Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia

World Association for Triple Helix and Future Strategy Studies (세계트리플헬릭스미래전략학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multi-Stakeholders in Public and Cultural Diplomacies as Seen through the Lens of Public-Private Partnerships: A Comparative Case Study of Germany and South Korea

  • Kim, Hwa Jung (Institute of International Affairs, Seoul National University)
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With the emergence of partnerships with private actors in public and cultural diplomacies, complexity in the relations among the various stakeholders involved has arisen, and yet the relevant research is insufficient to shed any beneficial light on such issues. By looking at public-private partnerships, the present study determined that resource dependence, trust, and risk are the main factors affecting the feasibility of partnerships, and inductively developed propositions on their effects. In an explorative case study, Germany (decentralized mode of governance) and South Korea (centralized mode of governance) were compared as exemplary contrasting system designs. The results revealed that risk and trust are likely to affect the feasibility of partnerships, whereas resource dependence is not. The following additional findings also were made: (1) there are cultural actors in a 'for profit, but with non-profit purposes' sector; (2) an interpersonal level of trust positively affects partnerships; (3) 'taking risks' brings about 'innovation'; (4) the existence of international commonalities between any two cases depending on the actors' shared role, whether public or private; (5) public actors' emphasis on mutual trust, program budget and execution, innovations coming from taking risks, commitment and ownership, and unexpected situations; (6) private actors' consideration of 'publicness' and grant-seeking or financial support as important incentives, and their desire that public actors to show more trust, professionalism, and ownership with less control over budget execution. With its qualitative approach and in-depth analysis, the present study yielded new insights, notwithstanding the relatively small sample data.

Keywords

References

  1. Adobor, H. (2006). The role of personal relationships in inter-firm alliances: Benefits, dysfunctions, and some suggestions. Business Horizons, 49(6), 473-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.03.003
  2. Arsenault, A., & Cowan, G. (2008). Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The three layers of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 10-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311863
  3. Auer, C., & Srugies, A. (2013). Public diplomacy in Germany. CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, Paper, 5.
  4. Ayhan, K. (2016a). Introduction. In K. Ayhan (Ed.), Korea's Public Diplomacy. Hangang Network.
  5. Ayhan, K. (2016b). Collaborative public diplomacy between the government and NGOs in Korea, Japan and Turkey (Doctoral dissertation). The Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea.
  6. Batora, J. (2005). Multistakeholder public diplomacy of small and medium-sized states: Norway and Canada compared. Paper Presented to the International Conference on Multistakeholder Diplomacy, Mediterranean Diplomatic Academy, Malta, 2005, February 11-13.
  7. Borzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2005). Public-private partnerships: Effective and legitimate tools of international governance. In Grande, E., & Pauly, L.W. (Eds.), Complex Sovereignty: Reconstructing Political Authority in the Twenty First Century, 195-216. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  8. Bovaird, T. (2010). A brief intellectual history of the public-private partnership movement. In Hodge, Graeme, A., Greve, C., & Boardman, A. E. (Eds.), International Handbook in Public-Private Partnerships, 43-67. UK: Edward Elgar.
  9. Brown, R. (2013). The Politics of Relational Public Diplomacy. In Zaharna, R.S., Arsenault, A., & Fisher, A. (Eds.), Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift, 44-55. New York, NY: Routledge .
  10. Brubaker, R., & Kim, J. (2011). Transborder membership politics in Germany and Korea. European Journal of Sociology, 52, 21-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975611000026
  11. Cho, B. G. (2007). Cultural Policy, Cultural Diplomacy of Advanced Nations: Nation Interests and Cultural Diplomacy. Seoul: Minsokwon.
  12. Cohen, L.B. (1969). Alternative Measures of Infant Attention, Paper Presented at the Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Santa Monica, California.
  13. Cohen, R. (2013). Diplomacy through the ages. In Kerr, P. & Wiseman, G. (Eds.), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices,15-30. Oxford University Press.
  14. Cull, N. J. (2006). Public diplomacy before Gullion: The evolution of a phrase. USC Center on Public Diplomacy, April 18.
  15. d'Hooghe, I. (2010). The limits of China's soft power in Europe: Beijing's public diplomacy puzzle, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Hague.
  16. Dimaggio, P. (2000). Social structure, institutions, and cultural goods. In B. Gigi, M. Gary, & G. Wallach. (Eds.), The Politics of Culture: Policy Perspectives for Individuals, Institutions, and Communities, The Center for Arts and Culture. New York, NY: The New Press.
  17. Fisher, A. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Building blocks for a collaborative approach to public diplomacy. In Zaharna, R.S., Arsenault, A. & Fisher, A. (Eds.), Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomatic, 209-226. New York, NY: Routledge.
  18. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2010). The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate. Leiden: Brill.
  19. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,616(1), 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207312142
  20. Gregory, B. (2008). Public diplomacy: Sunrise of an academic field. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311723
  21. Guardian Editorial. (2013, April 07). Arts funding: the national theatre is the very model of public-private partnership. The Guardian.
  22. Habermas, J. (1996). National unification and popular sovereignty. New Left Review 219.
  23. Hocking, B. (2005). Rethinking the "new" public diplomacy, In Melissen, J., & Sharp, P. The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, 28-46. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  24. Hocking, B. (2008). Reconfiguration public diplomacy: From competition to collaboration. In Welsh, J. & Fearn. D. (Eds.), Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalized World, London: Foreign Commonwealth Office.
  25. Hocking, B., & Smith, M. (2011). An emerging diplomatic system for the EU? Frameworks and Issues. Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto 44.
  26. Huxham, C. (1993). Pursuing collaborative advantage. Journal of the Operational Research Society.
  27. Huxham, C. (1996). Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage
  28. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. Routledge.
  29. Inglehart, R. (2000). Culture and cemocracy. In Harrison L.E., & Huntington, S. P. (Eds.), Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, 80-97. Basic books.
  30. Jung, C. H. (2015). Cultural Policy. Seoul Economic Management.
  31. Kamarck, E.C. (2004). "Applying 21st-Century Government to the Challenge of Homeland Security." In Kamensky, J. M., John M., & Burlin, T. J. (Eds.), Collaboration Using Networks and Partnerships, 103-146. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  32. Kamensky, J. M., & Burlin, T. J. (Eds.). (2004). Collaboration: Using networks and partnerships. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
  33. Kickert, W., Klijn. E., & Koppenjan, J. F. (Eds.). (1997). Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage Publications.
  34. Kim, H. J. (2017). Bridging the theoretical gap between public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 15(2), 293-326. https://doi.org/10.14731/kjis.2017.08.15.2.293
  35. Kim, T. H. (2012). Paradigm shift in diplomacy: A conceptual model for Korea's "new public diplomacy". Korea Observer,43(4), 527.
  36. Koliba, C. J., Mills, R. M., & Zia, A. (2011). Accountability in governance networks: An assessment of public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02332.x
  37. Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. Sage.
  38. Koppenjan, J. F., & Klijn, E. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks: a Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. Psychology Press.
  39. Krebs, V. (2002). Uncloaking terrorist networks. First Monday,7(4).
  40. Lee, G. (2009). A soft power approach to the "Korean wave". The Review of Korean Studies, 12(2), 123-137. https://doi.org/10.25024/review.2009.12.2.006
  41. Lee, G. W. (2015). Understanding Germany. Seoul: Sunest.
  42. Lee, S. W. (2011). The theory and reality of soft power: Practical approaches in East Asia. In in Lee, S. & Melissen, J. (eds.), Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia, 11-32. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
  43. Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi‐organizational partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00103
  44. Melissen, J. (Ed.). (2005). The New Public diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Springer.
  45. Merkel, U. (2009). Sport, politics and reunification-a comparative analysis of Korea and Germany. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 26(3), 406-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523360802602273
  46. Metzler, J. J. ([1996] 2014). Divided Dynamism: The Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany, Korea, China. University Press of America.
  47. Mitchell, J. M. 1986. International Cultural Relations. London: Allen&Unwin.
  48. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
  49. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The Aannals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699
  50. Nye, J. S. (2010). The new public diplomacy. Project syndicate, 10.
  51. Ordeix-Rigo, E., & Duarte, J. (2009). From public diplomacy to corporate diplomacy: Increasing corporation's legitimacy and influence. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 549-564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209347630
  52. Paik. N. (1996). Habermas on national unification in Germany and Korea. New Left Review, (219), 14.
  53. Pamment, J. (2011). The limits of the new public diplomacy: Strategic communication and evaluation at the US State Department, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, British Council, Swedish Foreign Ministry and Swedish Institute. Department of Journalism, Media and Communication (JMK), Stockholm University,.
  54. Pfeffer, J. (1987). A resource dependence perspective on intercorporate relations. Intercorporate relations: The structural analysis of business, 25-55.
  55. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. ([1978] 2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press.
  56. Pigman, G. A., & Deos, A. (2008). Consuls for hire: Private actors, public diplomacy. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pb.6000085
  57. Potter, E. H. (2009). Branding Canada: Projecting Canada's soft power through public diplomacy. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
  58. Ragin, C. (1994). A qualitative comparative analysis of pension systems. The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State, 320-345.
  59. Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Open University Press.
  60. Roberts, W. R. (2006). The evolution of diplomacy. Mediterranean Quarterly, 17(3), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1215/10474552-2006-015
  61. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations: Modifications of a model for telecommunications. In Die Diffusion von Innovationen in der Telekommunikation, Berlin, Heidelberg, 25-38. Springer.
  62. Sharp, P. (2013). Diplomacy in international relations theory and other disciplinary perspectives. In Kerr. P, & Wiseman, G. (Eds.), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, 51-67. Oxford University Press.
  63. Snow, N. (2009). Rethinking Public Diplomacy. In Snow. N, & Taylor, P. M.(Eds.), Handbook of Public Diplomacy, 3-11. New York. NY: Routledge.
  64. Tsasis, P. (2009). The social processes of interorganizational collaboration and conflict in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.238
  65. Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 587-605.
  66. Valente, T. W. (2010). Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.
  67. Widvey, T. (2003). Public diplomacy. speech at the Norwegian-American Chamber of Commerce, Ottawa, November, 3, 2003.
  68. Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S., & Watabe, M. (1998). Uncertainty, trust, and commitment formation in the United States and Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 165-194. https://doi.org/10.1086/210005
  69. Yin, R. K. (2009). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. The Information Systems Research Challenge (Harvard Business School Research Colloquium). London: Sage.
  70. Zaharna R.S. (2010). Communication, culture, and identity in public diplomacy. Battles to Bridges: Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cited by

  1. Sustainability of Government Social Media: A Multi-Analytic Approach to Predict Citizens’ Mobile Government Microblog Continuance vol.10, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124849
  2. Network Arrangements Underlying Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Findings from Globalized Cyberspace and Lessons for Asian Regions vol.20, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.17477/jcea.2021.20.2.019