Communication at the Crossroads of Development, Public Diplomacy and Soft Power

Part of the Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change book series (PSCSC)


The aim of this chapter is to develop a theoretical basis for better understanding the intersections between public diplomacy and development communication. Both activities involve theories of influence over social change in foreign countries, whether those changes are attitudinal, behavioral, or socio-political. Both involve a voluntary transfer of resources (e.g. money, knowledge, technology) from an actor promoting a specific cause or agenda to a group or organization in a foreign country. Both seek to stimulate and deliver desired policy outcomes through an active civil society and private sector, and both ultimately support what is believed to represent the common good. Both are strategic, planned, and intentional. Through an analysis of how these objectives overlap, the chapter lays a theoretical groundwork for considering how development communication and public diplomacy can be considered as tools of soft power.


  1. Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America’s ‘Engagement’ Delusion: Critiquing a Public Diplomacy Consensus. International Communication Gazette, 74, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). It’s Not Just PR: Public Relations in Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Coryn, C., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2011). A Systematic Review of Theory-Driven Evaluation Practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cull, N. J. (2008). The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Der Derian, J. (1987). On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Duchêne, H., & Lamouroux, E. (2011). Promoting French Expertise Internationally. Paris, France: Directorate-General of Global Affairs, Development and Partnerships, French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.Google Scholar
  8. Evans, A., & Steven, D. (2008). Towards a Theory of Influence for Twenty-First Century Foreign Policy: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World. In J. Welsh & D. Fearn (Eds.), Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalised World (pp. 44–61). London: Foreign & Commonwealth Office.Google Scholar
  9. Fair, J. E. (1989). 29 years of Theory and Research on Media and Development: The Dominant Paradigm Impact. International Communication Gazette, 44, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fair, J. E., & Shah, H. (1997). Continuities and Discontinuities in Communication and Development Research Since 1958. Journal of International Communication, 4(2), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faizullaev, A. (2013). Diplomacy and Symbolism. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 8(2), 91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FCO. (2013, October). Diplomatic Excellence MFA Briefing.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, A., & Bröckerhoff, A. (2008). Options for Influence: Global Campaigns of Persuasion in the New Worlds of Public Diplomacy. London: Counterpoint.Google Scholar
  14. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2010). The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate. Leiden, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1997/2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  16. Freire, P. (1983). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a Theory of Public Diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory, B. (2011). American Public Diplomacy: Enduring Characteristics, Elusive Transformation. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6, 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gumuci-Dagron, A. (2001). Making Waves: Stories of Participatory Communication for Social Change. New York, NY: Rockefeller Foundation.Google Scholar
  20. Hamilton, K., & Langhorne, R. (2011). The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hayden, C. (2012). The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  22. Hjarvard, S. (2013). The Mediatization of Culture and Society. New York, NY and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riordan, S., & Sharp, P. (2012). Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’.Google Scholar
  24. Huesca, R. (2002). Participatory Approaches to Communication and Development. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (pp. 499–518). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kelley, J. R. (2010). The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 21(2), 286–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knutsen, T. L. (1997). A History of International Relations Theory (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lancaster, C. (2007). Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, Domestic Politics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lerner, D. (1958). The Passing of Traditional Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lerner, D. (1971). Is International Persuasion Sociologically Feasible? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 398, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melissen, J. (Ed.). (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, S. (2008). Consolidating the Gains Made in Diplomacy Studies: A Taxonomy. International Studies Perspectives, 9, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2010). Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neumann, I. B. (2013). Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry. London, UK: Hurst & Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft Power. Foreign Policy, 80, 152–171.Google Scholar
  36. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  37. Nye, J. S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD-DAC. (2008, November). Is it ODA? Factsheet.
  39. Pamment, J. (2013a). New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Pamment, J. (2013b). West European Public Diplomacy. In M. K. Davis Cross & J. Melissen (Eds.), European Public Diplomacy: Soft Power at Work. New York, NY: Palgrave. Google Scholar
  41. Pamment, J. (2014). The Mediatization of Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 9(3), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pamment, J. (2015). Media Influence, Ontological Transformation & Social Change: Conceptual Overlaps Between Development Communication and Public Diplomacy. Communication Theory, 25(2), 188–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pamment, J. (Ed.). (2016a). Intersections Between Public Diplomacy & International Development: Case Studies in Converging Fields (USC Center on Public Diplomacy Perspectives Series). Los Angeles, CA: Figueroa Press.Google Scholar
  44. Pamment, J. (2016b). British Public Diplomacy and Soft Power: Diplomatic Influence and Digital Disruption. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Peterson, P. G., Sieg, J., Bloomgarden, K., Grunwald, H., Morey, D. E., & Telhami, S. (2002). Public Diplomacy: A Strategy for Reform: A Report of an Independent Task Force on Public Diplomacy Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  46. Pigman, G. (2010). Contemporary Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. République Français. (2012). Document de politique transversal projet de loi finances pour action extérieure de l’état [Interdepartmental Policy and Finances for External Action]. Paris, France: République Français.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, I. (Ed.). (2009). Satow’s Diplomatic Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rogers, E. (1976). Communication and Development: The Passing of the Dominant Paradigm. Communication Research, 3(2), 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ronfeldt, D., & Arquilla, J. (1999). The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, MR-1033-OSD.Google Scholar
  51. Ronfeldt, D., & Arquilla, J. (2009). Noopolitik: A New Paradigm for Public Diplomacy. In N. Snow & P. M. Taylor (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (pp. 352–366). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Schiller, H. I. (1969/1992). Mass Communications & American Empire (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  53. Schramm, W. (1963). Communication Development and the Development Process. In L. Pye (Ed.), Communications and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Servaes, J., Jacobson, T. L., & White, S. A. (1996). Participatory Communication for Social Change. New Delhi, India: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Shah, M. (2011). The Production of Modernization: Daniel Lerner, Mass Media, and the Passing of Traditional Society. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Shah, M., & Wilkins, K. G. (2004). Reconsidering Geometries of Development. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 3(4), 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sharp, P. (1999). For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations. International Studies Review, 1(1), 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sharp, P. (2009). Diplomatic Theory of International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Signitzer, B. H., & Coombs, T. (1992). Public Relations & Public Diplomacy: Conceptual Convergences. Public Relations Review, 18(2), 144–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smyth, R. (2001). Mapping U.S. Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 55(3), 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thomas, P. N. (2014). Development Communication and Social Change in Historical Context. In K. G. Wilkins, T. Tufte, & R. Obregon (Eds.), The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change (pp. 7–19). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  62. van Ham, P. (2010). Social Power in International Politics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Waisbord, S. (2001). Family Tree of Theories, Methodologies and Strategies in Development Communication. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation.Google Scholar
  64. Waisbord, S. (2014). The Strategic Politics of Participatory Communication. In K. G. Wilkins, T. Tufte, & R. Obregon (Eds.), The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change (pp. 147–167). Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Waller, J. M. (Ed.). (2007). The Public Diplomacy Reader. Washington, DC: The Institute of World Politics Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wilkins, K. G., & Mody, B. (2001). Reshaping Development Communication: Developing Communication and Communicating Development. Communication Theory, 11(4), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilkins, K., Tufte, T., & Obregon, R. (Eds.). (2014). The Handbook of Development Communication and Social Change. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Zaharna, R. S., Fisher, A., & Arsenault, A. (2013). Relational, Networking and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The Connective Mindshift. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations