Joseph Samuel Nye Jr. was an American political scientist. He and Robert Keohane co-founded the international relations theory of neoliberalism, which they developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. Together with Keohane, he developed the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence. They also explored transnational relations and world politics in an edited volume in the 1970s. More recently, he pioneered the theory of soft power. His notion of "smart power" ("the ability to combine hard and soft power into a successful strategy") became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration. These theories from Nye are very commonly seen in courses across the U.S., such as I.B. D.P. Global Politics. Nye was the Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he later held the position of University Distinguished Service Professor, Emeritus. In October 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Nye to the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. He was also a member of the Defense Policy Board. He was a Harvard faculty member since 1964. He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, a foreign fellow of the British Academy, and a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy. The 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of over 1,700 international relations scholars ranked Nye as the sixth most influential scholar in the field of international relations in the past 20 years. He was also ranked as one of the most influential figures in American foreign policy. In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine included him on its list of top global thinkers. In September 2014, Foreign Policy reported that international relations scholars and policymakers ranked Nye as one of the field's most influential scholars.
Many of the comments here question the necessity of dedicating a whole book on "soft power." I agree with this, Except that I think, this is not necessarily because soft power is a trivial issue -it most certainly is not.
Why then, so much discomfort expressed by so many readers? Firstly because, even if you are a really hard-boiled "realistissimo," the importance of soft power goes without mentioning. It is almost taken for granted, and Nye Jr, the IR genius as he is, commits one of the rather greater sins that readers find hard to tolerate: redundancy. He seemingly repeats and repeats his points to the degree that they almost lose their meaning. And no one has the patience, especially when there are so many books awaiting on the shelf to be read.
But a second why: Why then, Nye, one of the living legends of the IR literature, having all the access to the journals and reviews of the area, preferred writing this book, a tedious task one imagines, instead of an article on the topic? I think there are three main reasons to this: first he, rightfully, wants to take credit of the fact that he is the one who has coined the term "soft power," especially after the widespread acceptance the term has received. By writing a book that addresses more to the general public than to the more obscure academia, he claims his right on the word. The redundancy and dullness of the book seem to be an acceptable price for that. After all, not many, even amongst the professionals of the area, do not read, the forefathers of the discipline, say Morgenthau (They are more likely to read people who read and wrote about these forefathers.) Then again, Morgenthau and his likes are known to be among the founding fathers of realism, if not international relations as a disipline. Similarly, even though this book is not likely to become a veritable reference for most, it successfully guarantees that Nye will be remembered as the guy who invented the term. Secondly, despite its spreading use, Nye is aware of the fact that the term is being taken out of context, and most of the time employed wrongly, especially by politicians. So he tries to avoid misunderstandings as far as the meaning of the term is concerned. And thus, he is entitled more than anyone else to draw the clear line between what he intended the term would refer to and what people perceive it to mean. Third, his choice of style, that the book is reminiscent of a policy recommendation paper rather than an academic analysis is informative. What the author tries to do is to put out a manual. That is, the meaning of soft power once clarified, he proceeds to describe how to put it into use by policy-makers.
Power is one of the most important themes of international politics as a discipline. Almost all theories are identified, in some way or other, as to their approach to the issue of power. And for many scholars of the field, there are many aspects of power. For example, there is a general misconception, if not a sweeping assumption, with regards to realists: they are considered as dismissive of whatever they deem unrelated to power, and also picky as to the very definition of power itself, which means it is only "hard power" that interests them.
I tend to think that this is a false statement. Not only because there are no realists out there who are possessed by the pure credo, or the "id茅otype." Surely they are aware and appreciative of the value of other factors and other aspects of power. The realist can be, in that sense, likened to the physicist, who, by fear of not being able to reflect all the physical variables in his computations, take some and leave some. The decision of what to take and what to leave might indeed prove fateful in the end. But most of the times, it is more practical to eliminate the noise by leaving out certain factors, than overestimating their importance. It is the amount of noise that forces theorists to make the decision.
I am not sure, however, that "soft power" can be disregarded even by the purest realist without risking to challenge the premises she has set out on in the first place. Because the definition of power made by Nye in this book is compelling and conforms almost mot-脿-mot with its conventional definition by the realist clique (power means the ability to get the outcomes one wants.) Thereby, it is not so much academics as politicians he is addressing; especially the Bush Jr administration, who got it all wrong in everything they attempted. Hence the polite chiding, veiled condescension in the author's tone.
Well, thinking back now, apart from, and in addition to, an attempt by the author at patenting the term he invented, the book might be perceived also as a position paper by a prominent and responsible academic, an invitation to a saner, respectable foreign policy; an apology for the evaluation of next generations, that he didn't remain inert while all the craziness was unfolding, that he did take a side.
(And there are some useful lessons in the book for those foreign policy makers who are under the delusion that soap operas are great sources of soft power. Well guess what, they are not!)
"Power is like weather. Everyone depends on it and talks about it, but few understand it." Well, Joseph Nye does. In this book he talks about soft power: one of the most important and influential concepts in international relations theory in the last decades. He describes it clearly and illustrates it widely.
Overall, this is the best book on soft power available, written by the author of the concept himself. The only inevitable hiccup might be the parts where he gives advice to American foreign policy makers which - more than 15 years after the original publication date - might seem partly outdated. However, that does not diminish the value of the book in any way.
"Power is also like love, easier to experience than to define or measure, but no less real for that."
With the information revolution and the globalization of the economy, politics becomes in part a competition for attractivness, legitimacy, and credibility. The way to these is a smart wielding of a country's soft power.
"Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics" by Joseph S. Nye Jr. explores the concept of soft power as a vital tool in international relations. Unlike hard power, which relies on military might and economic coercion, soft power operates through attraction and persuasion, shaping the preferences and actions of others without force. Nye argues that in a rapidly evolving global landscape, where information flows freely and public opinion matters more than ever, soft power has become increasingly important for achieving political and diplomatic objectives.
Nye defines soft power as the ability to shape the preferences of others through appeal and attraction, rather than coercion. This can be achieved through cultural influence, political values, and foreign policies that are seen as legitimate and morally authoritative. He contrasts this with hard power, which involves using force or inducements to achieve the desired outcomes. Nye emphasizes that the most effective strategies in international relations often involve a combination of both hard and soft power, a concept he refers to as "smart power."
Historically, the United States has wielded significant soft power, particularly in the aftermath of World War II. The Marshall Plan is highlighted as a prime example of successful soft power, where the U.S. invested in the reconstruction of Europe, fostering goodwill and solidifying alliances without resorting to coercion. Similarly, during the Cold War, American culture, exemplified by Hollywood, pop music, and consumer products, played a crucial role in promoting the values of democracy and freedom, subtly influencing societies behind the Iron Curtain.
However, the book also acknowledges the challenges and limitations of soft power. Nye discusses how anti-American sentiment has fluctuated over the years, often exacerbated by U.S. foreign policy decisions that are perceived as arrogant or unilateral. The Iraq War in 2003 is cited as a major turning point where America's reliance on hard power led to a significant decline in global opinion, even among its allies. This underscores the importance of balancing military might with the cultivation of positive, cooperative relationships through soft power.
Nye also explores how other nations have utilized soft power, offering a comparative analysis of global strategies. The Soviet Union, despite its initial success in projecting soft power through its ideological appeal and cultural exports, ultimately failed to sustain it due to its closed political system and aggressive foreign policies. In contrast, European countries, particularly Norway, have effectively used soft power through diplomacy, cultural influence, and their commitment to global issues like human rights and environmental protection.
The book delves into the role of public diplomacy as a crucial aspect of soft power, emphasizing the need for governments to engage not just with other states but also with global audiences. Nye outlines three dimensions of public diplomacy: daily communication, strategic communication, and long-term relationship building. He argues that while market forces and cultural exports play a role in soft power, a more deliberate and coordinated approach is necessary to effectively manage a nation's image and influence abroad.
In the context of the post-9/11 world, Nye stresses the importance of enhancing America's soft power to combat terrorism and address global challenges. He critiques the U.S. for underinvesting in public diplomacy and calls for a more comprehensive strategy that includes increasing educational exchanges, rethinking visa policies, and encouraging cross-cultural interactions. Nye believes that these efforts are essential for restoring America's credibility and building the international cooperation needed to address complex global issues.
The book concludes with a call for the U.S. to adopt "smart power," a balanced approach that combines the strengths of both hard and soft power. Nye argues that in a world where information is abundant and global public opinion can shape the course of international relations, the ability to attract and persuade is more important than ever. By effectively leveraging its cultural, political, and diplomatic assets, the U.S. can maintain its leadership role and navigate the challenges of the 21st century.
"Soft Power" is a seminal work that offers valuable insights into the dynamics of international politics. Nye's analysis underscores the significance of soft power in achieving long-term success on the global stage, highlighting the need for a nuanced and strategic approach to foreign policy. As the world becomes more interconnected and the influence of non-state actors grows, the ability to wield soft power will be crucial for any nation seeking to achieve its objectives in a peaceful and sustainable manner.
The soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country鈥檚 culture, political ideals, and policies.
Joseph Samuel Nye (1937-) is an analyst in international relations. He has bachelor鈥檚 degree is in philosophy an economics from the university of Oxford, a PhD from Harvard where he was a dean and now teaches. He founded the Neoliberal Institute. He was Deputy Secretary of State under Carter, Deputy Secretary of Defense under Clinton. He was designated one of the most influential scholar in international relations by the 2011 Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) survey of over 1,700 international relations scholars ranked and by Foreign Policy magazine (2014). He published around 20 books, he invented the concept of 芦 hard 禄 and 芦 soft 禄 power. Hard power is the traditional way to influence others, politics, military and economics, soft power is cultural.
The book is condensed, 208 pages divided in 5 chapters. His main idea is that the United States are shifting from an hegemon to a leadership position, but it needs the soft power to maintain this status in a global and multilateral world. The decline of powers was always a subject intriguing authors since antiquity, for instance Thucydide, Polybe, Ibn Khaldoun, Arnold Toynbee, Oswald Spengler, Paul Kennedy, Allison Graham, Peter Turchin, wrote about it. The Nye's specificity is that he pointed out the tridimensionality of the power. It is very common to acknowledge that power, which is the ability to obtain something, an object, an action, a result from others, by military and economic means, but the cultural aspect is also a tool. More subtle to identify, necessitating time to be diffused and more difficult to measure the results, it is nonetheless an important part of power which is very often neglected by politicians who seek very often results in the short term. It is easier to obtain something you didn't even ask, because they are influenced, than by a coercitive way. This book points out how the United States, the first nation in the history of the world to reach such soft power, it should adapt to the reality of contemporary world to keep a privileged position.
Very easy to read, well written, well built with many references, this book is what we can call a state of the art or the quintessence of research and knowledge. Nevertheless, my critic is not on the form of the book, but on the definition of culture which is the core of the soft power. Nye criticize the reduction of culture to Hollywood and Macdonalds, and he is correct. He emphasizes more on elite culture such as university research and exchange, diplomatic influence and reputation. Both need to be addressed, but popular culture, which is consumed by masses, especially in this dopamine period of internet access, social media and influencers, is in my humble opinion even more important. When Kim Kardashian who has Armenian roots, followed by 357 million people on Instagram, pleads for Armenia in the conflict with Azerbaijan to the President of the United States, popular culture has an impact. When the player Dennis Rodman is watching playing the Harlem Globe Trotters with the North Korean ruler Kim Jong Un, a huge basketball fan, drinking Coca-Cola and declaring 鈥淵ou have a friend for life鈥�, I do thing popular culture is very important. More people know Nike than Harvard, more people know Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga or Beyonc茅 than the Vice-President of the United States J.D. Vance or the Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Don鈥檛 get me wrong, this is an excellent book which should be read by every person interested in international relations or geopolitics, especially by Donald and his administration, who are doing exactly the opposite of building soft power.
Quote : Winning the peace is harder than winning a war, and soft power is essential to winning the peace.
The soft power is of growing importance in the modern world. It allows countries to achieve their goals through attraction rather than coercion. By using culture, political values, and policies, we can effectively influence global politics. Policies like the Marshall Plan, and the influence of American culture during the Cold War, show how soft power can guide actions and create lasting change without the use of force. Following the Iraq War, there has been a steep decline in US soft power. Poor foreign policy decisions have underscored the need for a balanced approach, combining both hard and soft power, known as "smart power." This blend, along with a more open policy for cross-cultural exchange, is crucial for building lasting alliances and fostering cooperation in the complex landscape of today鈥檚 global politics.
Diplomacy Friendly foreign relationship Appealing to the hearts and minds Work published in 2004 (a lot has changed since then) The US is a superpower
Soft power is advantageous Soft power seeks support and generates goodwill Soft power is effective (aftermath of WW2)
鈥渟oft power is of growing importance in the modern world. It allows countries to achieve their goals through attraction rather than coercion. By using culture, political values, and policies, we can effectively influence global politics. Policies like the Marshall Plan, and the influence of American culture during the Cold War, show how soft power can guide actions and create lasting change without the use of force. Following the Iraq War, there has been a steep decline in US soft power. Poor foreign policy decisions have underscored the need for a balanced approach, combining both hard and soft power, known as "smart power." This blend, along with a more open policy for cross-cultural exchange, is crucial for building lasting alliances and fostering cooperation in the complex landscape of today鈥檚 global politics.鈥�
喔栢付喔囙箒喔∴箟喔笝喔编竾喔阜喔笗喙夃笝喔夃笟喔编笟喔堗赴喔腑喔佮浮喔侧笝喔侧笝喙佮弗喙夃抚 喙佮笗喙堗箑喔權阜喙夃腑喔覆喔⑧副喔囙箑喔涏箛喔權笡喔编笀喔堗父喔氞副喔權腑喔⑧腹喙� 喔椸赋喙冟斧喙夃箑喔佮复喔斷竸喔о覆喔∴箑喔傕箟喔侧箖喔堗竵喔侧福喙€喔∴阜喔竾喔`赴喔抚喙堗覆喔囙笡喔`赴喙€喔椸辅喔∴覆喔佮競喔多箟喔� Soft Power 喙勦浮喙堗箖喔娻箞喙佮竸喙堗箑喔`阜喙堗腑喔囙箑喔ㄠ福喔┼笎喔佮复喔堗釜喔`箟喔侧竾喔福喔`竸喙屶斧喔`阜喔竵喔侧福喔傕覆喔⑧釜喔脆笝喔勦箟喔侧笚喔侧竾喔о副喔掄笝喔樴福喔`浮 喙佮笗喙堗箑喔涏箛喔權箒喔權抚喔勦复喔斷笚喔侧竾喔佮覆喔`箑喔∴阜喔竾喔嬥付喙堗竾喔涏福喔班竵喔笟喔斷箟喔о涪喔弗喔侧涪喔涏副喔堗笀喔编涪 喙€喔娻箞喔� 喔勦抚喔侧浮喔佮箟喔侧抚喔笝喙夃覆喔椸覆喔囙抚喔脆笚喔⑧覆喔ㄠ覆喔笗喔`箤 喙佮弗喔班笡喔`赴喔娻覆喔樴复喔涏箘喔曕涪 Joseph Nye 喙勦浮喙堗箘喔斷箟喔權赋喙€喔笝喔腑喔赤笝喔侧笀喙傕笝喙夃浮喔權赋喔傕腑喔囙釜喔福喔编笎喙冟笝喙佮竾喙堗笟喔о竵喔涪喙堗覆喔囙箑喔斷傅喔⑧抚 喔∴傅喔佮覆喔`腑喔樴复喔氞覆喔⑧笘喔多竾喙佮福喔囙笗喙夃覆喔權笀喔侧竵喔涏福喔班箑喔椸辅喔阜喙堗笝 喙佮弗喔班箑喔涏福喔掂涪喔氞箑喔椸傅喔⑧笟喔赋喔權覆喔堗箓喔權箟喔∴笝喔赤竵喔编笟喔娻覆喔曕复喔阜喙堗笝喔傅喔佮笖喙夃抚喔�
Though soft power is indeed intriguing, and much needed in world politics, (currently dreading the results of the coming election), this book frankly could have been an email. A tad one-sided as well, especially in the rather uncritical portrayal of the U.S presence in the Middle East. The righteousness of the U.S is taken as a fact of nature鈥� which鈥� eh. Alas, alas.
This is a very well researched book, but putting in mind that it is indeed outdated, the only thing about it that is truly beneficial is in regards to "Past Experiences", what happened before and how it can be avoided in the future.
Statistics & Polls were featured constantly which always good. People need to understand from where these views come from and how is it possible to approach them with Soft Power tools.
In terms of theory:
- Soft power is an "Attractive Power". - It is sometimes called "The second face of power" -"Getting others to want the outcomes that you want" By.. "Getting others to buy into your values".
Sources of soft Power "Their content must be attractive to others as well":
1- Culture. 2- Political Values. 3- Foreign Policy.
The book itself is heavily invested in the United States and the war in Iraq & Afghanistan. Many things have changed since then but the notion of soft power remains the same. The author stresses on the fact that "Americans will have to be more aware of cultural differences", Being in 2013 I can honestly say that things are definitely changing but we still have a long way to go. "To be effective, we must become less parochial and more sensitive to foreign perceptions".
Last chapter:
"We have been more successful in the domain of hard power, where we have invested more, trained more, and have a clearer idea of what we are doing".
Although that might be partially true, but I refuse to think that way. Hard power is never a success and the fact that theories like: Soft Power and Smart Power came to exist are clear evidences to that.
The book is a good read for beginners in Public Policy, but in regards to SOFT POWER itself, I didn't get much. He emphasizes on its importance, but many paragraphs were rather redundant. I wasn't expecting a "HOW TO" guide, because each country has its own soft power tools, but I figured that people might need to know how soft power can be implemented clearly and sufficiently.
I saw someone with a cover version that had chess pieces which was cool but anyway (P.S. this is from 2004 before the 9/11 stuff in case anyone was wondering about key context, aka it being 20 years old and yet the author was quite prescient about how the internet would play a major factor in the use of soft power going forward 鈥� and why the US shouldn't take its position as a superpower for granted)
Relying solely on military might can lead to costly and unsustainable outcomes. Meanwhile, leveraging soft power can build lasting alliances and foster environments where shared values and mutual respect guide international relations. This blend of hard and soft power, often referred to as smart power, is crucial for navigating the complexities of global politics today.
You might be familiar with the phrase, 鈥淵ou catch more flies with honey rather than vinegar.鈥� This more or less sums up the idea of soft power. It鈥檚 a way of getting what you want through attraction and persuasion, rather than brute force.
(So while hard power can be exemplified by military action, sanctions, and harsh trade policies, soft power is the domain of diplomacy, friendly foreign relations, cultural exports, international sports, and general cooperation.)
Notes: - To use another metaphor: hard power is often a 鈥渃arrot and stick鈥� situation 鈥� using coercion or bribery, and often spending a lot of money, to get what you want in a unilateral way. Soft power, on the other hand, is sometimes referred to as appealing to the 鈥渉earts and minds,鈥� and winning over people in a more bilateral way. - American music, movies, and products like Coca-Cola and Hershey鈥檚 chocolate bars can end up representing the values and appeal of a nation, thereby becoming tools of soft power. Such efforts can be cooperative, too. British movies and The Beatles also played a large role in appealing to the younger generation of Soviets and spreading the message that helped thaw the Cold War. - America displayed immense hard power during the Iraq War in 2003, and in doing so it cared little about garnering international support. Global opinions of the US plummeted dramatically, even among longtime allies 鈥� not to mention the populations in Iraq and Afghanistan most directly impacted by the military intervention. - Terrorist groups also use these same channels to attract support and recruit by tapping into broader narratives and grievances. All of this makes politics a competition for legitimacy and credibility, which is where soft power becomes much more useful than hard power. - Since America has often been synonymous with modernity, it鈥檚 always been a source of discomfort for those resistant to change. In the 19th century, both European conservatives and radicals viewed America with suspicion. - In 2002, a poll revealed that majorities in 34 of 43 countries thought the spread of American ideas and customs was negative. This reflects a broader trend where resentment of American power intertwines with resistance to globalization. (interesting depending on who was surveyed, a newer version post 2003 would be interesting to see now) - Another important aspect of soft power is that it can work in opposition to government policy. In the 1960s and 70s, Hollywood and the music industry were actively exporting pop culture that was keeping open, liberal, democratic ideals alive, even when at odds with official government positions. These continued to appeal to younger generations abroad 鈥� and proved that the US was still a place where artistic freedom was alive and well. - America looks pretty stupid post 9/11. While American individualism, democratic ideals, and human rights advocacy can attract global admiration, it can also ring hollow when confronted with certain domestic policies, like capital punishment and gun control. Post-9/11 policies, such as stricter immigration controls and perceived religious intolerance. - Following World War II, the Soviet Union was America's main rival in terms of soft power. At first, many Europeans admired their resistance to Hitler during World War II. The colonized nations in Africa and Asia also looked up to the USSR for their opposition to European imperialism. The promise of a utopian Communist future drew many followers worldwide. - High postwar economic growth rates bolstered the Soviet Union鈥檚 image, and the 1957 launch of Sputnik suggested technological superiority. Their cultural investments in ballet, Olympic sports, and classical music were also significant. - More recently, Europe has been the closest competitor to the US in soft power. European art, literature, music, fashion, and food are all influential global forces. European countries are consistently seen as positive forces in addressing global issues like terrorism, poverty, and environmental protection. While the US performs better in areas like job creation, Europe resonates more with younger populations globally on domestic policies like capital punishment, gun control, and climate change. - Asian countries, on the other hand, have rich cultural histories that contribute to their soft power. China, in particular, has experienced rapid economic growth that has enhanced its reputation, but its soft power is limited by domestic policies and a lack of intellectual freedom.
Public diplomacy: - involves engaging not just with foreign governments but also with individuals and organizations. It's not just about propaganda or public relations 鈥� it's about building long-term relationships that support government policies. - There are three dimensions to public diplomacy: The first is daily communications. This involves explaining the context of policy decisions, focusing on both domestic and foreign audiences. - The second is strategic communication. Here you develop simple, consistent themes much like an effective advertising campaign. - The third dimension is long-term relationships. This is about building bridges and international connections through things like university scholarships, exchange programs, seminars, and conferences. - Long-term strategies involving cultural and educational exchanges are crucial for these complex tasks as well. These can foster more open societies and help overcome the negative aspects of propaganda by allowing people to experience a culture firsthand.
Quotes: - 鈥淲hat is soft power? It is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the attractiveness of a country鈥檚 culture, political ideals, and policies.鈥� - Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply seductive. - Smart power is neither hard nor soft. It is both. - 鈥減ower is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants.鈥�
Man has always been hungry for power. He wants to gain power by hook or crook. In his desire to seek more and more power, he uses a variety of tactics and tries to make other people do what he wants. Power is actually an ability to influence other peoples' behavior and compel them to do what you want without letting them know that you are the real driver of the vehicle of their lives. Power holder may be an individual or a group of individuals. It may also be a country in a broader sense if we look at it from a global perspective. There are three main types of power e.g., economy, military, and soft power. The first two are called "carrots and sticks" in the language of diplomacy. The economy is used to allure other people or countries to attract them; whereas, the military is used to threaten other people or countries. Both strategies have been, and still are, used by the economically and militarily strong countries to pursue their interests. But when we look back at past events, we astonished to see that these two strategies were not always successful. The United States was far more powerful in military might at the time of war with Vietnam. But it lost. It was at the zenith of technological advancement and intelligence but it failed to prevent 9/11. And it is many times advance in weapons, having a robust system of surveillance and economic power far higher than Afghanistan, but it can't succeed even after fighting for almost nineteen years. The same position has been of Russia in the past. France and Britain had more tanks than Germany during WW-II but the results were not favorable to them. What is the reason behind such failures? The foremost reason is that we can suppress other countries by using military power or we can buy their loyalty for a little time but we can't influence their behavior or thoughts while using these two strategies. The panacea for maintaining power over other people or countries for a long span of time is soft power. There are three sources of soft power: culture, political values, and foreign policy. Culture is again divided into two categories, first is high culture, and the second is popular culture. The sources of high culture are literature, art, and education. High culture usually influences the elite classes. On the other hand, the main source of popular culture is the entertainment industry which influences the masses. (further explanation of all these sources may be a lengthy task, so would like to leave it here). However, I would like to mention some flaws and way out which people sitting at high echelons should seriously take into consideration. Let's start with the students across the world who study abroad. They are estimated at around 120 in the whole world. The United States is home 28 million of them which is the largest number of students in a country. When those students complete their education, they have become more American than their home country. They like to live in the U.S. or they reject the culture of their own country when they come back. They have become victims of American culture, education, and above all their liberal lifestyle inadvertently. But when it comes to the other source of soft power, the foreign policy. The U.S. seems failed in many countries. Take Pakistan as an example, the U.S. has given millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. Yet the people in Pakistan don't like it much. Why? The answer is never worked on its soft power toward Pakistan and other Muslim countries. It has the hardest visa policy for Muslims. And it has a bleak image for the Muslims already living there. This is the reason why has it failed to seduce the majority of Muslims around the world. Similarly, other countries have also failed in accomplishing prosperity for their native people because of inadequate policies of soft power. For instance, look at the Arab world countries. They are 22 in numbers. They spend 6 percent of their GDP in gaining military equipment and weapons, however, they all combinely have fewer exports than Finland, excluding the exports of gas and oil. All they have is war. About forty-five percent of their total population is under 14 of age. And the unemployment rate is highest in the world. On the other side, Scandinavian countries are considered the most prosperous in the world. They have no huge military backups nor they have any conflict in the world. But they have tourist resorts, equalities and better facilities for their people and multilateral foreign policies. If we catch of glimpse of our own country, Pakistan. We see that it has been bestowed with world's one of the finest tourist resorts, yet many people don't want to visit it. The reason is its fragile entertainment industry which influences the masses as cited above. It has failed to attract people from other countries in comparison to Hollywood and Bollywood. The news channels also focus more on sensational news like terrorism, political instability, religious extremism, and other crises. Moreover, the succeeded governments have also been failed to uplift the plight of poor people of the country. Energy crises are rampant. The quality of education is the lowest. And the infrastructure is not appealing. And so on so forth. The situation can be normalized easily if the governments and the people who give mandate them to focus more the political values, the second source of soft power. Our values will determine our future. If values are based on cooperation, multilateralism, equalities, democracy, and peace than no power can halt us to emerge as a prosperous nation.
Nye's concept of "soft power" (often invoked and often incorrectly invoked) is an interesting addition to discussions of power and influence in international relations. It probably didn't need a book-length introduction, but Nye's writing style is clear and persuasive and, in a world in which leaders all too often choose hard power as their preferred response to international challenges or crises, the book is a welcome reminder that simply setting a good example and demonstrating success can go far towards promoting your own values and policies.