Soft power, along with military and economic power, determines the ability of states to exert influence in foreign relations and realise their national interests. According to the most common definition, soft power âis the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or paymentsâ (Nye, 2004a: X). In the narrowest sense, it is seen as equal to the cultural attractiveness of a country. In a broader perspective, it encompasses everything except military capabilities. In practice, a countryâs soft power or âpower of attractionâ, âco-optive powerâ stands for its legitimacy, reputation, international credibility, etc.
Initially, Nye described soft power as âco-optive powerâ as opposed to hard power, understood as âcommand powerâ. Whereas the first is âthe ability to shape what others wantâ, the latter is âthe ability to change what others doâ (Nye, 1990a: p.267). Soft power rests on âthe attractiveness of oneâs culture and ideology or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes actors fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealisticâ; hard power, on the other hand, works through âcoercion or inducementâ (ibid). Soft power co-opts, rather than coerces, people. In other words, whereas âsoft power is pull, hard power is pushâ (Nye, 2011a: p.19). Going beyond the neoliberal school of thought, Nye prioritises ideas and perceptions over economic or military power.
The popularity of soft power did not prevent it from falling under severe criticism. Its critics argue that the soft power concept brings little explanatory and predictive value (Kearn Jr., 2011); that it is too vague and elusive; and that it is practically impossible to measure (Rothman, 2011). Niall Ferguson (2003) writes that âthe trouble with soft power is that itâs, well, softâ dismissing its ability to influence behaviour of other states. Scholars point out problems with the applicability of a soft power approach stemming from its relational and contextual character (Nye, 2004; Kearn Jr., 2011; Gallarotti, 2011). Others argue that it brings a false promise of country exceptionalism while also threatening to relegate a military strengthâs relevance as a foreign policy tool (Gray, 2011). The debate is far from over, but its multifaceted nature provides an opportunity to clarify four fundamental questions.
What Constitutes Soft Power?
While the cause of a countryâs military or economic power is widely understood, the ingredients of soft power are not as self-evident. If soft power is about shaping preferences of other countries, what are the currencies that countries can use to influence choice? What are the resources that make the country a soft power? How is soft power different from hard power? Since there is no single precise and universally accepted definition of soft power, there are several misperceptions regarding its scope and character. For instance, it is a frequent mistake to reduce soft power to culture, or any other of its elements. Here, Nye leaves no doubtâexplicitly stating, âsoft power is not simply equal to popular cultural powerâ (Nye, 2004: p.11). Not to be dumbed-down, soft power is a much more complex phenomenon encompassing many other resources. Another mistake is to identify soft power with one of the tools through which soft power works â be it public diplomacy or cultural promotion. While soft power can manifest itself in certain policies or activities, it is not confined to these elements. Moreover, soft power is sometimes seen as a moral or idealistic policy, whereas, in reality, soft power does not necessitate morality. Like any resource, soft power can be used for good reasons, such as building trust and confidence, and for bad, such as rationalisation of an unjust invasion. âBut soft power is a description, not an ethical prescription. Like any form of power, it can be wielded for good or illâ (Nye, 2006a). This presents an identity crisis: If soft power is not defined by the above characteristics, then what is it actually?
Nye claimed, originally, that soft power is associated with âintangible power resources such as culture, ideology, and international institutionsâ (Nye, 1990b: p.167). He has since changed the scope of a countryâs soft power to include three slightly different elements: âits culture (in places where it is attractive to others); its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad); and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)â (Nye, 2004a: p.11). In this classical sense, soft power is differentiated from military power and economic power according to the criteria of tangibility. Thus, soft power would not include any material resources, such as money transferred abroad in the form of foreign assistance.
Most soft power researchers followed Nyeâs definition to the letter, and they tended to see soft power resources as intangible â as opposed to concrete assets of hard military and economic power. For instance, Hymans (2009: p.235) claims that âsoft power is based on intangibles: less emphasis on what you own, and more on what you represent. In other words, soft power is the ability to make others do what you want on the basis of how they see you.â But this simple juxtaposition of soft and hard power resources as tangible and intangible assets is confusing and does not properly convey the whole picture.
In fact, neither good institutions nor attractive culture can function properly when separated from a secure material base and financial support. Culture not only comprises intangible ideas and values, but also, or mostly, material artefacts and products. For instance, a good Bollywood movie cannot be produced without access to a budget. Similarly, technological progress would stall without certain economic investments. Undeniably, a countryâs economic wealth and prosperity is what makes it attractive to others. Hence, economic strength may itself be a powerful source of soft power.
It is not by coincidence that countries regarded as strong soft power holders are usually the most affluent and developed nations, while the poorest and underdeveloped rank lowest on the scale. Not many Americans or Norwegians would like to settle down in Afghanistan or the Democratic Republic of Congo, whereas most Afghans and DRC citizens would probably jump at the opportunity to immigrate to the US or Europe. Some initiatives, like the Gross Happiness Index, promoted by countries like Bhutan, may be interesting propositions, but in todayâs materialistic world, such indices are seen as a curiosity rather than a real assessment of national prowess; in this globalised era, a high position on the Human Development Index matters much more than a position on the Gross Happiness Index.
Nye himself is rather muddled when explaining the differences between soft and hard power resources. He writes that âsoft power does not depend on hard powerâ (Nye, 2004a: p.9), but at the same time, he hails American technological achievements and economic progress as important sources of US attractiveness. In one place, he regards all economic tools, such as foreign aid or economic sanctions, as hard power tools, only to admit in other texts that soft power instruments include âpublic diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs, development assistance, disaster relief, military-to-military contactsâ (Nye, 2011b: p.228). It seems that Gulio Gallarotti (2011: p.34) is correct when he claims: âalthough there is a tendency to equate hard power with tangible resources and soft power with intangible resources, their principal distinction does not depend on tangibility.â
Contrary to Nyeâs initial claim, soft power cannot exist in a void, but is precluded by strong foundations of hard power. The attractiveness of a country is closely connected with its economic strength, and to a large extent, soft power stems from a countryâs hard power. As Kearn (2011: p.74) rightly argues: âwithout a certain amount of hard power resources, it is exceedingly difficult to envision a state possessing a significant degree of soft power.â In practice, there is no single example of a country that can exert significant influence on the global arena by being strong exclusively in soft power while lacking hard power resources (economic or military). Even Nye is guilty of such oversight: he uses Norway as an example, which plays a disproportionately large role in the international arena due to its soft power assets, but he forgets that Norway is one of the wealthiest and most developed countries in the world.
Similarly, for many realists, âunless a nation is equipped with sufficient military capabilities and material resources, the exercise of its soft power only creates a hollow voice in real world situationsâ (Lee, 2010c; p.14). It seems this is actually well understood in India. As Indian author and proponent of the soft power concept Shashi Tharoor explains (2008: p.43) about mistakes in past Indian policy: âthe great flaw in Nehrujiâs approach was that his soft power was unrelated to any acquisition of hard power; and as the humiliation of 1962 demonstrated, soft power becomes credible when there is hard power behind it.â Simply put, no one wants to emulate an example of a weak or poor state. Rothman (2011: pp.56â7) is absolutely right when he says that a critical category for any countryâs soft power is âsuccessâ. Other countries are prone to embrace certain norms, ideals and policies of another state when they see such qualities are the source of prosperity and strength. As Rothman observes in the case of America, âcountries emulate the US culture of policy practices abroad because of an innate attraction based on successâ (ibid: 57).
In this sense, Nyeâs narrow definition â according to which soft power entails only culture, political values and foreign policies â is incomplete. Consequently, it is necessary to expand the definition to include more elements. Even if the core soft power resources are intangible, material assets also form the countryâs power of attraction. Soft power legitimises states and increases their attractiveness in the eyes of others. In the absence of economic or technological achievements, the state can promote its success in culture or political organisation, but a countryâs soft power comes from myriad sources.
If the difference between soft and hard power is not tangibility, then what is that allows us to distinguish between the two? Nye claims (2011b: p.19) we need to differentiate between âpower resourcesâ and âpower behaviourâ, as âmisunderstanding and much of the criticism of [his] theory comes from confusion between these two.â This means that soft power derives not only from specific resources but also from the certain behaviour of states that is seen as legitimate and attractive by others. It is a matter of possession balanced with use. Hard power works through coercion, command, and threats to realise its aims; soft power works through persuasion, attraction and seduction. In this sense, hard power resources, including military assets, can be a source of soft power if they are used properly. In other words, âthe real differentiation of power is in the context of its useâ (Gallarotti, 2011: p.35).
In behavioural terms, Nye explains, (2011b: p.19) âresources often associated with hard power behaviour can also produce soft power behaviour depending on the context and how they are used. Command power can create resources that create soft power at a later stage, for example, institutions that will provide soft power resources in the future. Similarly, co-optive behaviour can be used to generate hard power resources in the form of military alliance or economic aid.â For instance, military tools can produce soft power for a country when they are used in a humanitarian mission (e.g., in 2004, the US and India used their naval forces during the rescue operation after the tsunami in Asia), dispatched for the UN peacekeeping missions or holding joint exercises with friendly armies. Some scholars propose a certain category of âsoft military powerâ to describe military behaviour that generates soft power (Ladwig III, 2010). On the other hand, âmisuse of military resources can undercut soft powerâ (Nye, 2006: p.11). Likewise, economic resources can create soft power when offered as development assistance or foreign direct investments, but the same such assets would undermine soft power when used as a threat of econom...