range of AI issues while a separate organization — the AI Safety Institute International Network, the OECD, or the International Science Council — should produce annual assessments that focus on risks posed by advanced AI systems.
Sam Hogg co-authored a piece in Politico called “Starmer Will Have to Walk a US-China Tightrope”. The article lays out paths the Labour government could follow if faced with a second, more protectionist Trump administration,
Kayla Blomquist will speak at the Oxford Generative AI Summit, which will take place October 17-18, 2024. The Summit convenes stakeholders to discuss the use cases, societal implications, and future of generative AI. Tickets for online or in-person attendance can be purchased below:
Summer Reading List
Early-career individuals interested in AI should familiarize themselves with the U.S. and Chinese AI policy landscapes. For those who don’t speak Mandarin, learning about Chinese regulations is comparatively harder than finding information on U.S. directives, most of which are compiled on this government website. The following English language analyses help bridge the language gap:
“China’s AI Regulations and How They Get Made” by Matt Sheehan. This article provides an overview of three sets of Chinese AI regulation (though the draft measures on generative AI have since been updated) and identifies four layers of AI governance policymaking: China’s economic, social, and technological environment; Xi Jinping and CCP ideology; academic debates and business lobbying; and party and government ideology.
“The State of AI Safety in China: Spring 2024 Report” by Concordia AI. This report outlines Chinese research on frontier AI safety, tracks Chinese AI governance efforts at the local and national levels, and describes the growing convergence of views on AI safety among the world’s major powers.
“China’s Military AI Roadblocks: PRC Perspectives on Technological Challenges to Intelligentized Warfare” by Sam Bresnick. This report describes the beliefs of Chinese defense experts on barriers to the PLA’s incorporation of AI and technologies that may help China develop and deploy military AI systems.
“China’s Views on AI Safety Are Changing — Quickly” by Matt Sheehan. This article tracks the rise of concerns about frontier AI safety in China, describing how conversations led by academia, industry, and government contributed to the growing salience of the issue.
For policy practitioners, the rigorous, evidence-based argumentation of the following academic articles can provide a fresh perspective on timely topics such as economic interdependence, industrial policy, and foreign policy narratives.
“Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion” by Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman. This article argues that states with jurisdiction over nodes of economic networks — like the Swift financial messaging system or the internet — can exert power by gathering information on and denying network access to adversaries.
“The Rise and Fall of Technological Leadership: General-Purpose Technology Diffusion and Economic Power Transitions” by Jeffrey Ding. This article posits that a nation’s relative economic strength is determined not by its ability to monopolize innovation in cutting-edge industries but by its ability to employ general-purpose technologies across many sectors.
“Yellow Techno-Peril: The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ and Anti-Chinese Racial Rhetoric in the US-China AI Arms Race” by Kerry McInerney. This article examines how narratives about an AI arms race between the United States and China depict the two countries as “distinct and mutually opposed cultural entities” and draws on previous forms of anti-Asian sentiment, like the Yellow Peril.
Academics hoping to reach a policy audience will benefit from the below resources, which make the case for transforming academic conclusions into actionable policy prescriptions.
“Writing Policy Recommendations for Academic Journals: A Guide for the Perplexed” by Daniel Byman. This article offers advice for academics who hope to make policy impact, such as identifying their audience, recognizing the dilemmas faced by policymakers, and considering the costs and limits of their recommendations.
“The Need for Praxis: Bringing Policy Relevance Back In” by Bruce Jentleson. This article identifies academic incentives that discourage policy-relevant work and argues for greater interaction between theory and practice.
“The Two Cultures of Academia and Policy-Making: Bridging the Gap” by Alexander George. This article identifies three types of policy-relevant knowledge that academic scholars can help produce: models of strategies such as deterrence, knowledge of conditions that favor certain strategies, and models of the mindsets and behaviours of actors toward whom the strategies may be directed.
Meet Our Fellows: Ruofei Wang
What are your research interests?
My research interests centre around the intersection of emerging technology governance and international security, especially as it relates to global collaboration and the dynamics between superpowers.
What’s an aspect of the China policy space you’d like to learn more about?
I’m interested in learning more about China's security and defence strategies and how they compare with those of the US, given the current geopolitical dynamics and tensions between the two.
What are you currently reading?
I am currently reading a book called The New Cold War: How the Contest Between the US and China Will Shape Our Century. I couldn't help but wonder - is there an alternative framework that could help us better understand and find ways to address the challenges raised by US-China relations and their implications for the world?
What’s one item you can’t live without?
Cappuccino and Chinese hotpot!