n May of 2017, American media coverage exploded with reports that then-President Donald Trump had chosen to visit Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip. This first presidential visit set the tone for a cozy relationship with Riyadh that was often met with media scrutiny. However, the impact of Trump’s controversial visit and others like it extends far beyond the headlines. In a new study, Benjamin E. Goldsmith, Yusaku Horiuchi, and Kelly Matush, researchers from The Australian National University, Dartmouth College, and Florida State University, respectively, sought to gauge the efficacy of public-diplomacy campaigns by measuring the impact of high-level visits. After interviewing 32,456 respondents in 38 different countries, researchers uncovered trends that spoke to the power of public diplomacy visits. Far from merely existing as presidential pomp and circumstance, public diplomacy visits offer a unique opportunity to shift global affairs through soft power.
To determine whether Vladimir Putin’s 2018 visit to Uzbekistan changed his public perception in Tashkent or whether one 2019 visit changed the Japanese perception of President Trump, Goldsmith, Horiuchi, and Matush analyzed 86 foreign visits over an 11-year period. The visits were conducted by 15 different political leaders hailing from 9 different countries. Researchers used Gallup World Poll data to gauge whether a high-level foreign visit had any positive impact on public opinion within a host country. So, for example, if researchers were to analyze the effects of Barack Obama’s 2009 visit to Denmark, they would consider Gallup poll answers submitted by Danish respondents just before and just after Obama’s visit.
Ultimately, if Denmark was a country considered in the study, Goldsmith, Horiuchi, and Matush would have likely learned that the Danish people developed a more positive opinion of Obama after his 2009 visit. Across all visits studied, researchers found that foreign leaders received an average approval increase of 2.3 percentage points following an international visit. Further, Gallup poll data from weeks after the foreign visits was used to determine that an increase in foreign leader approval lasted for as many as 20 days after the visit in question. And the impact of state visits is not merely correlated with military might. For example, when Putin visited Uzbekistan, the lasting public impression he left behind was not simply a function of Russian military prowess.
The findings of this study offer further insight into the ways countries wield soft power. It is often argued that public diplomacy is a critical tool for increasing a country’s soft-power resources. This research validates that argument by offering empirical evidence that public diplomacy can change foreign public opinion. This finding is huge for policymakers and researchers who might have otherwise been tempted to dismiss public diplomacy as a mere performance. Rather, with an improved understanding of how public diplomacy impacts foreign approval, global leaders might be able to use public visits as a tool to better their own international policy agendas.
Further, exploring the ways states can influence others without resorting to military force is of special importance in the middle of a crisis that has wreaked havoc no matter a country’s military might. Time and time again, the pandemic has proven that countries need to be able to cooperate if they are going to effectively tackle global issues, and time and time again, governments have indicated that cooperation was something that they needed to work on. From limiting the exportation of protective equipment to hoarding vaccines, states operated from a self-centered perspective when combatting the coronavirus. Now, as several wealthy countries are seeing national vaccination rates rise and coronavirus caseloads plummet, the importance of global cooperation is emphasized once again, as several poorer countries have only vaccinated meager single-digit percentages of their populations. As we enter this new phase of the pandemic, studies into soft power emphasize the importance of solving problems through cooperation and lay the foundation for tackling challenges that are yet to come. Perhaps foreign visits are sparse even at this particular stage of a global health crisis; however, this study of public diplomacy bears important implications for understanding how soft power might benefit countries as they prepare for the decade’s next global challenges.
a global affairs media network
The Importance Of Soft Power
Image by AdobeStock.
June 17, 2021
New research found that high-level public diplomacy visits deeply impact the global reputations of governments, for good or ill. This emphasizes the importance of soft power and the centrality of public diplomacy to expanding a country's soft-power resources.
I
n May of 2017, American media coverage exploded with reports that then-President Donald Trump had chosen to visit Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip. This first presidential visit set the tone for a cozy relationship with Riyadh that was often met with media scrutiny. However, the impact of Trump’s controversial visit and others like it extends far beyond the headlines. In a new study, Benjamin E. Goldsmith, Yusaku Horiuchi, and Kelly Matush, researchers from The Australian National University, Dartmouth College, and Florida State University, respectively, sought to gauge the efficacy of public-diplomacy campaigns by measuring the impact of high-level visits. After interviewing 32,456 respondents in 38 different countries, researchers uncovered trends that spoke to the power of public diplomacy visits. Far from merely existing as presidential pomp and circumstance, public diplomacy visits offer a unique opportunity to shift global affairs through soft power.
To determine whether Vladimir Putin’s 2018 visit to Uzbekistan changed his public perception in Tashkent or whether one 2019 visit changed the Japanese perception of President Trump, Goldsmith, Horiuchi, and Matush analyzed 86 foreign visits over an 11-year period. The visits were conducted by 15 different political leaders hailing from 9 different countries. Researchers used Gallup World Poll data to gauge whether a high-level foreign visit had any positive impact on public opinion within a host country. So, for example, if researchers were to analyze the effects of Barack Obama’s 2009 visit to Denmark, they would consider Gallup poll answers submitted by Danish respondents just before and just after Obama’s visit.
Ultimately, if Denmark was a country considered in the study, Goldsmith, Horiuchi, and Matush would have likely learned that the Danish people developed a more positive opinion of Obama after his 2009 visit. Across all visits studied, researchers found that foreign leaders received an average approval increase of 2.3 percentage points following an international visit. Further, Gallup poll data from weeks after the foreign visits was used to determine that an increase in foreign leader approval lasted for as many as 20 days after the visit in question. And the impact of state visits is not merely correlated with military might. For example, when Putin visited Uzbekistan, the lasting public impression he left behind was not simply a function of Russian military prowess.
The findings of this study offer further insight into the ways countries wield soft power. It is often argued that public diplomacy is a critical tool for increasing a country’s soft-power resources. This research validates that argument by offering empirical evidence that public diplomacy can change foreign public opinion. This finding is huge for policymakers and researchers who might have otherwise been tempted to dismiss public diplomacy as a mere performance. Rather, with an improved understanding of how public diplomacy impacts foreign approval, global leaders might be able to use public visits as a tool to better their own international policy agendas.
Further, exploring the ways states can influence others without resorting to military force is of special importance in the middle of a crisis that has wreaked havoc no matter a country’s military might. Time and time again, the pandemic has proven that countries need to be able to cooperate if they are going to effectively tackle global issues, and time and time again, governments have indicated that cooperation was something that they needed to work on. From limiting the exportation of protective equipment to hoarding vaccines, states operated from a self-centered perspective when combatting the coronavirus. Now, as several wealthy countries are seeing national vaccination rates rise and coronavirus caseloads plummet, the importance of global cooperation is emphasized once again, as several poorer countries have only vaccinated meager single-digit percentages of their populations. As we enter this new phase of the pandemic, studies into soft power emphasize the importance of solving problems through cooperation and lay the foundation for tackling challenges that are yet to come. Perhaps foreign visits are sparse even at this particular stage of a global health crisis; however, this study of public diplomacy bears important implications for understanding how soft power might benefit countries as they prepare for the decade’s next global challenges.
