A theory of soft power and Korea's soft power strategy

Abstract

Abstract This paper suggests a new definition of soft power by making a distinction between hard resources and soft resources, rather than by differentiating between coercive power and cooptive power as Joseph Nye did. When non-material symbolic “soft resources” are employed to exert influence on others, the final outcome is regarded as soft power, while the final outcome is defined as hard power when material “hard resources” are employed. Therefore, within this definition, soft power can be both cooptive and coercive, and so can hard power. This new definition is useful for countries that are considered to be middle powers which are limited in terms of hard resources, but have the potential to develop soft resources. This paper also categorizes five different types of soft power in accordance with specific soft power goals. They are (1) soft power to improve the external security environment by projecting peaceful and attractive images of a country; (2) soft power to mobilize other countries’ support for foreign and security policies; (3) soft power to manipulate other countries’ styles of thinking and preferences; (4) soft power to maintain unity within a community or community of countries; and (5) soft power to increase the approval ratings of a leader or domestic support for a government. Categorization of different types of soft power is important because it enables us to think in more strategic and goal-oriented terms. The last section of the paper assesses Korea's soft power capacity and potential within this theoretical framework, followed by a few policy recommendations.