Revising the soft power concept: What are the means and mechanisms of soft power?

Journal of Political Power

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 49-64

  Rothman, Steven B ^a  

^a RITSUMEIKAN ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Agenda setting; Concept validity; Foreign policy; Framing; Soft power

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957882342     PISSN: 2158379X     EISSN: 21583803     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2011.556346     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Acharya, A., 2004. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58 (Spring), 239–275.
2. Altheide, D.L., 2002. Creating fear: news and the construction of crisis. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
3. Armistead, L., 2004. Information operations : warfare and the hard reality of soft power. 1st ed. Washington, DC: Brassey’s.
4. Arrow, K.J., 1963. Social choice and individual values. 2d ed. New York: Wiley.
5. Austen-Smith, D., 1987. Sophisticated sincerity: voting over endogenous agendas. American Political Science Review, 81 (4), 1323–1330.
6. Axelrod, R., 1986. An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review, 80 (4), 1095–1111.
7. Bachrach, P., and Baratz, M.S., 1962. Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56 (4), 947–952.
8. Baldwin, D.A., 2002. Power and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, B.A. Simmons, and T. Risse-Kappen, eds. Handbook of international relations. London: Sage, 177–191.
9. Benford, R.D., and Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (1), 611–639.
10. Bennett, A., and Elman, C., 2005. Typologies and typological theory (Workshop material, Training Institute of Qualitative Research Methods). Tempe: Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods.
11. Birkland, T.A., 1997. After disaster: agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
12. Boyle, E.H., Songora, F., and Foss, G., 2001. International discourses and local politics: antifemale- genital-cutting laws in Egypt, Tanzania, and the United States. Social Problems, 48 (4), 524–544.
13. Brady, H.E., and Seawright, J., 2004. Framing social inquiry: from models of causation to statistically based causal inference. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 28 August, in Chicago.
14. Cameron, M.A., Lawson, R.J., and Tomlin, B.W., 1998. To walk without fear: the global movement to ban landmines. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
15. Carpenter, C., 2007. Setting the advocacy agenda: theorizing issue emergence and nonemergence in transnational advocacy networks. International Studies Quarterly, 51 (1), 99–120.
16. Carr, E.H., 1956. The twenty years’ crisis, 1919–1939: an introduction to the study of international relations. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row.
17. Checkel, J.T., 1998. The constructivist turn in international relations theory. World Politics, 50 (January), 324–348.
18. Collier, D., and Mahon, J.E., 1993. Conceptual stretching revisited: adapting categories in comparative analysis. American Political Science Review, 87 (4), 845–855.
19. Dahl, R.A., 1957. The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 210–215.
20. Drake, W.J., 2001. From agenda to accord. In P.J. Simmons and C.de. J. Oudraat, eds. Managing global issues: lessons learned. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 25–76.
21. Epstein, C., 2008. The power of words in international relations: birth of an anti-whaling discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Finnemore, M., and Sikkink, K., 1998. International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52 (4), 997–917.
23. Gallarotti, G.M., 2010. Cosmopolitan power in international relations : a synthesis of realism, neoliberalism, and constructivism. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Goertz, G., 2005. Social science concepts: a user’s guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25. Goertz, G., and Mahoney, J., 2005. Two-level theories and fuzzy-set analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 33 (4), 487–538.
26. Greenpeace. 2006. Oceans. Available from http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/oceans [Accessed 7 October 2006].
27. Gubin, S.L., 1995. Between regimes and realism – transnational agenda setting: Soviet compliance with CSCE human rights norms. Human Rights Quarterly, 17 (2), 278–302.
28. Haas, P., 1992. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46 (1), 1–35.
29. Hafner-Burton, E.M., 2008. Sticks and stones: naming and shaming the human rights enforcement problem. International Organization, 62 (4), 689–716.
30. Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., and Rittberger, V., 1997. Theories of international regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Ikenberry, G.J., 2001. After victory: institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32. Jasanoff, S., 1995. Skinning scientific cats. In K. Conca, M. Alberty, and G.D. Dabelko, eds. Green planet blues: environmental politics from Stockholm to Rio. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 179–189.
33. Jenkins, G., 2007. Soft power, strategic security, and international philanthropy. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 775.
34. Joachim, J.M., 2007. Agenda setting, the UN, and NGOs: gender violence and reproductive rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
35. Kalland, A., 2009. Unveiling the whale: discourses on whales and whaling. New York: Berghahn Books.
36. Kaufman, S.J., 2001. Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
37. Keck, M.E., and Sikkink, K., 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38. Keohane, R.O., and Nye, J.S., 1989. Power and interdependence. 2nd ed. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
39. Kingdon, J.W., 2003. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
40. Krasner, S., 1983. International regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
41. Kratochwil, F.V., 1989. Rules, norms, and decisions: on the conditions of practical and legal reasoning in international relations and domestic affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Kurlantzick, J., 2007. Charm offensive: how China’s soft power is transforming the world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43. Lake, D.A., and Rothchild, D.S., 1998. The international spread of ethnic conflict: fear, diffusion, and escalation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44. Livingston, S.G., 1992. The politics of international agenda-setting: reagan and north-south relations. International Studies Quarterly, 36, 313–330.
45. Machiavelli, N., 1935. The prince. Trans. W.K. Marriott. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.
46. March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P., 2004. The logic of appropriateness. ARENA Working Papers WP 09/2004. Available from: http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arenapublications/workingpapers/working-papers2004/04_09.xml.
47. Mazarr, M.J., 2007. The Iraq war and agenda setting. Foreign Policy Analysis, 3, 1–23.
48. McKelvey, R.D., 1976. Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory, 12, 472–482.
49. Mearsheimer, J.J., 1994. The false promise of international institutions. International Security, 19 (Winter), 5–49.
50. Mitchell, R.B., 2002. International environment. In: W. Carlsnaes, B.A. Simmons, and T. Risse-Kappen, eds. Handbook of international relations. London: Sage, 500–516.
51. Morgenthau, H.J., 1948. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. 1st ed. New York: A. A. Knopf.
52. Nye, J.S., 1990. Soft power. Foreign Policy, Autumn (80), 153–172.
53. Nye, J.S., 2004. Soft power: the means to success in world politics. 1st ed. New York: Public Affairs.
54. Ordeshook, P.C., and Schwartz, T., 1987. Agendas and the control of political outcomes. American Political Science Review, 81 (1), 179–200.
55. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. PewResearchCenter, 2010. U.S. favorability rating: from Pew Global Attitudes Project. Available from http://pewglobal.org/files/2010/06/269-0-01.png [Accessed 7 December 2010].
57. Porter, G., Brown, J.W., and Chasek, P.S., 2000. Global environmental politics. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
58. Posen, B.R., 1993. The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35 (1), 24–47.
59. Riker, W.H., 1986. The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
60. Risse, T., 2000. ‘Let’s argue!’: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54 (1), 1–39.
61. Rogowski, R., 1999. Institutions as constraints on strategic choice. In D.A. Lake and R. Powell, eds. Strategic choice and international relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 115–136.
62. Rotberg, R.I., 2004. When states fail: causes and consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
63. Rothman, S.B., 2009. Explaining the international agenda: frames and power in politics. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Oregon.
64. Ruggie, J.G., 1998. What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization, 52 (4), 855–885.
65. Schattschneider, E.E., 1975. The semisovereign people: a realist’s view of democracy in america. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
66. Shepsle, K.A., 1979. Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 27–60.
67. Snow, D.A., and Benford, R.D., 1988. Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.
68. Sprinz, D., and Vaahtoranta, T., 1994. The interest-based explanation of international environmental policy. International Organization, 48 (1), 77–105.
69. Stone, D.A., 1989. Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104 (2), 281–300.
70. Taleb, N., 2007. The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. 1st ed. New York: Random House.
71. Tannenwald, N., 1999. The nuclear tTaboo: the United States and the normative basis of nuclear non-use. International Organization, 53 (3), 433–468.
72. Thayer, B.A., 2004. Darwin and international relations: on the evolutionary origins of war and ethnic conflict. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
73. Thompson, W.R., 2001. Evolutionary interpretations of world politics. New York: Routledge.
74. Thucydides. 1954. The Melian dialogue. In P.R. Viotti and M.V. Kauppi, eds. International relations theory: realism, pluralism, globalism, and beyond. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 100–105.
75. Wagner, C., 2005. From hard power to soft power? Ideas, interaction, institutions, and images in India’s South Asia policy. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, Working Paper No. 26. Available from: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2005/5436/pdf/hpsacp26.pdf
76. Warleigh, A., 2004. European Union: the basics. London/New York: Routledge.
77. Weiss, E.B., and Jacobson, H.K., 1998. Engaging countries: strengthening compliance with international environmental accords. Cambridge: MIT Press.
78. Young, O.R., 1989. International cooperation: building regimes for natural resources and the environment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
79. Young, O.R., 1998. Creating regimes: Arctic accords and international governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
80. Zurn, M., 1998. The rise of international environmental politics: a review of current research. World Politics, 50 (4), 617–649.