Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.23045/kjpd.2022.2.2.001

A Theoretical Model for Effective Public Diplomacy  

Kisuk Cho (Ewha Womans University)
Hwajung Kim (Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
Journal of Public Diplomacy / v.2, no.2, 2022 , pp. 1-26 More about this Journal
Abstract
Since the seminal publication of Joseph Nye's Soft Power, soft power became the central concept to public diplomacy. However, over-emphasis on soft power, which is still controversial, deterred academics from producing valuable knowledge that can be applied to practices in the field. Soft power is a cause and effect at the same time and thus it makes systematic analysis almost implausible because it is not only a tool for successful public diplomacy, but it is a result of successful diplomacy. This study aims at offering a theoretical framework linking soft power and public diplomacy by including various factors that may affect the outcomes of effective public diplomacy. This theoretical framework assessing the effectiveness of public diplomacy will make it possible to explore how and when new public diplomacy was adopted in a certain country and examine hard and soft power resources. The model also includes political system variables such as ideas and values, institutions, governance, leadership, and communication system, which are expected to influence public diplomacy effectiveness rather than soft power itself. The model yields the effectiveness of public diplomacy by assessing outcome and impact relative to input and output that are applicable to practices. The model is expected to enable both quantitative and qualitative studies generating possible propositions from the model with some preliminary outcomes of comparative case studies.
Keywords
Effective Public Diplomacy; Soft Power; Hard Power; Theoretical Model;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Burnay, M., Hivonnet, J., & Raube, K. (2014). 'Soft diplomacy' and people-to-people dialogue between the EU and the PRC. European Foreign Affairs Review, 19(3), 35-55.   DOI
2 Bursens, P., & Deforche, J. (2010). Going beyond paradiplomacy? Adding historical institutionalism to account for regional foreign policy competences. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 5(1-2), 151-171.   DOI
3 Gallarotti, G. M. (2011). Soft power: what it is, why it's important, and the conditions for its effective use. Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 25-47.   DOI
4 Geert, H., & Hofstede, G. J. (1991/2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGaw-Hill.
5 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.
6 Henrikson, A. K. (2005). Niche diplomacy in the world public arena: the global 'corners' of Canada and Norway, In The New Public Diplomacy, edited by Melissen, J. 67-87. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
7 Holsti, O. R., & Rosenau, J. N. (1986). Consensus lost. Consensus regained?: foreign policy beliefs of American leaders, 1976-1980. International Studies Quarterly, 30(4), 375-409.   DOI
8 Huseynov, V. (2016). Soft power geopolitics: how does the diminishing utility of military power affect the Russia-West confrontation over the "Common Neighbourhood." Eastern Journal of European Studies, 7(2), 71-90.
9 Katzenstein, P. J., & Keohane, R. O. eds. (2007). Anti-Americanisms in world politics. Cornell University Press.
10 King, B. L. (1975). Japanese colonialism and Korean economic development 1910-1945. Asian Studies, 13(3), 1-21.
11 Kim, T. H. (2012). Paradigm shift in diplomacy: a conceptual model for Korea's new public diplomacy. Korea Observer,43(4), 527-555.
12 Lancaster, C. (2007). Foreign aid: diplomacy, development, domestic politics. Chicago and London: The University Of Chicago Press.
13 Lee, S. W. (2011). The theory and reality of soft power: practical approaches, in Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia, edited by Lee, S. J. & Melissen, Jan, 11-32. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
14 Lee, G., & Ayhan, A. (2015). Why do we need non-state actors in public diplomacy?: theoretical discussion of relational, networked and collaborative public diplomacy. Journal of International and Area Studies, 57-77.
15 Mabee, B. (2011). Historical institutionalism and foreign policy analysis: the origins of the National Security Council revisited. Foreign Policy Analysis, 7(1), 27-44.   DOI
16 Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
17 Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy in a changing world. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Mar., 2008, Vol. 616, 94-109.   DOI
18 Nye, J. S. (2011). Power and foreign policy. Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 9-24.   DOI
19 Ogunnubi, O., & Ettang, D. (2016). Communicating South Africa's soft power: agents, instruments and recipients. Communicatio, 42(3), 293-312.   DOI
20 Olsen, J. P. (2009). Change and continuity: an institutional approach to institutions of democratic government. European Political Science Review, 1(1), 3-32.   DOI
21 Oppermann, K., Brummer, K., and Willigen, N. V. (2017). Coalition governance and foreign policy decision-making. European Political Science, 16, 489-501.   DOI
22 Otmazgin, N. (2011). A tail that wags the dog? Cultural industry and cultural policy in Japan and South Korea. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 13(3), 307-325.   DOI
23 Perez, L. A. V. (2014). POP POWER: Pop Diplomacy for a Global Society. Luis Antonio Vidal Perez.
24 Reilly, B. (2015). Australia as a southern hemisphere 'soft power.' Australian Journal of International Affairs, 69(3), 253-265.
25 Peters, B. G. (2011). Institutional theory. The SAGE Handbook of Governance, 78-90.
26 Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & King, D. S. (2005). The politics of path dependency: political conflict in historical institutionalism. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1275-1300.   DOI
27 Rawnsley, G. (2012). Approaches to soft power and public diplomacy in China and Taiwan. Journal of International Communication, 18(2), 121-135.
28 Rosenau, J. N. (1968). Comparative foreign policy: fad, fantasy, or field?. International Studies Quarterly, 12(3), 296-329.   DOI
29 Rosenau, J. N. (1970). Foreign policy as adaptive behavior: some preliminary notes for a theoretical model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 365-387.   DOI
30 Rotaru, V. (2018). Forced attraction? How Russia is instrumentalizing its soft power sources in the "near abroad." Problems of Post-Communism, 65(1), 37-48.   DOI
31 Rothman, S. B. (2011). Revising the soft power concept: what are the means and mechanisms of soft power?. Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 49-64.   DOI
32 Sguazzin, A. (2022, June 13). China surpasses US in eyes of young Africans, survey shows. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-12/china-surpasses-us-in-the-eyes-of-youngafricans-survey-shows (retrieved on August 7, 2022)
33 Tella, O. (2016). AFRICOM: hard or soft power initiative?. African Security Review, 25(4), 393-406.   DOI
34 Wojczewski, T. (2019). Trump, populism, and American foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(3), 292-311.   DOI
35 Thelen, K. (2010). Beyond comparative statics: historical institutional approaches to stability and change in the political economy of labor. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis. edited by Morgan, G. et al. 42-62. New York: Oxford University Press.
36 Welzel, C., & Inglehart, R. (2001). Human development as a general theory of social change: a multi-level and cross-cultural perspective. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung gGmbH (WZB), Reichpietschufer 50, Discussion Paper FS III, 1-36.
37 Whitney, C. B., & Shambaugh, D. (2009). Soft power in Asia: results of a 2008 multinational survey of public opinion. Chicago Council on Global Affairs in partnership with EAI.
38 김영호 (2014). 대한민국의 건국외교: 정부 승인과 외교 기반 구축. <한국정치외교사논총>, 35 집 2 호, 43-72.   DOI
39 김태수 (2007). 프랑스 대통령제의 특징, 변천 그리고 운영의 메커니즘. <유럽연구>, 25 집 3 호, 135-153.   DOI
40 김태환 (2020). <한국 정책공공외교의 진호와 방향성>. 한국공공외교학회 창립학술회의 발제집, 50-76.
41 윤기웅.김병규 (2014). <공공외교의 성과 및 성과에 영향을 미치는 요인 분석 '아세안 페스티벌' 사업을 중심으로>. 한국정부학회 학술발표논문집, 300-323.
42 이덕환 (2015). 불통.불신.비효율의 늪에 빠져버린 국정운영. <철학과 현실>, 106 호, 99-118.
43 정동훈 (2013). 외교제도사 연구 제언. 한국역사연구회 <역사와 현실>, 89 권, 21-39.
44 전영상.이진복 (2012). 위기 상황에서의 정보은폐에 관한 한.일 비교연구: 일본 후쿠시마 원전사고와 한국 고리 원전사고 사례를 중심으로. <아시아연구>, 15 집 2 호, 185-214.
45 조기숙 외 (2016). <한국형 공공외교 평가모델>. 이화공공외교총서 제 1 권. 이화여자대학교공공외교센터 엮음. 이화여자대학교출판문화원.
46 Broom, G. M., & Sha, B. L. (2013). Cutlip and Center's effective public relations. 11th edition. Boston: Pearson.
47 홍기원 (2014). 이명박 정부 국가브랜드정책의 평가: 문화정책의 상징적 활용의 관점에서. <현대사회와 행정>, 24 권 2 호, 82-102.
48 Beeson, M., & Higgott, R. (2005). Hegemony, institutionalism and US foreign policy: theory and practice in comparative historical perspective. Third World Quarterly, 26(7), 1173-1188.   DOI