What is Soft Power and How do Countries Compare in It? By Judit Trunkos PhD Student at the University of South Carolina
[email protected]
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Outline Development of Power 2. Definition of Soft Power 3. Measuring Soft Power 4. International Comparison 1.
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Ideologies in International Relations Realism • Power is the core concept • States are the actors • National security is the most important international agenda • States behave rationally
Liberalism • Other issues such as economics or diplomacy can be the focus of the agenda • Non-state actors can also be the actors • State is subject to outside influence • Interdependence, reciprocity (Nye and Keohane 1977) Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Power
First Face of Power: (Dahl,1961)-coercion, threats or rewards
Second Face of Power: (Bachrach and Baratz, 1964)-agenda setting
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Power
Third Face of Power: (Lukes, 1970)-shaping the initial beliefs and preferences
Second +Third faces of Power: (Nye,2011)-Soft Power
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Definitions of Soft Power Nye 2004 “The ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment. Includes culture, values and foreign policies.”
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Definitions of Soft Power Nye 2011 “The ability to affect others through the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuading, and eliciting positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes. Includes intangible factors such as institutions, ideas, values, culture, perceived legitimacy of policies.”
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Hard Power Coerce with political, economic or military power. (Realism: force, military capability)
Soft Power Ability to get what you want though attraction and not coercion (Nye, 2004). (Liberalism: education, art, sports, values).
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Tools of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy v. Cultural Diplomacy Public Diplomacy Government sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries: its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges radio and TV. (One way communication) • Sponsored by the government • Embassies and diplomats play a major role •
Cultural Diplomacy • •
• •
• •
Cultural diplomacy establishes a two-way communication with other countries. Primary focus is not merely political but also cultural (athletic, education, art) The actor can take on his/her own agenda independently of the government. More high culture and education focused (less popular culture, publications, radio or TV) Can be sponsored by the government but also by private institutions or NGO. Embassies play a major role but not the only role
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Skeptics of Soft Power
Ferguson (2004) “There is nothing new about Soft Power. Soft Power is merely the velvet glove concealing an iron hand.”
Gelb (2009) “Soft Power now seems to include everything.”
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Skeptics of Soft Power
Gray (2011) “Hard Power must remain the essential instrument of policy, Soft Power is unsuitable for policy directions and control as it relies too much on the foreign countries’ perception.”
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Soft Power as a Foreign Policy Tool Nye
(2011): Culture, values and foreign policy are the main sources of Soft Power.
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
State Application of Soft Power Unites States:(2010 Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking: 8, 2012 Soft Power Ranking 2 ) USIA-United States Information Agency Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) of the U.S. Department of State • Academic Programs Fulbright Program • Professional and Cultural Exchanges International Visitor Leadership Program
The Netherlands: (2010 Global Cultural Diplomacy Ranking: 1, 2012 Soft Power Ranking 15)
SICA Dutch Centre for International Cultural Activities • •
Visitor Program (diplomats and professionals) Regional Projects (Russia, Turkey, Brazil, China)
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Previous Measurement Methods
Nye (2004)-Surveys+ Public Diplomacy Spending.
Holyk (2011)-Surveys and Bivariate Correlation.
McClory (2012):Composite metrics across various indicatorsstatistical metrics and subjective data (50 metrics in total).
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
McClory’s Soft Power Index 2012
Business/Innovation Education Government Culture Diplomacy
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power. University of South Carolina
McClory’s Soft Power Index 2012 Rank
Government Culture
Diplomacy
Education
Business/ Innovation
1
Norway
USA
France
USA
Finland
2
Switzerland
UK
UK
UK
Switzerland
3
Sweden
France
Germany
Australia
Singapore
4
Denmark
Australia
USA
Germany
Sweden
5
Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
China
Denmark
6
Finland
China
Netherlands
Japan
Netherlands
7
New Zealand
Italy
Norway
France
Japan
8
Canada
Canada
Italy
Canada
Germany
9
Australia
Spain
Belgium
Korea
Norway
10
Austria
Korea
Canada
Netherlands
UK
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Non-State Actors of Soft Power • • • •
Private Individuals (actors, directors, artists, athletes, immigrants, writers) Civil Societies Private Institutions (art, dance, music, sports) NGO’s (UNESCO)
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Thank you
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Appendix A:Public Diplomacy v. Soft Power
Public diplomacy: refers to the every day diplomacy aimed to create a favorable image abroad through daily communication and planning of strategic events.-short term goals.
Soft power: relies on programs that are designed to advance American values and human rights as well as restoring alliances, promoting the rights of women and girls. -long term goals Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Appendix B: Concept of Soft Power 1st-face Coerce, Payment
National Resources
Government/ Strategy
(Trunkos) Soft power=indirect use of government resources
Influence
Soft Power 2nd faceAgenda Setting 3rd facePreference and Belief Setting Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Appendix C: Mechanism
Influencing mechanism
Government using Soft Power
Media, Internet, Public Opinion
money Foreign Public
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Foreign Government's Foreign Policy
Appendix D: McClory 2012 Method Objective (70%) (statistical data):Business/Innovation, Government, Education, Culture, Diplomacy Subjective (30%): Design/Architecture, Cultural Output, Global Leadership, Soft Power Icons, Cuisine, National Airline/Major Airport, Commercial Brands
Includes 40 countries & 3-year data
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Appendix D: McClory Index (2012) Culture: Tourism, Reach of State Sponsored Media Outlet, Foreign Correspondents, Language, Influential Languages, Sporting Success Diplomacy: Foreign Aid Overseas, Languages Spoken by Leader, Visa Freedom, (Strength of National Brand 2010), Number of Cultural Missions Red: policies Black: culture blue: values
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
Appendix D: McClory’s Index (2012) Business/Innovation: International Patents; Business competitiveness, corruption, Level of Corruption: Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, Innovation Education: Think Tank Presence, Quality of Universities, Foreign Students Government: UN HDI Score Index, Good Governance Index, Freedom Score Index of political freedom and personal liberty, Trust in Government, Life Satisfaction
Judit Trunkos. Soft Power. University of South Carolina
