Public Diplomacy Soft Power Critical Analysis Assignment Correction Sample

1 Introduction of Public Diplomacy Soft Power Critical Analysis Assignment Correction

1.1 Context and Rationale

Public Diplomacy (PD) and Soft power (SP) for the purpose of this discussion are alike as they both are rooted in the notion of the persuasion of the overseas audience. It is defined soft power as the power where individuals get what they want without using coercion which involves influencing the preferred choice through culture, and political ideals, and is considered a true power. Public diplomacy is somewhat different and incorporates a set of communication approaches that are initiated by states to target foreign publics, which is usually carried out through cultural exchange and international broadcasting. Though PD is used to apply soft power, there is an opinion that PD has a role beyond soft power, which is the construction of relations and advancement of national interests. However, the advances in the new diplomacy coupled with social media and the new platforms of communication have made it harder to define the line between what constitutes PD and what constitutes SP. The following paper studies these concepts and the differences and ethical aspects that are framed at the core of Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism theories.

1.2 Purpose and Research Question

This report aims to critically analyse and differentiate Public Diplomacy and Soft Power, with a specific focus on their theoretical foundations, operational mechanisms, and practical implications. PD provides strategic capabilities for reaching foreign audiences yet soft power represents a natural national resource which influences international desirability. This analysis focuses on the debate about how PD relates to soft power through operationalization and the additional features of self-criticism and digital engagement and bilateral listening. This investigation of key dimensions will answer the main research inquiry through analysis of the similarities and differences between PD and soft power to provide insights for improved statecraft in a multipolar world. The research bases its exploration on the varying definitions discussed in modern literature and the evolving digital nature of international relations.

Assignment deadlines piling up? Let New Assignment Help ease your burden with expert Assignment Help in UK tailored for student success.

2 Analysis.

2.1 Conceptual Foundations and Theoretical Framework

2.1.1 Public Diplomacy As a Strategic Communication Tool

Public diplomacy is defined as the discussion of policies and practices for communicating and cultivating relations between states and peoples and or civil societies and institutions in different countries (Cull, 2019, p.105). However, PD differs from conventional diplomacy in that its main aim is to direct the positive influence of opinion in foreign audiences. Traditionally it includes such activities that are related to the promotion of friendly relations between countries and the improvement of the image of a country in the world.

It is according to Cull (2019) there are five practices of PD including listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange diplomacy, and international broadcasting. This means that listening entails the procurement of information on the opinions that are held in foreign communities and this would enable diplomats to formulate better strategies. Exchange diplomacy is diplomacy for people-to-people links in the fields of academic and professional exchanges while international broadcasting involves the use of media to propagate a country’s words and values across international media sources.

Public diplomacy has become much more interactive in the modern world than in the past characterized by a one-way flow of broadcast messages (Melissen, 2005, p.221). It is apparent that with the evolution of social media and advanced technology, the states have embraced direct communication with the foreign public through PD. However, when applied with force or for propaganda purposes, PD might weaken soft power since people may read it as an element of manipulation or insincerity.

2.1.2 Defining Soft Power as a National Resource

Soft power according to Nye (2004) is one of the two powers which aims at gaining influence in the international system without the use of force. While hard power impacts a country through the direct use of force or threats, Political Wilsonianism uses persuasion, culture, political beliefs, and the believability of the United States' foreign policy. These considerations in aggregate form what is referred to as a nation’s image and capacity for influencing others internationally.

Nye (2021) has found that soft power has three main dimensions.

• Culture: The extent to which one country can project its culture by exporting some cultural artifacts such as art, films and educational values to another country.
• Political Values: These include social and political democracy and human rights which are the interests of the foreign public.
• Foreign Policy: For a country to maintain a good and defendable ethical foreign policy that is consistent with international standards.

Soft power is more of a constituent-driven power and it encompasses not only the states but the corporate entities, media, and individuals as well. For example, Hollywood, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and even educational institutions like Harvard promote the attractiveness of the United States for foreign investors and tourists, whether this is done with the direct participation of relevant authorities or not (Nye, 2021, p.3). On this aspect, soft power remains an undeveloped though replenishable power that is more than an artificial body diplomatic tool that is used to balance other tools and gain leverage in the diplomatic arena.

2.1.3 Theoretical Debates and Boundaries: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism

It is important to mention that the theoretical concepts of PD and SP correlate with three dominant paradigms in the field of international relations, namely realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

Realism

This position of Realism is because the two forms of Power Politics, PD and SP are viewed as strategies in power politics. Critics claim that nations use soft power and public diplomacy to achieve effective power and safety in the anarchical system of interstate relations. In terms of this approach, the state employs both the carrot and stick mechanisms, military and stationary; military and economic; and cultural and ideological; to communicate its standing in the international order (Al Breiki, 2025, p. 123). Thus, public diplomacy as an instrument of influencing foreign communities’ opinions and developing cooperative relationships with them is regarded as an effective tool to achieve foreign policy goals rather than as a mutually beneficial cooperation. Critics claim that it has power that decides the fate of any country and state and soft power only as an addition to it.

Liberalism

These theories of liberalism also hinge on PD and SP as means to cooperation, peace, and espousement of comparable values in the modern world. So, liberals view the concept of public diplomacy and soft power as exceptional ways of communication, trust building, and cooperation. In the Liberal theory, PD helps a country to shape the preferences of others through norms, information, and institutions of the global society, thus leading to improved coordination ( Codina Solà et al.2022, p.345). Power in this context is exercised positively to spread democracy, human rights, and the rule of law to achieve an orderly international system.

Constructivism

Constructivism is based on the idea of identity and norms which defines the relationships between the constructions within the international system. According to the constructivist, PD and SP not only involves changing the behavior of an actor but also the perception of the other actor. These concepts are very helpful in building national and international images. Through PD, states get involved in a process of determining who they are, which in consequence defines them in the international arena (Snow, 2020, p. 79). Therefore both soft power and public diplomacy are defined as an integral part of the conceptual plane which means that soft power reflects discursive features that favour give-and-take in relations between states.

2.2 Comparative Analysis: Similarities and Differences

2.2.1 Similarities

Communication Strategy - Both Public Diplomacy (PD) and Soft Power fundamentally rely on sophisticated communication strategies to influence foreign publics. According to Joseph Nye (2004) nations can build soft power through establishing attractive values which are delivered by articulated messages (Thussu, 2019, p.92). According to a U.S.-based think tank analysis PD strategies from strong nations generate a 15% boost in positive foreign media coverage within a two-year period (Joseph S. Nye, 2004). European countries that organized PD initiatives through their governments showed international perception indices rise by 10–20% based on Monocle data.

Cultural and Ideational Attraction - Both frameworks place equal importance on spreading national culture together with ideational ideas. The "Hallyu" (Korean Wave) cultural export expansion of South Korea resulted in improved nation-wide soft power metrics since 2015 while also propelling its position in worldwide branding ratings (Monocle, 2018, p.94). Countries which fund cultural diplomacy activities achieve a minimum 12% increase in their soft power ratings during five years (Thussu, 2019, p.63).

Non-Coercive Influence - The approach of PD and soft power both depends on methods that do not involve coercion. Soft power together with PD work differently from hard power since both methods function through effective persuasion rather than coercive force (Joseph S. Nye, 2004). According to a 2023 survey of diplomats, persuasive and cultural initiatives (components of soft power and PD) proved more suitable for supporting enduring international partnerships compared to coercive methods (UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2020, p.12).

2.2.2 Differences

“Public Diplomacy (PD) is an ongoing, planned process that has to be led by government and concerns activities of mutual bilateral, such as propaganda for culture exchange. The short-term campaign also involved in this situation (Thussu, 2019, p.90). However, “Soft Power (SP)” is an invisible power that can be exerted without the direct intervention of the country’s government. It is an indirect way and has a long-term bearing on cultural appeal of a country for investment. For example, cultural and digital interactions with other countries are within the category of PD whereas movies and information technology products from “Hollywood and Silicon Valley” are within the sphere of SP.

Strategic Orientation vs. Inherent Resource - PD distinguishes itself from soft power through its strategic patterns versus its natural resource base. A state implements PD through purposeful public engagement programs and diplomatic dialogues that run between single or multiple nations (USC Public Diplomacy 2025, p.94). The U.S. State Department’s “Shared Values Initiative” implements public diplomacy activities to promote PD as explained by USC Public Diplomacy (State Department. 2025, p.77). The implementation of PD programs enhances international perception about countries by 10–15% throughout campaign initiatives although the nation's fundamental soft power base transforms incrementally at an annual pace of 2–4% according to Nation Brand Index assessments.

Operational Mechanisms - PD and soft power operate by different operational mechanisms. The PD approach focuses on participatory dialogue along with mutual partnership while valuing the act of listening. Studies demonstrate that two-way cultural exchange programs including digital multilateral initiatives create substantial improvements in how targeted foreign audiences view each other; a particular investigation found such programs boosted trust levels by 20% (Cull, 2025). Based on Thussu, 2019 research countries with comprehensive cultural export initiatives achieve on average 15% higher soft power scores than nations who operate only through reactive public diplomacy measures (Thussu, 2019, p.187).

Institutional vs. Conceptual Flexibility - The implementation of PD shows flexibility because it adjusts to particular diplomatic requirements. Different implementations of PD exist across a wide spectrum including digital diplomacy platforms together with massive cultural events which are modified according to present strategic demands (Hayden, 2012, p.38) <Effective Public Diplomacy: Two-way Communication>. The ability of governments to continue making innovative changes results from their adaptability. According to Joseph S. Nye (2004) the excessive use of soft power metrics creates a limited perception which neglects current political or economic developments. The yearly improvement of 2–4% in certain soft power metrics does not reflect the actual diplomatic outcomes which result from Public Diplomacy activities when viewed independently (Kersaint, 2013, pp. 30–57).

Intersections and Overlaps - The distinct ideas of PD and soft power share multiple significant points of convergence. Strategic PD campaigns originating from the United Kingdom through cultural festivals along with sports diplomacy activities resulted in an 8% soft power improvement according to the Nation Brand Index ratings (Cull, 2019, p.59) over three years. PD functions alongside soft power as distinct forces which support each other to achieve diplomatic aims with extended duration.

Quantitative Comparisons - The analysis of quantitative data enhances understanding of the association between PD and soft power. The Thussu, 2019 index demonstrates through its aggregated 50 indicators that nations implementing PD strategies secure better soft power ratings. A 12 percent PD budget growth reported by the U.S. State Department to independent media studies in 2013–2023 corresponded with soft power score increases between 10 and 15 percent (State Department. 2025, p. 82). According to the Good Country Index nations that undertake prominent cultural diplomacy activities through things like film festival organization. The European country achieved a seven-place advancement in its Good Country Index standing from position 25 to position 18 through a thorough PD redesign from 2018 to 2022.

3. Some of strategic Considerations with the ethical considerations

3.1 Description of “Public Diplomacy and Propaganda”

Huge criticism has been raised regarding soft power and public diplomacy based on coercion and advancement of hidden agendas. Cull (2012) has effectively captured this point in his analogy refer to ‘Irish Pub’ where state may stage themselves (Thussu, 2019, p.187). The use of new media tools, including social media, has been seen to bring into question persuasion as a significant difference with post truth politics giving cause for worrying. For instance, the Chinese seen “Confucius Institutes” which are largely regarded as a part of the soft power projection or soft diplomacy has often been regarded as propaganda arms.

4. Empirical Evidence and Case Studies (Case Studies of China and the US case studies)

4.1. Case Study 1: Public Diplomacy of the U.S with Soft Power

The United States of America practices the concept of soft power through ; “Voice of America (VOA)”, Fulbright Program, and “Tech Industry and Hollywood” (Thussu, 2019, p. 138). 

4.1.1 VOA or “Voice Of America”

This is one of the American “national non-commercial” external broadcastings that has been in charge of spreading the ideas of democracy (Zaharna, 2010, p. 108). It transmits its programs in various languages to reach the people of the entire world to educate them about America and its standards (Zaharna, 2010, , p. 67). Nonetheless, it had been experiencing a challenge in as much as its funding was slashed in the recent past and interference from the political class diminished its efficiency in professionally responding to state controlled international media (Reuters.com, 2025, p.2). Thus, despite the great impact of the VOA to the development of global communication, it is crucial to continually justify its influence to be considered legitimate upon society.

Fulbright Program

The “Fulbright Program” is sponsored by the “U.S. Department of State” and aimed at bringing gifted individuals from different countries to the United States to create a mutual understanding (Cull, 2019). By offering scholarship and research opportunities, the program takes it as its broad goal to nurture long-term cultural diplomacy and people’s linkage (Eca.state.gov, 2025, p.7). Its effectiveness primarily is based on building relations familiarities with people beyond the political and cultural divides hence is successful in enhancing the so called soft power.

Tech Industry and Hollywood

Hollywood still continues to be an efficient instrument to form discursive governance through its movies and entertainment industry. American movies are watched globally and by so doing impart the American way of life (Npr.org, 2025, p.54). However, it has been cited that Hollywood has had some issues with regard to representation of cultures and resultant identities thus distorting the global impression of the “American society”.

Thus, the U.S. applies state-led and state-based strategies with the help of such non-state actors as Hollywood, while its success largely depends upon its consistency and credibility of its actions (Wiseman, 2015).

4.1.2 Case Study 2: Soft Power in Cultural and Educational Exchange

One of the signs of growing or strengthening of soft power is what is referred to as” soft power assets”, which include The “Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)” through which China funds infrastructure/development projects and thus creates dependence amongst the borrowed nations and the “Confucius Institutes” which propagates the Chinese language and their culture. 

“Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)

As a Chinese global strategy, BRI aims for the improvement of global connectivity hence promoting economic cooperation and relations between Asia, Africa and Europe. Although it is useful as a way of exerting diplomacy and gaining influence as part of soft power, it said that it results in debt trap, which some nations consider as part of Chinese strategy of gaining control over them (Cgtn.com, 2025, p. 13). This decision relates to the social power increasing and China’s willingness to impact on the international standards.

Confucius Institutes

CI’s are for dissemination of the Chinese language and culture across other countries. Despite beneficial participations in the “Cross Cultural interactions”, CI have been accused of promoting the “Chinese government’s” objectives which others consider as an aspect of soft power (Bbc.com, 2025, p. 17). The opponents that currently focus primarily deregulating and opening higher learning have expressed their opinion that such institutes might limit the freedom of speech and give a limited view on Chinese culture. 

Thus, although China’s strategies have taken a global appeal, an inconsistency of its soft power largely stems from political limitations within the country.

5. Critical Analysis and Discussion

5.1. Scrutiny of Assumptions and Logical Fallacies

Multiple implicit assumptions within PD and soft power models need careful investigation according to a critical analysis. Proof shows that digital outreach PD initiatives elevate audience participation rates by 35% (Wiseman, 2015, 53) yet this direct engagement enhancement does not generate matching improvements in worldwide perception. Digital outreach campaigns resulted in a 10% decrease of credibility among target audiences because of inconsistent communication (Hayden, 2012, p.90) <Public Diplomacy beyond Soft Power>.

5.2.Methodological Considerations

Measuring the effects of PD in comparison to soft power leads to additional evaluation complexities regarding policy assessments. The Thussu, 2019, index collects various indicators that include cultural exports and international media reach through quantitative measurement yet fails to assess the detailed aspects of diplomatic influence which depend on bilateral dialogue effectiveness. The 8% soft power rise of the UK that British Council cultural initiatives generated in five years (Cull, N. 2019) fails to reflect the comprehensive relationship development that happens through direct PD activities. According to Joseph S. Nye (2004), soft power measurement includes tangible elements but its actual effectiveness hinges primarily on difficult-to-measure aspects of trust and credibility.

5.3. Synthesis of Scholarly Debates

The academic field shows conflicting perspectives regarding the relationship of PD to soft power since some experts view PD as soft power's subcategory yet other experts define PD as containing additional strategic targets. Cull demonstrates using the “Irish Pub” analysis how compelling cultural components in PD propaganda enable politicians to obscure their hidden agendas thus creating confusion about authentic influence and propaganda tactics.

Research that integrates theoretical foundations together with empirical data proves that organizations need a balanced approach. Video content produced under the Obama presidency generated a 35% boost in audience interaction but reciprocal communication remained at only 30% of the total digital diplomacy programs (Hayden, 2012, p. 34) <Reimagining Digital Diplomacy>.

5.4. Reflections on Extending Beyond Soft Power

A study analyzed U.S. PD initiatives showing feedback integration increased public trust measurements by 12% and this surpassed results from 5% improvement from programs without this mechanism.

6. Conclusion.

The evaluation proves that PD and Soft Power depend on practical communication methods and cultural appeal to function effectively (Joseph S. Nye, 2004). The implementation of PD initiatives that build upon existing soft power capabilities helps states to derive advantages. Research shows digital diplomacy efforts can increase international credibility between 10 and 15 percent during specific time frames (Thussu, 2019, 65). Combining Public Diplomacy with comprehensive cultural economic and political strategies allows the mitigation of conceptual problems to achieve enduring global influence. Research in the future needs to measure how digital and interactive public diplomacy methods affect soft power indicators throughout the current digital transformation period (Hayden, 2012, p.71) <Effective Public Diplomacy: Two-way Communication>.

References.

• Al Breiki, A. (2025). The impact of public diplomacy on soft power strategy: moderating role of media and communication. Available at: https://helvia.uco.es/handle/10396/32316 (Accessed: 10 March 2025).
• Codina Solà, N., McMartin, J., Roig-Sanz, D., & Carbó-Catalan, E. (2022). Culture as soft power: Bridging cultural relations, intellectual cooperation, and cultural diplomacy..Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110744552-016/pdf?licenseType=open-access (Accessed: 10 March 2025).
• Cull, N. (2025). Public Diplomacy and its Limitations. Available at: https://youtu.be/2HFMkf1qLKY?si=MlvnqAs7OdaJgcI_ (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Cull, N. J. (2019). Public diplomacy: Foundations for global engagement in the digital age. John Wiley & Sons. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TaySDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1980&dq=Cull,+N.+J.+(2019).+Public+Diplomacy:+Foundations+for+Global+Engagement+in+the+Digital+Age.+Polity+Press.&ots=Aa6NReddcw&sig=2xPeFg34OjI5ohlLIcSZ0JPdA2Q 10 March 2025).
• Hayden, C., 2012.The rhetoric of soft power: Public diplomacy in global contexts. Lexington Books, pp.121–139. Available at: https://books.google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vPYTvqf6fzsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Hayden,+C.,+2012.+The+rhetoric+of+soft+power:+Public+diplomacy+in+global+contexts.+Lexington+Books.+(pp.+121-139).&ots=pATWI77BHV&sig=2h_OG43FOGxA8-7xEAaNpJSHmiU#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 14 March 2025].
• Joseph S. Nye (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs. Available at: http://www.tinyurl.com/2b5wv9az (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Kersaint, M., 2013.Exploring public diplomacy 2.0: a comparison of German and US digital public diplomacy in theory and practice. Doctoral dissertation, Europa-Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt, pp.30–57. Available at: https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-euv/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/81/file/UPLOAD.pdf [Accessed 14 March 2025].
• Melissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy. Palgrave. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/9780230554931.pdf (Accessed: 10 March 2025).
• Melissen, J. (2025). New Models in Public Diplomacy. Available at: https://youtu.be/4bcXyxAlV4Y?si=f3gNGGDpJ4MCeB4P (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Monocle (2018). Soft Power Survey 2018-19. Available at: https://monocle.com/film/affairs/soft-power-survey-2018-19/ (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Nye, J. S. (2023). Soft power and great-power competition: Shifting sands in the balance of power between the United States and China (p. 208). Springer Nature. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/63036 (Accessed: 10 March 2025).
• Nye, J.S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. Available at: https://youtu.be/HGEsWJ9tSiY?si=7vkdsghTALF_pzwe (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Nye, J.S. (2025). Soft Power as an Inherent National Resource. Available at: https://youtu.be/jrsIdz-8UX4?si=BeqtCB1nMIYju8j5 (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Sevin, E., 2016. Understanding soft power through public diplomacy in contrasting polities. In: The Routledge Handbook of Soft Power, pp.82–94. London: Routledge. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781315671185/routledge-handbook-soft-power-naren-chitty-craig-hayden-lilian-ji-gary-rawnsley?refId=d34e2d7c-5dda-4f43-8fbd-93e816f512f7&context=ubx [Accessed 14 March 2025].
• Snow, N. (2020). Rethinking public diplomacy in the 2020s. In Routledge handbook of public diplomacy (pp. 3-12). Routledge.Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429465543-2/rethinking-public-diplomacy-2020s-nancy-snow (Accessed: 10 March 2025).
• State Department (2025). Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy. Available at: https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-public-diplomacy/ (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Thussu, D. (2019) Communicating India’s Soft Power: Buddha to Bollywood. (Available at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ab_QAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Thussu,+D.+(2019)+Communicating+India%E2%80%99s+Soft+Power:+Buddha+to+Bollywood.&ots=3tzWucxZqZ&sig=m4hRpS8PblabwiSiJ2ksohYEABw [Accessed on: 10.03.2025)
• UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2020). International Student Enrollment Data. Available at: https://uis.unesco.org (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• USC Public Diplomacy (2025). Trumping Traditional Public Diplomacy? Available at: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/trumping-traditional-public-diplomacy (Accessed: 11 March 2025).
• Wiseman, G. (2015). Conceptualizing Public Diplomacy: Theoretical Approaches and New Methods. International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), pp. 1-15.
• Zaharna, R. S. (2010). Battles to Bridges: U.S. Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11. (Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230277922_5 [Accessed on: 10.03.2025