Journal of Public Diplomacy

The Korean Association for Public Diplomacy (한국공공외교학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Theoretical Model for Effective Public Diplomacy

효과적인 공공외교 분석을 위한 이론적 모형

  • Received : 2022.08.10
  • Accepted : 2022.09.04
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

배경: 조셉 나이(Joseph Nye)의 선구적 저서, 연성권력(Soft Power)이 출간된 이후 소프트파워는 공공외교 연구의 중심 개념이 되었다. 그러나 이 개념은 아직 논쟁 중이라 이를 과도하게 강조하는 정치학자들로 인해 현장 실무에 적용할 수 있는 유용한 지식의 생산은 지체되어 왔다. 나이는 연성권력을 성공적인 공공외교의 수단이자 결과로 정의함으로써 체계적인 분석을 어렵게 했다. 목적: 본 연구의 목적은 효과적인 공공외교에 영향을 미치는 요인 분석을 위한 이론적 모형을 제공함으로써 연성권력과 공공외교의 관계를 나이와는 다른 각도에서 접근하고자 한다. 방법: 본 연구에서 제시하는 이론적 모형은 각국에 신공공외교가 언제 어떻게 도입되었는지 비교적 시각에서 분석하고, 연성권력과 경성권력 자원을 검토하였다. 결과: 다섯개의 차원으로 구성된 본 연구의 이론적 모형은 효과적인 공공외교에 영향을 미치는 요인을 밝히는데 사용될 수 있다. 이 모형을 통해 연성권력 그 자체보다는 공공외교 효과성에 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상되는 사상과 가치, 제도, 거버넌스, 리더십, 의사소통 체계와 같은 정치체제 내의 변수와 홍보학에서 사용하는 평가모형을 결합함으로써 현장에서 적용가능한 지식을 창출할 수 있다. 결론: 본 연구를 통해 공공외교에 관한 정성 분석은 물론 정량분석에 필요한 수많은 가설의 도출을 가능하게 함으로써 공공외교의 이론적, 분석적 발전에 기여할 것으로 예상된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김영호 (2014). 대한민국의 건국외교: 정부 승인과 외교 기반 구축. <한국정치외교사논총>, 35 집 2 호, 43-72. https://doi.org/10.18206/KAPDH.35.2.201402.43
  2. 김태수 (2007). 프랑스 대통령제의 특징, 변천 그리고 운영의 메커니즘. <유럽연구>, 25 집 3 호, 135-153. https://doi.org/10.17052/JCES.2007.25.3.135
  3. 김태환 (2020). <한국 정책공공외교의 진호와 방향성>. 한국공공외교학회 창립학술회의 발제집, 50-76.
  4. 윤기웅.김병규 (2014). <공공외교의 성과 및 성과에 영향을 미치는 요인 분석 '아세안 페스티벌' 사업을 중심으로>. 한국정부학회 학술발표논문집, 300-323.
  5. 이덕환 (2015). 불통.불신.비효율의 늪에 빠져버린 국정운영. <철학과 현실>, 106 호, 99-118.
  6. 정동훈 (2013). 외교제도사 연구 제언. 한국역사연구회 <역사와 현실>, 89 권, 21-39.
  7. 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.
  8. 조기숙 외 (2016). <한국형 공공외교 평가모델>. 이화공공외교총서 제 1 권. 이화여자대학교공공외교센터 엮음. 이화여자대학교출판문화원.
  9. 홍기원 (2014). 이명박 정부 국가브랜드정책의 평가: 문화정책의 상징적 활용의 관점에서. <현대사회와 행정>, 24 권 2 호, 82-102.
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590500235777
  11. Broom, G. M., & Sha, B. L. (2013). Cutlip and Center's effective public relations. 11th edition. Boston: Pearson.
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.54648/EERR2014020
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1163/187119110X12574289877281
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.557886
  15. Geert, H., & Hofstede, G. J. (1991/2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGaw-Hill.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600641
  19. 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.
  20. Katzenstein, P. J., & Keohane, R. O. eds. (2007). Anti-Americanisms in world politics. Cornell University Press.
  21. King, B. L. (1975). Japanese colonialism and Korean economic development 1910-1945. Asian Studies, 13(3), 1-21.
  22. Kim, T. H. (2012). Paradigm shift in diplomacy: a conceptual model for Korea's new public diplomacy. Korea Observer,43(4), 527-555.
  23. Lancaster, C. (2007). Foreign aid: diplomacy, development, domestic politics. Chicago and London: The University Of Chicago Press.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. Mabee, B. (2011). Historical institutionalism and foreign policy analysis: the origins of the National Security Council revisited. Foreign Policy Analysis, 7(1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00121.x
  27. Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: the means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.
  28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699
  29. Nye, J. S. (2011). Power and foreign policy. Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.555960
  30. Ogunnubi, O., & Ettang, D. (2016). Communicating South Africa's soft power: agents, instruments and recipients. Communicatio, 42(3), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1080/02500167.2016.1216460
  31. Olsen, J. P. (2009). Change and continuity: an institutional approach to institutions of democratic government. European Political Science Review, 1(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773909000022
  32. Oppermann, K., Brummer, K., and Willigen, N. V. (2017). Coalition governance and foreign policy decision-making. European Political Science, 16, 489-501. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0082-7
  33. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2011.565916
  34. Perez, L. A. V. (2014). POP POWER: Pop Diplomacy for a Global Society. Luis Antonio Vidal Perez.
  35. Peters, B. G. (2011). Institutional theory. The SAGE Handbook of Governance, 78-90.
  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00360.x
  37. Rawnsley, G. (2012). Approaches to soft power and public diplomacy in China and Taiwan. Journal of International Communication, 18(2), 121-135.
  38. Reilly, B. (2015). Australia as a southern hemisphere 'soft power.' Australian Journal of International Affairs, 69(3), 253-265.
  39. Rosenau, J. N. (1968). Comparative foreign policy: fad, fantasy, or field?. International Studies Quarterly, 12(3), 296-329. https://doi.org/10.2307/3013508
  40. Rosenau, J. N. (1970). Foreign policy as adaptive behavior: some preliminary notes for a theoretical model. Comparative Politics, 2(3), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/421308
  41. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2016.1276400
  42. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.556346
  43. 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)
  44. Tella, O. (2016). AFRICOM: hard or soft power initiative?. African Security Review, 25(4), 393-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10246029.2016.1225588
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. 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.
  48. Wojczewski, T. (2019). Trump, populism, and American foreign policy. Foreign Policy Analysis, 16(3), 292-311. https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz021