Soft power debate has not analytically moved beyond the questions of whether soft power matters and of whether soft power can work independent of hard power since Nye’s initial formulation. Furthermore, the question of how a state selects the source(s) of its soft power remains silent in the literature. This neglect leads to the underspecification of the nature and content of a given state’s soft power policy. In this article, we fill in these gaps by recasting the conventional understanding of soft power conceptually and analytically. Conceptually, we make the case that soft power should be understood as a form of productive power for its conceptual and analytical distinction. On the basis of this reformulation, we specify an analytical framework that helps map out how a state determines the sources of its soft power. The crux of the framework is the notion of ‘dual process’ of international recognition and domestic self-identification mutually informing and reinforcing each other for the identification of a specific source of a given state’s soft power. We illustrate the analytical framework with an empirical example of South Korea’s launch and consolidation of its new ODA policy, Knowledge Sharing Program.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
See Guzzini (2013, p. 94) for critiques of Barnett and Duvall’s taxonomy of power as non-explanatory.
The term ‘rational’ refers mainly to a range of analyses with the assumption of a fixed set of identity and interests, whose change would be derived only exogenously.
A standard definition of socialisation is ‘a process of inducting new actors into the norms and rules of a given community’ (Risse et al. 2013). As such, conceptually, this definition allows for both voluntary and coercive (so-called imposed socialisation) induction processes. See Checkel (2001) for the tension between voluntarism and imposition in the concept of socialisation.
Dowding (2006, p. 140). The question of whether or not an actor has real autonomy of choosing their action has long been debated in the community of power debate. Although important, addressing this question adequately is far beyond the scope of this article. See footnote 12 below for a short discussion of this issue.
Quoted in Lukes (2005a: pp. 477–493).
See also Risse (2000).
On this score, Checkel (2001, p. 577) observes that a change in a state’s policy as the result of pressure from protests and mobilisation logically presupposes that, for the state, the ‘norms are not internalized, they merely constrain behavior’.
See Reus-Smit (2004) for the importance of social constitution for power exercises.
Lee (2011, p. 48, n. 27), however, also opens the door for the possibility of institutional and structural power to count as soft power when they shape a receiver’s conception of interests without coercion and manipulation. As such, what ‘soft power as productive form of power’ suggests is that soft power’s most distinctive causal efficacy—in the sense of escaping the trap of hard power contamination—can be observed when it is understood as a productive form of power.
As noted earlier, Duvall and Barnett’s notion of productive form of power is different from Foucault’s (1980). Unlike Duvall and Barnett’s productive power, Foucauldian power does not allow for the possibility of actors’ conscious, voluntary choice because power is ubiquitous and co-extensive in society. See Lukes’ (2005a, pp. 491–493) critique of this aspect of Foucault’s understanding of power. Lukes argues that there are cases where ‘the exercises of power render those subject to it to live according to the dictates of their nature and judgment’.
As detailed below, ‘soft power without persuasion’ resonates particularly with Morriss’ notion of ‘power-to’ rather than just ‘power-over.’ With ‘power-to’, Morriss (2002, pp. 32–35) defines power as ‘an ability to effect outcomes’ (not the ability to affect others).
For example, Lynch (2014).
Interview with a section-chief-grade official at the United Nations Development Programmes on 14 November, 2013.
Deputy director at MOSF (personal interview by authors, 13 November, 2013).
Bureaucrat at the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Vietnam (personal interview by authors, 26 January, 2016). The Vietnamese bureaucrat mentioned that his government conducted the detailed study of Japanese and Korean cases for emulation, yet, was more attracted to the Korean one due to similar colonial experience.
Deputy director at MOSF (personal interview by authors, 13 November, 2013); Private consultant (personal interview by authors, 22 February, 2014).
Vietnamese policy expert (personal interview by authors, 13 August http://www.chosun.com/, 2018).
Director at the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Vietnam (personal interview by authors, 21 January, 2016).
E-government project consultant (personal interview by authors, 14 February, 2014); Bureaucrat at the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Vietnam (personal interview by authors, 26 January, 2016).
Section-chief-grade official at the United Nations Development Programmes (personal interview by authors, 14 November, 2013).
Deputy director at MOSF (personal interview by authors, 13 November, 2013).
Abdelal, Rawi. 2001. National Purpose in the World Economy: Post-Soviet States in Comparative Perspective. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
ADB (Asian Development Bank) 2007. ‘Knowledge-Sharing Program Using Good Asian Practices in Innovation and Development’. http://www.adb.org/projects/documents/knowledge-sharing-program-using-good-asian-practices-innovation-and-development-f Accessed 3 Oct 2010.
Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. 1962. The Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review 56 (4): 941–952.
Baldwin, David. 2016. Power and International Relations: A Conceptual Approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baldwin, David. 2012. Power and International Relations. In Handbook of International Relations, 2nd ed, ed. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons, 273–297. London: Sage.
Barnett, Michael, and Robert Duvall. 2005. Power in International Relations. International Organization 59 (1): 39–75.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Burke, Peter, and Jan Stets. 2009. Identity Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Busch, Matthew. 2017. The Missing Middle: A Political Economy of Economic Restructuring in Vietnam. Victoria: Lowy Institute.
Campbell, David. 2009. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Chandra, Kanchan. 2009. A Constructivist Dataset on Ethnicity and Institutions. In Measuring Identity: A Guide for Social Scientists, ed. Rawi Abdelal, Yoshiko Herrea, Iain Johnston, and Rose McDermott, 250–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chatin, Mathilde, and Giulio Gallarotti. 2016. The BRICs and Soft Power: An Introduction. Journal of Power Politics 9 (3): 335–352.
Checkel, Jeffrey. 2001. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization 55 (3): 553–588.
Choi, Jin-Wook. 2011. From a Recipient to a Donor State: Achievements and Challenges of Korea’s ODA. International Review of Public Administration 15 (1): 37–51.
Chong, Alan. 2004. Singaporean Foreign Policy and the Asian Values Debate, 1992–2000: Reflections on an Experiment in Soft Power. Pacific Review 17 (1): 95–133.
Chun, Seung Hun. 2007. Sharing the Korean Experience for International Development. International Development Cooperation 4 (1): 40–65.
Chun, Hong-Min, Elijah Munyi, and Heejin Lee. 2010. South Korea as an Emerging Donor: Challenges and Changes on Its Entering OECD/DAC. Journal of International Development 22 (6): 788–802.
Dahl, Robert. 1969. The Concept of Power. In Political Power: A Reader in Theory and Research, ed. Roderick Bell, David Edwards, and Robert Harrison Wagner, 79–93. New York: Free Press.
Dowding, Keith. 2006. Three-Dimensional Power: A Discussion of Steven Lukes’ Power: A Radical View. Political Studies Review 4 (2): 136–145.
Feklyunina, Valentine. 2016. Soft Power and Identity: Russia, Ukraine, and Russian World(s). European Journal of International Relations 24 (4): 773–796.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Brighton: Haverster.
Gallarotti, Giulio. 2011. Soft Power: What It Is, Why It’s Important, and the Conditions under Which It Can Be Effectively Used. Journal of Political Power 4 (1): 25–47.
Gelb, Leslie. 2009. Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy. New York: HarperCollins.
Goffman, Irving. 1958. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor.
Gregory, Bruce. 2011. American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 6 (3–4): 351–371.
Guzzini, Stefano. 2013. Power, Realism, and Constructivism. London: Routledge.
Hacking, Ian. 1998. The Social Construction of What?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hayden, Craig. 2015. Scope, Mechanism, and Outcome: Arguing Soft Power in the Context of Public Diplomacy. Journal of International Relations and Development 20 (2): 331–357. https://doi.org/10.1057/jlrd.2015.8.
Hayden, Craig. 2012. The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Hoh, K. 2010. Past War Allies to Get Aid, Advice. Korea Joongang Daily, Accessed 26 March.
Kalinowski, Thomas, and Hyekyung Cho. 2012. Korea’s Search for a Global Role between Hard Economic Interests and Soft Power. European Journal of Development Research 24 (2): 242–260.
Kang, Insoo, Yoo Chul Song, Ho Saeng Lee, and Heun Ryul Han. 2010. A Framework for Sharing Korea’s Socio-Economic Development Experience with ODA Recipient Countries and Its Application to Uzbekistan. Seoul: Korea Institute of International Economic Policy.
Korea Development Institute. 2007. A Study on the Development and Action Plan of the Transfer Korean Economic Development Model. Seoul: Korea Development Institute and KDI School of Public Policy and Management.
Korea Development Institute and World Bank Institute. 2011. Using Knowledge Exchange for Capacity Development: What Works in Global Practice. Washington, DC: World Bank Institute.
Kwon, Hongwoo 2010. Self-Identification and Self-Knowledge, PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lasswell, Harold, and Abraham Kaplan. 1950. Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Layne, Christopher. 2010. The Unbearable Lightness of Soft Power. In Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical, and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox, 51–82. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Lee, Yong Wook. 2011. Soft Power as Productive Power. In Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia, ed. Sook Jong Lee and Jan Melissen, 33–50. London: Palgrave.
Lee, Hyunseung. 2013. [KSP 2.0] Kaedogukput’ŏ G20kkaji’ Pum’Ttch’oejong Mokp’yo ‘Gyaedwa KSP’ [From Developing Countries to G20 Countries], Chosun-Ilbo, June 18. http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/06/18/2013061801605.html?Dep0=twitter. Accessed 14 Feb 2014.
Lock, Edward. 2010. Soft Power and Strategy: Developing a “Strategic” Concept of Power. In Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical, and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox, 32–50. London: Routledge.
Lukes, Steven. 2005a. Power and the Battle for Hearts and Minds. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33 (3): 477–493.
Lukes, Steven. 2005b. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lumsdaine, David, and James C. Schopf. 2007. Changing Values and the Recent Rise in Korean Development Assistance. Pacific Review 20 (2): 221–255.
Lynch, Cecelia. 2014. Interpreting International Politics. London: Routledge.
Manning, Richard. 2006. Will ‘Emerging Donors’ Change the Face of International Cooperation? Development policy review 24 (4): 371–385.
Mattern, Janice Bially. 2005. Why “Soft Power” Isn’t So Soft: Representational Force and the Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics. Millennium 33 (3): 583–612.
McDermott, Rose, and Anthony Lopez. 2011. Psychology and Constructivism: Uneasy Bedfellows? In Psychology and Constructivism in International Relations, ed. Paul Kowert, 197–214. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Morriss, Peter. 2002. Power: A Philosophical Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
MOSF (Ministry of Strategy and Finance). 2011. 2010 Knowledge Sharing Program with Economic Cooperation Partners: Kazakhstan. Ghana, DR Congo, Seoul: MOSF.
MOSF (Ministry of Strategy and Finance). 2009. 2010 Action Plan for Economic Development Experience Sharing. Seoul: MOSF.
Nye, Joseph. 2011. The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
Nye, Joseph. 2009. Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power. Foreign Affairs 88 (4): 160–163.
Nye, Joseph. 2004. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
Nye, Joseph. 1990. Soft Power. Foreign Policy 80 (October): 156–166.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development). 2012. Korea: Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Peer Review 2012. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2010. Aid Effectiveness: A Progress Report on Implementing the Paris Declaration. Paris: OECD.
Packer, Martin. 2011. The Science of Qualitative Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. 2005. http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm. Accessed 15 March 2014.
Rabinnow, Paul. 2010. Michel Foucault: The Foucault Reader. New York: Vintage Books.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2004. American Power and World Order. London: Polity.
Risse, Thomas. 2000. Let’s Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (1): 1–40.
Risse, Thomas, Stephen Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink. 2013. The Persistent Power of Human Rights: From Commitment to Compliance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snow, Nancy, and Philip Taylor. 2008. Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy. London: Routledge.
Solomon, Ty. 2014. The Affective Underpinning of Soft Power. European Journal of International Relations 20 (3): 720–741.
Deputy Director at the Ministry of Strategic Finance (telephone interview by authors, 13 November, 2013).
Section-Chief-Grade Official at the United Nations Development Programme (email interview by authors, 14 November, 2013).
E-government Project Consultant (email interview by authors, 14 February, 2014).
Private consultant (email interview by authors, 22 February 2014).
Bureaucrat at the Ministry of Industry and Trade, Vietnam (email interview by authors, 26 January, 2016).
Policy Expert (personal interview by authors, Ho Chi Minh City, 13 August, 2013).
The earlier versions of the article were delivered at the Korean Studies Association Australia Conference, the Korean Association for Policy Studies International Conference, and the Institute of Korean Studies Conference. We would like to thank Sunhyuk Kim, Jin Park, Eduard Jordaan, Sangbae Kim, and Nicola Nymalm for their invaluable comments. Yong Wook Lee thanks Linus Hagström and Mikael Weissmann for their invitation to present an earlier draft of this article at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. We also thank anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticisms and helpful suggestions.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bae, Y., Lee, Y.W. Socialized soft power: recasting analytical path and public diplomacy. J Int Relat Dev 23, 871–898 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-019-00169-5
- Soft power
- Productive power
- Self–other identification
- Public diplomacy
- Development assistance
- South Korea
- Knowledge sharing