Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

My colleague Joe Nye has made many contributions to scholarship and policy, but his most lasting contribution to the political lexicon is the idea of “soft power.” It’s a concept that is simultaneously seductive and slippery: It captures something that most of us intuitively recognize -- the capacity to influence others without twisting arms, threatening, or compelling -- but it’s also hard to measure or define with a lot of precision. And for a realist like me, “soft power” has also seemed like a bit of an epiphenomenon, because you need a lot of hard power to produce much of the soft variety.

Nonetheless, I’d be remiss in not telling you about a recent article that provides systematic empirical support for the “soft power” concept. Writing in the latest issue of Foreign Policy Analysis, Carol Atkinson of Vanderbilt University presents results on the impact that student exchange programs (a classic instrument of “soft power”) have on the diffusion of liberal values. She finds that there is a strong positive effect, and offers the following provocative conclusion:  

. . . the U.S. government often uses educational exchanges as a negative sanction; prohibiting or limiting attendance by countries with poor human rights records.  However, my findings show that when the United States allows only “well behaved” countries to participate, it restricts its ability to build its own soft power across the international system. Over the long term, engaging potential political elites from authoritarian states, rather than excluding them from programs, provides an opportunity to channel liberal ideas into some of the most democratically austere regions of the world.”

At the risk of appearing to be pleading on behalf of my own line of work, I would just add that the United States is currently home to 17 of the top 20 universities in the world (Cambridge, Oxford, and the University of Tokyo are the other three), according to the annual survey by China’s Jiao Tong University. In addition to being engines of innovation, those universities are also powerful magnets for talented and ambitious people from all over the world. Not only does the United States benefit from their presence, but exposure to American ideals appears to have positive long-term effects on political attitudes among most of them, and perhaps especially for those who come from authoritarian societies. The lesson: If we let our universities decline -- as California is now doing to the once-vaunted UC system -- we are guaranteeing a much less influential future for subsequent generations.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

DAVE123

11:03 PM ET

January 19, 2010

An interesting article on

An interesting article on this point with a different slant

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/19/smart-bombers-do-universities-breed-terrorists/

Even the Guardian is reporting on this issue
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/06/university-heads-tackle-extremism

 

KASSANDRA

11:22 AM ET

January 20, 2010

Gaza students

Whether the US will give these students visas is one issue. Another is that some authoritarian theocracies will not allow those students with visas and even scholarships to exit. Case in point is that that self-described "only democracy in the Middle East", Israel. There are over 500 students in Gaza with scholarships to various Western schools that Israel is not permitting to leave. There are probably others in the West Bank also. On the other hand, Iran does not impose such restrictions on its students with scholarships. Freedom of movement is one of the basic rights that are used to describe a democracy. Not present in Israel.

 

SIN NOMBRE

2:19 PM ET

January 20, 2010

"Power" versus "influence" redux

Not to overly beat a horse I've beaten here before, but here to my mind is a perfect example of why U.S. foreign policy thinkers ought to shift from thinking in terms of U.S. "power" to thinking about U.S. "influence" instead.

Like I've observed before it's startling when reading the thinking that's been done over the last 60 years or so about American FP how uniformly such thinkers have always considered issues vis a vis U.S. "power." And perhaps the most conclusive example of this mindset is that when talking about something far better described as "influence" Nye instead still put it in terms of "power."

And now, apropos this article, clearly whatever benefit might flow to the U.S. from student exchange programs is far better termed the result of "influence" rather than "power."

To me then maybe a lot of our past problems have been focusing on increasing or maintaining our power rather than concentrating instead on the subtler idea of influence. But I suppose that's somewhat understandable given our stature in the world in the past, and in any event it's water under the bridge.

Certainly today however, with the world's playing field being so significantly smoothed and looking to get even smoother—think of economics, the increased importance of it and and the competition therein that we most certainly face in the future—it seems to me even more important to define what exactly it is that we ought to be looking for.

 

MAWAL1975

4:26 PM ET

January 20, 2010

The international nature of

The international nature of advanced science education, and advanced science itself, is terrific. To my mind on the other hand it's very unwholesome that the likes of Walt look upon this terrific phenomenon as a tool for making team USA more influential on the world stage. The "soft power" and "influence" attitude is manipulative and unwarranted. I wish that Walt and commenter SIN NOMBRE, and all the other chatterers, would adopt a good old "live and let live" international policy. Begin by acknowledging that foreigners are not short of information sources and are able to think for themselves. Then quit the USA hubris and conceitedness that underlies the manipulative intent.

 

SIN NOMBRE

4:53 PM ET

January 20, 2010

Just for the record Malwal as

Just for the record Malwal as a basically libertarian kind of guy I'd love a basically "live and let live" policy for the U.S. and indeed think that was the premise when this country was founded.

Wasn't therefore talking about using influence the kind of "manipulation" you so rightly denounce, but instead more as just seeing same as the coin of the realm in foreign relations. (Rather than raw power assessment.)

Regardless of how much anyone today might want to go back to some grand splendid isolation, which might never have existed anyway, the world's just too interconnected today and going ever more in that direction to avoid the natural frictions and issues that are going to arise between states. So however much it might have made sense or worked in the past, having effectively *no* foreign policy—and no way in which to effectuate same—wouldn't last a minute.

Even if *you* have no beefs or issues with any others, in the ever-smaller world we live in sure as sunshine lots of people are going to find beefs or issues with you.

Sorry you misread me, understandable, but I think you did.

Cheers,

 

DAVE123

3:47 PM ET

January 20, 2010

Gaza students

There are over 500 students in Gaza with scholarships to various Western schools that Israel is not permitting to leave.

On the other hand, 54 percent of Palestinian suicide attackers had at least some college education, compared to only a small fraction (less than 15 percent) in Palestinian society more broadly.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/19/smart-bombers-do-universities-breed-terrorists/

 

KASSANDRA

9:46 AM ET

January 21, 2010

Then the 500 slots will have

Then the 500 slots will have to go to Iranian students to study nuclear engineering.

 

VIA FCH

7:43 PM ET

January 20, 2010

Soft power is a nice

Soft power is a nice theoretical concept that we were in fact exercising during the Cold War. When you are the hegemon it's difficult to apply it anymore; the boys who get you to spend the farm on weaponry also want to have some fun with the "fireworks."

On the university exchange venue, you are right to consider it an effective instrument of soft power. However, don't expect any federal budget item to come to its rescue.

At a time like this, the question about how to run a university system should be addressed to your academic peers, for I think the crisis in education differs from the one in healthcare only by its not being talked about.

 

JANBEKSTER

10:06 PM ET

January 20, 2010

American universities.

Of course the permutations are endless when it comes to debating the role of American universities, in potentially widening the horizons of students from less fortunate countries.

However, the problem will always remain the same, that a small minority usually, ends up going back to their own countries with their originally pre-concieved ideas more re-affirmed about the "decadence of the USA", or and western civilization in general. This minority is a problem for everyone now in the world.
khairi janbek.paris/france

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More