In Search of Soft Power: Does Foreign Public Opinion Matter for US Foreign Policy?

Abstract

D oeS "soft power" matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of those countries? we examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US during the post-9/11 period.we draw our basic conceptual framework from joseph nye, who coined the term "soft power." 1 according to nye, soft power is "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments." 2 this is an especially appropriate framework for us because, as nye puts it, "soft power is about mobilizing cooperation from others." 3 as we do in this article, he frequently uses public opinion surveys regarding attitudes in foreign countries toward the US and its policies. 4 It is also appropriate because the effectiveness of soft power hinges on the targeted country's public attitudes (that is, favorability) toward the country wielding, or attempting to wield, international influence (in this study, the US). *earlier versions of this article were presented at the United States Study centre (ussc), University of Sydney, on august 11, 2009; the center on Public Diplomacy, University of Southern california, on january 29, 2010; and the School of International relations and Pacific Studies, University of california, San Diego, on february 2, 2010. we thank nick cull, ellis krauss, Graeme Gill, Murray Goot, Simon jackman, Brendon o'connor, Shirley Scott, fred teiwes, other seminar participants, and the anonymous reviewers for useful comments. we are grateful to the ussc for funding through the 2009 research grants program and to takashi Inoguchi and emma thomas for providing parts of the data for analysis. for very capable research assistance, we thank weilin chiu, william courcier, robert flawith, keira Glasgow, and jens hansen-Ölmedal.

Scope, mechanism, and outcome: arguing soft power in the context of public diplomacy

“…This is clearly Nye's suggestion for how the concept can be put to use. Yet, as argued here and elsewhere, soft power's abstract terms are often too underspecified and too context dependent to generate prescriptive insights, other than to highlight increased attention to the ways in which states can intervene into the domestic formation of foreign polices (Goldsmith and Horiuchi 2012).…”

“…As critics have noted, ultimately, the soft power concept may be too underspecified to be of use for analysts seeking to understand the instruments, vulnerabilities and strategies that define the contemporary practice of power, especially those that seek prediction-oriented, deductive-nomothetic theories (Layne 2010;Goldsmith and Horiuchi 2012). However, if soft power is most visible in the 'conversion' process, as Nye argues, then it may be best understood as a way to assign meaning post hoc to an exercise of power -to guide the assemblage of factors that concatenate into particular objectives or effects.…”

“…The proposed framework is not offered to replace the inferential studies on soft power variables or the studies of 'impact', even though previous empirical analyses of soft power resources, messaging tactics or audience dispositions have yet to distil the soft power concept into generalisable claims about cause and effect (Katzenstein and Keohane 2007;Atkinson 2010;Goldsmith and Horiuchi 2012). What remains evident more readily, however, is that soft power is a concept with strategic currency: an increasing number of states continue to act upon its existence and deploy resources to cultivate or leverage its potential (Gallarotti 2011).…”

“…Recovering the working assumptions at stake in its implementation may establish grounds to develop contextually relevant measures of soft power outcomes and effects. As Goldsmith and Horiuchi (2012) claim, the typology of resources for soft power -culture, political values, and foreign policy legitimacytend to be invariant structures, which makes it difficult to link soft power to particular outcomes (558). The alternative question posed here is how states render something like 'culture' as something available or necessary in relation to other international actors, which would then open up the term soft power to more focused empirical accounts.…”

Toward quantifying soft power: the impact of the proliferation of information technology on governance in the Middle East

“…In such an attempt, Goldsmith and Horiuchi (2012) analyze 58 multinational surveys linking soft power and public perception of American foreign policy. The authors find that public opinion of U.S. foreign policy influences local leaders' foreign policy decision-making.…”