In trying to explain diffusion of power as against transition of power Nye made emphasis on smart power so what's the difference?
While traditional hard power strategies focus on military intervention, coercive diplomacy, and economic sanctions to enforce national interests, soft power (as conceptualized by Nye) emphasizes the capacity to persuade others to do what one wants. In particular, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a nation’s culture, political ideals, and policies (similar to Lundestad’s empire by invitation). In contrast, smart power refers to the capacity of a State to combine both elements of hard power and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing. Wilson has provided a framework for smart power, which is grounded on a few additional core considerations:
“• The target over which one seeks to exercise power—its internal nature and its broader global context. Power cannot be smart if those who wield it are ignorant of these attributes of the target populations and regions.
• Self-knowledge and understanding of one’s own goals and capacities. Smart power requires the wielder to know what his or her country or community seeks, as well as its will and capacity to achieve its goals.
• The broader regional and global context within which the action will be conducted.
• The tools to be employed, as well as how and when to deploy them individually and in combination.”
For more information, you may want to consult the following sources:
Nossel, Suzanne (2004) “Smart Power” Foreign Affairs. 83 (2), 131-142.
Nye, Joseph (1990) “Soft Power” Foreign Policy. 80, 153-171.
Wilson, Ernest (2008) “Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 616 (1), 110-124.
smart power is the EU's invention, or at least they have popularised it- it is supposed to mean soft ie non military powers of persuasion plus technology, aid money and other incentives to gain agreement.
Some conceptual clarification is relevant. "Smart power" does also comprehend more traditional forms of hard power such as military and economic power. Economic instruments (power) are not "soft power". Even though there has been considerable "conceptual stretching" over the last few years, Joseph Nye (who conceptually developed the concept) has been resilient in clarifying this issue and in a more recent article (2006, "Think Again: Soft Power" Foreign Policy) arguing: "Economic Strength Is Soft Power. No. In a recent article on options for dealing with Iran, Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation refers to soft power options such as economic sanctions. But there is nothing soft about sanctions if you are on the receiving end. They are clearly intended to coerce and are thus a form of hard power." While economic strength can be converted into hard or soft power, Nye highlights the difficult distinction: "You can coerce countries with sanctions or woo them with wealth. As Walter Russell Mead has argued, economic power is sticky power; it seduces as much as it compels. There's no doubt that a successful economy is an important source of attraction. Sometimes in real-world situations, it is difficult to distinguish what part of an economic relationship is comprised of hard and soft power. European leaders describe other countries desire to accede to the European Union (EU) as a sign of Europe's soft power. Turkey today is making changes in its human rights policies and domestic law to adjust to EU standards. How much of this change is driven by the economic inducement of market access, and how much by the attractiveness of Europe's successful economic and political system? Its clear that some Turks are replying more to the hard power of inducement, whereas others are attracted to the European model of human rights and economic freedom."
This is most informative Luis. I was thinking of a Danish EU Commissioner who some years ago made a point of saying that the EU was not a soft but a smart power. I agree that her contention was, well. contentious!
Have you read Nye the Power to Lead (Oxford 2008)... there Nye suggest that smart power deals with the ability to contextualize information to allow the most effective combination of both soft and hard power. On page 83 Nye gives this chart for Smart Power in a leader:
"Smart Power (Combined Resources)
1. Contextual IQ (broad political skills) —Understand evolving environment
—Capitalize on trends (‘‘create luck’’)
—Adjust style to context and followers’ needs"
I also think that his concept of soft power becomes clearer when you look at how he presents in this book in that it he shows that it very much tied to the concept of charisma, or an attractiveness that brings people and followers to you. All too many people err when they see economic and trade as a form of soft power, this is again very much a form of hard power.
I endorse Luis da Vinha.. "
The target over which one seeks to exercise power—its internal nature and its broader global context. Power cannot be smart if those who wield it are ignorant of these attributes of the target populations and regions" .
If you take the above quote in the contexts of India and small political societies of South Asia, India is a smart power but failed power because it has been unable to win the heart and minds of south Asian even though they share many things in common. Sri Lankan ethnic conflict and her leaning to China is a classic example.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science