Go back to reference Seungeun, Lee Claire. A recent study on structural power combining theoretical spadework with empirical case studies is Andrej Pustovitovskij, Strukturelle Kraft in Internationalen Beziehungen: Ein Konzept der Macht in internationalen Verhandlungen (Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 2016). Enrico Fels, Jan-Frederik Kremer, and Katharina Kronenberg (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2012), pp. 53–60 or Jan-Frederik Kremer and Andrej Pustovitovskij, “Towards a New Understanding of Structural Power,” in Power in the 21 st Century: International Security and International Political Economy in a Changing World, eds. Ludger Kühnhardt and Tilman Mayer (Bonn: Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung, Discussion Paper C198, 2010), pp. 259–276 Xuewu Gu, “Global Power Shift: Soft, Hard and Structural Power,” in Die Gestaltung der Globalität: Annährungen an Begriff, Deutung und Methodik, eds. 53.įor works on structural power, see, for example, Xuewu Gu, “Strukturelle Macht: Eine dritte Machtquelle?,” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, Vol. Christopher Layne in this regard argued, “Although Nye does not cast soft power as a theory, it needs to be subjected to empirical testing to determine the validity of its claims and the robustness of its causal logic ” Layne, “The Unbearable Lightness of Soft Power,” p.
with regard to soft power rather than “the theory of soft power.” However, Nye’s objection seems rather to be aimed particularly against efforts to pigeonhole soft power into the canon of International Relations theories-as has been argued above-than against the classification of soft power as a theory per se, allowing for the applicability of Popper’s metaphor. In fact, this circumstance is the main reason why in the work in hand the author refers to terms like “concept,” “idea,” “phenomenon,” “notion,” etc. Inderjeet Parmar and Michael Cox (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010), p.
Nye, Jr., “Responding to My Critics and Concluding Thoughts,” in Soft Power and US Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, eds. Nye thus argued, “Soft power is an analytical concept, not a theory ” Joseph S. It may be argued that Joseph Nye himself refuses to call soft power a theory. In a final step, an excursus to the soft power on the Roman Empire rejoins the four subunits and illustrates the working of the taxonomy as a whole with recourse to a select historical example. Finally, on the receiving end of the soft power equation, the subunits of reception and outcomes are presented and discussed. Subsequently, public diplomacy is discussed as a pivotal instrument of soft power, while-concomitant to the newly introduced resource of personalities-the instrument of personal diplomacy is developed and integrated into the taxonomy. At the same time, he identifies personalities as a fourth-and highly influential-resource. Nye, Jr., the author subscribes to the importance of culture, values, and policies as crucial soft power resources. Proceeding especially from the works of Joseph S. With this in mind, the author for each of the subunits in turn (1) outlines the general rationale behind it, (2) explains its position and function in the overall taxonomy, (3) illustrates it by drawing on a range of historical as well as model examples, and finally (4) deduces and discusses respective indicators allowing for precise operationalization.