Quantifying Soft Power

Joseph Nye defines soft power as “the ability of one state to achieve preferred outcomes by changing the preferences or behavior of another state through the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuasion and positive attraction” (8). However, due to its subjectivity, soft power is extremely difficult to measure, count, or analyze. The relational nature of soft power also complicates cross-national comparisons seeing as perceptions in one country may be significantly different from that of others. Up to this point, there has been no set methodology for measuring soft power beyond surveys like the Gallup Global Attitudes Survey and other types of opinion polling.

To fill this gap, the New Persuaders II Report aims to shed light on the resources that contribute to a nation’s soft power, and provide a comparative snap-shot of those resources through a composite index. Their index is comprised of five objective sub-indices (Government, Culture, Diplomacy, Education, and Business/Innovation) as well as seven subjective indicators (International Purpose/Role, Cultural Output, Global Leadership, Soft Power Icons, Cuisine, National Airline/Major Airport, and Commercial Brands). This type of quantitative analysis works in that it makes the case for public diplomacy. For practitioners, the report provides a bargaining chip with which to highlight the high-scoring areas and to advocate for future public diplomacy funding. It also shows them what resources they have and could lead to brainstorming of how to better use those resources. For policymakers and funders who may be unfamiliar with soft power, the report offers an easier conceptual presentation and translation of its components.

Unfortunately, the report lacks any real utility for foreign affairs ministries, especially when it comes to the report’s public diplomacy measures. Public diplomacy is considered to only be a soft power tool and is ultimately only a small sliver of the entire analysis. Even though public diplomacy is captured in the “diplomacy” index, it actually affects more than just that one category.  Furthermore, the report’s author, Jonathan McClory, admits that the analysis does not capture developments occurring in real-time such as short-term shocks or trends in social media. McClory also states that he was forced to rely on proxies because there is no perfect data, which ultimately constraints what the report is able to explain and limits its “usability.”

While the New Persuaders II Report's index has its limitations, it marks an important step forward in how we go about measuring soft power. Overall, the report is a good supplement to the previous literature, underscoring the need for both objective and subjective analyses of soft power.