What is Soft Power and How do Countries
Compare in It?
By Judit Trunkos
PhD Student at the University of South Carolina
trunkos@email.sc.edu
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