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
1.
2.
3.
4.

Development of Power
Definition of Soft Power
Measuring Soft Power
International Comparison

Judit Trunkos. Soft Power.

University of South Carolina

Liberalism
Other issues
Ideologies in International
Relations
such as
economics or diplomacy
Realism
can be the focus of the
agenda
Power is the core
Non-state actors can
concept
also be the actors
States are the actors
State is subject to
National security is the
outside influence
most important
Interdependence,
international agenda
reciprocity (Nye and
States behave
Keohane 1977)
rationally
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

Cultural 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 establishes a twoway 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

indicators-statistical metrics and subjective data (50
metrics in total).

Judit Trunkos. Soft Power.

University of South Carolina

McClorys Soft Power Index 2012

Business/Innovation
Education
Government
Culture
Diplomacy

Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power.

University of South Carolina

McClorys Soft Power Index 2012

Rank

1
2

Governme Culture

Diplomac Educatio

Business/

nt

Innovatio

USA
UK

n
Finland
Switzerlan

Norway
USA
Switzerland UK

France
UK

3
4
5

Sweden
Denmark
Netherland

France
Australia
Germany

Germany
USA
Sweden

Australia
Germany
China

d
Singapore
Sweden
Denmark

s
Finland

China

Netherlan

Japan

Netherland

France

s
Japan

New

Italy

ds
Norway

8
9

Zealand
Canada
Australia

Canada
Spain

Italy
Canada
Germany
Judit Trunkos. Global Soft Power.
Belgium
Korea
Norway
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)
NGOs (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

National
Resourc
es

1st-face
Coerce,
Payment

ct
e
r
Di

Governme
nt/
Strategy

ct
re
di
In

(Trunkos)
Soft power=indirect
use of government
resources

Influence

Indire
ct
In
di
re
ct

Soft Power
2nd faceAgenda
Setting
3rd facePreference
and Belief
Setting

Judit Trunkos. Soft Power.

University of South Carolina

Appendix C: Mechanism
Influencing

Governme
nt using
Soft Power

mechanism

Media, Internet,
Public Opinion

money
Foreign
Public

Judit Trunkos. Soft Power.

University of South Carolina

Foreign
Governme
nt'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: McClorys 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