image (not from article) from
Journal of International Relations and Development pp 1–28| Cite as
Authors and affiliations
[JB: note mention in the Yooil Bae “affiliations” link of “Fulbright School of Public Policy and Management, Fulbright University, Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam]
Yooil Bae,Yong Wook Lee Email author
First Online: 12 February 2019
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.
Soft power Productive power Self–other identification Public diplomacy Development assistance South Korea Knowledge sharing