**2. Definition and functions of public diplomacy**

Scholars have yet to form a unified understanding of the definition of the term 'public diplomacy' since it was first proposed in 1965. At present, there are still discussions in this field on 'traditional public diplomacy' and 'new public diplomacy'. It is now believed that, since the turn of the twenty-first century, public diplomacy has shown signs of transition and transformation from the former to the latter. New public diplomacy, a horizontal mode with multiple actors characterized by communication and cooperation, is version 2.0. It is an upgraded version of traditional public diplomacy, which is a hierarchical mode of information dissemination centred on the government [1–7].

Although there are many cognitive differences between the two, with the deepening of research, scholars have reached a certain degree of consensus on the connotation of public diplomacy in the following aspects. The first is with regard to implementation, wherein the government plays an indispensable and irreplaceable role. Even through the eyes of advocates of new public diplomacy, and their embrace of other implementing bodies such as NGOs and the general public, there is no difference between them and scholars of traditional public diplomacy as to the issue of the government as initiator and important promoter.

In fact, no matter how far public diplomacy develops in the networking direction, the nature of its diplomacy does not change at all. As a specific branch of diplomacy, the representativeness of sovereign states, which is closely related to the government, is its essential attribute. The second aspect is the object, or object of implementation, where targeting the people is recognized as the core difference between public diplomacy and traditional diplomacy. Third is the means of implementation, where cultural exchanges and media communication are regarded as the main means of promotion. According to these consensuses, therefore, public diplomacy can be defined as a diplomatic activity wherein the government is the initiator, the public is the object, and relevant policy measures, including foreign policy, are introduced through cultural exchanges, media publicity and other means.

**331**

*Public Diplomacy: Functions, Functional Boundaries and Measurement Methods*

clarifying the relationship between public diplomacy and soft power.

'power' of one actor on the behaviour of other actors.

Having clarified the definition of public diplomacy, we need to make clear its functions, as it is only when we know what public diplomacy should and can do that we can determine, according to this criterion, whether or not it is effective. At present, academic discussions on the effect of public diplomacy generally associate it with the concept of 'soft power' as proposed by Nye [8–12], and tend to take the size of a country's soft power as the core measure through which to evaluate the effect of its public diplomacy [13–17]. In order to define more clearly and reasonably the function of public diplomacy, this part will critically refer to Nye's theory when

The first problem when discussing 'soft power' is how to define the concept. To better understand how Nye defines and discusses soft power, we must first clarify how the more fundamental concept of power is defined. In the field of international relations, there are two ways to define 'power'. One is the 'power-asresources' approach, which treats power as an asset and attribute inherent in the state, with emphasis on the material resources needed to constitute it. The other is the 'relational power' approach, which emphasizes the impact of power on human

Based on the 'relational power' approach, Dahl gave a classic definition that is widely accepted and cited in the field of international relations: The so-called power is the ability of A to get B to do something he or she would otherwise not do [19]. The 'power-as-resources' approach defines 'power' as what we now commonly refer to as 'capability', while the 'relational power' approach emphasizes the effect of the

According to Nye's definition of soft power, it is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment [11]. Or, more specifically, 'soft power is the ability to affect others through the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuading and eliciting positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes' [12]. Obviously, Nye's definition of soft power follows the 'relational power' approach. What he calls 'soft power' emphasizes the influence of one actor,

Nye points out that the common ground between 'soft power' and 'hard power' is that whereby both kinds of power can change the behaviour of other countries. The difference between them consists in bringing about this change in different ways. Soft power works through attraction, and hard power through coercion or inducement. The reason why one country may have the 'soft' power through 'attraction' to change the behaviour of other countries lies in the assets this country possesses that are attractive to other countries. Nye calls this kind of asset a 'soft

In short, Nye's 'soft power' actually corresponds to the 'power' of the 'relational power' approach. What he called 'soft power resources' corresponds to 'power' as defined by the 'power-as-resources' approach, also commonly referred to as 'capability'. In this sense, 'soft power resources' can also be called 'soft capability'. The relationship between (soft/hard) capability and (soft/hard) power is shown in

It is obvious that a soft power resource is the material premise of soft power. Nye points out that the soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad) and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority) [9]. Public diplomacy plays an important

Governments (and sometimes not just governments) engage in public diplomacy by using their own soft power resources to attract other countries and form soft power. For example, 'Public diplomacy tries to attract by drawing attention

role in the process of transforming soft power resources into soft power.

rather than of the resources he owns, on the behaviour of another actor.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92664*

behaviour [18].

power resource' [9].

**Figure 1**.

#### *Public Diplomacy: Functions, Functional Boundaries and Measurement Methods DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92664*

Having clarified the definition of public diplomacy, we need to make clear its functions, as it is only when we know what public diplomacy should and can do that we can determine, according to this criterion, whether or not it is effective. At present, academic discussions on the effect of public diplomacy generally associate it with the concept of 'soft power' as proposed by Nye [8–12], and tend to take the size of a country's soft power as the core measure through which to evaluate the effect of its public diplomacy [13–17]. In order to define more clearly and reasonably the function of public diplomacy, this part will critically refer to Nye's theory when clarifying the relationship between public diplomacy and soft power.

The first problem when discussing 'soft power' is how to define the concept. To better understand how Nye defines and discusses soft power, we must first clarify how the more fundamental concept of power is defined. In the field of international relations, there are two ways to define 'power'. One is the 'power-asresources' approach, which treats power as an asset and attribute inherent in the state, with emphasis on the material resources needed to constitute it. The other is the 'relational power' approach, which emphasizes the impact of power on human behaviour [18].

Based on the 'relational power' approach, Dahl gave a classic definition that is widely accepted and cited in the field of international relations: The so-called power is the ability of A to get B to do something he or she would otherwise not do [19]. The 'power-as-resources' approach defines 'power' as what we now commonly refer to as 'capability', while the 'relational power' approach emphasizes the effect of the 'power' of one actor on the behaviour of other actors.

According to Nye's definition of soft power, it is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment [11]. Or, more specifically, 'soft power is the ability to affect others through the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuading and eliciting positive attraction in order to obtain preferred outcomes' [12]. Obviously, Nye's definition of soft power follows the 'relational power' approach. What he calls 'soft power' emphasizes the influence of one actor, rather than of the resources he owns, on the behaviour of another actor.

Nye points out that the common ground between 'soft power' and 'hard power' is that whereby both kinds of power can change the behaviour of other countries. The difference between them consists in bringing about this change in different ways. Soft power works through attraction, and hard power through coercion or inducement. The reason why one country may have the 'soft' power through 'attraction' to change the behaviour of other countries lies in the assets this country possesses that are attractive to other countries. Nye calls this kind of asset a 'soft power resource' [9].

In short, Nye's 'soft power' actually corresponds to the 'power' of the 'relational power' approach. What he called 'soft power resources' corresponds to 'power' as defined by the 'power-as-resources' approach, also commonly referred to as 'capability'. In this sense, 'soft power resources' can also be called 'soft capability'. The relationship between (soft/hard) capability and (soft/hard) power is shown in **Figure 1**.

It is obvious that a soft power resource is the material premise of soft power. Nye points out that the soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad) and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority) [9]. Public diplomacy plays an important role in the process of transforming soft power resources into soft power.

Governments (and sometimes not just governments) engage in public diplomacy by using their own soft power resources to attract other countries and form soft power. For example, 'Public diplomacy tries to attract by drawing attention

*Heritage*

demand attention.

However, owing to certain functional boundaries, public diplomacy does not work in all problem areas. In 'high-politics' such as territorial security, for instance, public diplomacy is likely to be of little use. But even in fields where public diplomacy can play a role, factors such as changes in power structure, differences in political systems and the quality of political relations among countries will still have impact on its effectiveness. The ultimate purpose of clarifying the function and functional boundaries of public diplomacy, therefore, is to measure more accurately its effect. This chapter further proposes that there are two main methods in this regard: one is the sampling survey method that is aimed at the general public, namely, the public opinion poll, and the other is that of the unstructured interview with a small specific group of people. Both methods have their advantages. As regards their practical application, however, certain matters

This chapter is divided into four parts as follows. The first part discusses the definition and functions of public diplomacy on the basis of combing through and criticizing the existing viewpoints, thus to clarify the judgment criteria of the effect of public diplomacy. The second part discusses the functional boundaries of public diplomacy and points out the disturbance variables that affect its actual effect. On the basis of the first two parts, the third part discusses two empirical methods through which to measure the effect of public diplomacy and the problems to which

Scholars have yet to form a unified understanding of the definition of the term 'public diplomacy' since it was first proposed in 1965. At present, there are still discussions in this field on 'traditional public diplomacy' and 'new public diplomacy'. It is now believed that, since the turn of the twenty-first century, public diplomacy has shown signs of transition and transformation from the former to the latter. New public diplomacy, a horizontal mode with multiple actors characterized by communication and cooperation, is version 2.0. It is an upgraded version of traditional public diplomacy, which is a hierarchical mode of information dissemination

Although there are many cognitive differences between the two, with the deepening of research, scholars have reached a certain degree of consensus on the connotation of public diplomacy in the following aspects. The first is with regard to implementation, wherein the government plays an indispensable and irreplaceable role. Even through the eyes of advocates of new public diplomacy, and their embrace of other implementing bodies such as NGOs and the general public, there is no difference between them and scholars of traditional public diplomacy as to the

In fact, no matter how far public diplomacy develops in the networking direction, the nature of its diplomacy does not change at all. As a specific branch of diplomacy, the representativeness of sovereign states, which is closely related to the government, is its essential attribute. The second aspect is the object, or object of implementation, where targeting the people is recognized as the core difference between public diplomacy and traditional diplomacy. Third is the means of implementation, where cultural exchanges and media communication are regarded as the main means of promotion. According to these consensuses, therefore, public diplomacy can be defined as a diplomatic activity wherein the government is the initiator, the public is the object, and relevant policy measures, including foreign policy, are introduced through cultural exchanges, media publicity and other means.

attention should be paid in this regard. The fourth part is the conclusion.

**2. Definition and functions of public diplomacy**

issue of the government as initiator and important promoter.

centred on the government [1–7].

**330**

to these potential resources through broadcasting, subsidizing cultural exports, arranging exchanges, and so forth'. However, using unappealing resources (that is, non-soft power resources) to carry out public diplomacy will not create soft power and may produce the opposite result. For example, 'Exporting Hollywood films full of nudity and violence to conservative Muslim countries may produce repulsion' [11].

In sum, Nye's theory presents a process chain from assets to soft power resources and then to soft power. Based on this theory, the function of public diplomacy is to transform soft power resources into soft power, that is, to use soft power resources to change other countries' behaviour by attracting other countries' publics (**Figure 2**).

Nye's contribution to the study of public diplomacy lies in his creative integration of public diplomacy and his theory of soft power, which provides a theoretical framework for the analysis and study of public diplomacy and important enlightenment for us to define the function of public diplomacy.

However, Nye's specific views on the relationship between public diplomacy and soft power are debatable. To be specific, as Nye placed public diplomacy in step ② as shown in **Figure 2**, other scholars have therefore defined the function of public diplomacy as 'transforming soft power resources into soft power'. In the author's view, this point is difficult to establish. The definition of public diplomacy determines that it can only appear in step ① and not in step ②.

Step ② refers to the transformation of 'soft power resources' into 'soft power'. The process entails the target country making policies or exhibiting behaviour favourable to another country because the target public likes and supports certain of that country's assets. The action mechanism here is as follows. The direct reason why the government of a target country will support the country with soft power lies in its need to maintain the stability of its own regime. When the domestic public of the target country has an extremely positive attitude towards the source country of the soft power, the stability of that regime will face great pressure from the domestic public should the target country's government blindly adopt negative policies. This is Audience cost theory [20–22].

#### **Figure 1.**

*The relationship between (soft/hard) capability and (soft/hard) power.*

**333**

power resources.

*Public Diplomacy: Functions, Functional Boundaries and Measurement Methods*

macy is the people, rather than governments, of other countries.

is limited to work that targets the public of other countries.

menting object, should and can achieve.

general assets into soft power resources (**Figure 3**).

But the problem is that, whether according to the definition of public diplomacy or the actual work of public diplomacy carried out by every country, public diplomacy will not get involved in this step at all. A core difference between public diplomacy and other forms of diplomacy is that the direct object of public diplo-

In fact, as a diplomatic practice, public diplomacy is generated and exists based on the assumption that the attitude of the people of a country will influence the policies of the government. Thus, as a supplement to traditional diplomacy, and also as distinct from traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy only focuses on changes of public attitudes in the target country, whose people it is that exert pressure on their government to change its attitude. By definition, once a country's diplomatic work involves direct contact with other governments, it will be classified as traditional diplomacy, or government diplomacy, instead of public diplomacy. In this sense, as long as it is public diplomacy, it cannot appear in step ②. Empirically speaking, therefore, the actual practice of public diplomacy in countries throughout the world

Step ① refers to the process of transformation from 'assets' to 'soft power resources'. According to Nye's definition, 'soft power resources' refer to those assets that the public of other countries likes or supports, and which are therefore attractive to them. Assets (such as a certain culture, political values or policy) themselves will not change. The reason why assets can transform into 'soft power resources' is that the public opinion of other countries towards these assets changes from 'not knowing' and 'not liking' to 'knowing' and 'liking'. Thus, the transformation from 'assets' into 'soft power resources' is, in fact, the change of attitude of the public of other countries towards certain of the implementing country's 'assets'. Such a change in attitude is exactly what public diplomacy, with the public as the imple-

To be specific, the countries implementing public diplomacy can clarify and explain their policy positions through various information channels, such as information release and international broadcasting. They may thus prove to the peoples of target countries the legitimacy of their policies through information campaigns and personnel exchanges which demonstrate that their values are the same at home and abroad. Through cultural exchanges and other activities, these countries can also enable the people of target countries to learn more about implementing their culture, thus creating conditions for the production of attractive effects. In short, public diplomacy can turn assets that are not 'soft power resources' into new soft

In a nutshell, public diplomacy itself only involves interaction with other countries' publics; interaction with other countries' governments is not included. This determines that public diplomacy can work only in Step ① rather than Step ②. In addition, if the function of public diplomacy is to change the behaviour of the government of the target country, then such a function lacks particularity. The ultimate goal of all diplomacy is to pursue changes in the behaviour of the target government. As just one of many diplomatic tasks, however, public diplomacy obviously needs its own unique goals and functions. If the function of public diplomacy also includes achieving a change in the behaviour of the target country's government, then, as a subclass of diplomacy, public diplomacy becomes indistinguishable from other subclasses of diplomacy, which negates the need for it to exist in its own right. From the perspective of the uniqueness of diplomatic work, therefore, the function of public diplomacy should be distinct from that of traditional diplomacy. To conclude, the relationship between public diplomacy and soft power is not, as Nye believes, to transform soft power resources into soft power, but to transform

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92664*

**Figure 2.** *Nye's relation between public diplomacy and soft power.*

#### *Public Diplomacy: Functions, Functional Boundaries and Measurement Methods DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92664*

But the problem is that, whether according to the definition of public diplomacy or the actual work of public diplomacy carried out by every country, public diplomacy will not get involved in this step at all. A core difference between public diplomacy and other forms of diplomacy is that the direct object of public diplomacy is the people, rather than governments, of other countries.

In fact, as a diplomatic practice, public diplomacy is generated and exists based on the assumption that the attitude of the people of a country will influence the policies of the government. Thus, as a supplement to traditional diplomacy, and also as distinct from traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy only focuses on changes of public attitudes in the target country, whose people it is that exert pressure on their government to change its attitude. By definition, once a country's diplomatic work involves direct contact with other governments, it will be classified as traditional diplomacy, or government diplomacy, instead of public diplomacy. In this sense, as long as it is public diplomacy, it cannot appear in step ②. Empirically speaking, therefore, the actual practice of public diplomacy in countries throughout the world is limited to work that targets the public of other countries.

Step ① refers to the process of transformation from 'assets' to 'soft power resources'. According to Nye's definition, 'soft power resources' refer to those assets that the public of other countries likes or supports, and which are therefore attractive to them. Assets (such as a certain culture, political values or policy) themselves will not change. The reason why assets can transform into 'soft power resources' is that the public opinion of other countries towards these assets changes from 'not knowing' and 'not liking' to 'knowing' and 'liking'. Thus, the transformation from 'assets' into 'soft power resources' is, in fact, the change of attitude of the public of other countries towards certain of the implementing country's 'assets'. Such a change in attitude is exactly what public diplomacy, with the public as the implementing object, should and can achieve.

To be specific, the countries implementing public diplomacy can clarify and explain their policy positions through various information channels, such as information release and international broadcasting. They may thus prove to the peoples of target countries the legitimacy of their policies through information campaigns and personnel exchanges which demonstrate that their values are the same at home and abroad. Through cultural exchanges and other activities, these countries can also enable the people of target countries to learn more about implementing their culture, thus creating conditions for the production of attractive effects. In short, public diplomacy can turn assets that are not 'soft power resources' into new soft power resources.

In a nutshell, public diplomacy itself only involves interaction with other countries' publics; interaction with other countries' governments is not included. This determines that public diplomacy can work only in Step ① rather than Step ②.

In addition, if the function of public diplomacy is to change the behaviour of the government of the target country, then such a function lacks particularity. The ultimate goal of all diplomacy is to pursue changes in the behaviour of the target government. As just one of many diplomatic tasks, however, public diplomacy obviously needs its own unique goals and functions. If the function of public diplomacy also includes achieving a change in the behaviour of the target country's government, then, as a subclass of diplomacy, public diplomacy becomes indistinguishable from other subclasses of diplomacy, which negates the need for it to exist in its own right. From the perspective of the uniqueness of diplomatic work, therefore, the function of public diplomacy should be distinct from that of traditional diplomacy.

To conclude, the relationship between public diplomacy and soft power is not, as Nye believes, to transform soft power resources into soft power, but to transform general assets into soft power resources (**Figure 3**).

*Heritage*

repulsion' [11].

(**Figure 2**).

to these potential resources through broadcasting, subsidizing cultural exports, arranging exchanges, and so forth'. However, using unappealing resources (that is, non-soft power resources) to carry out public diplomacy will not create soft power and may produce the opposite result. For example, 'Exporting Hollywood films full of nudity and violence to conservative Muslim countries may produce

In sum, Nye's theory presents a process chain from assets to soft power resources and then to soft power. Based on this theory, the function of public diplomacy is to transform soft power resources into soft power, that is, to use soft power resources

Nye's contribution to the study of public diplomacy lies in his creative integration of public diplomacy and his theory of soft power, which provides a theoretical framework for the analysis and study of public diplomacy and important enlighten-

However, Nye's specific views on the relationship between public diplomacy and soft power are debatable. To be specific, as Nye placed public diplomacy in step ② as shown in **Figure 2**, other scholars have therefore defined the function of public diplomacy as 'transforming soft power resources into soft power'. In the author's view, this point is difficult to establish. The definition of public diplomacy deter-

Step ② refers to the transformation of 'soft power resources' into 'soft power'. The process entails the target country making policies or exhibiting behaviour favourable to another country because the target public likes and supports certain of that country's assets. The action mechanism here is as follows. The direct reason why the government of a target country will support the country with soft power lies in its need to maintain the stability of its own regime. When the domestic public of the target country has an extremely positive attitude towards the source country of the soft power, the stability of that regime will face great pressure from the domestic public should the target country's government blindly adopt negative

to change other countries' behaviour by attracting other countries' publics

ment for us to define the function of public diplomacy.

mines that it can only appear in step ① and not in step ②.

policies. This is Audience cost theory [20–22].

*The relationship between (soft/hard) capability and (soft/hard) power.*

*Nye's relation between public diplomacy and soft power.*

**332**

**Figure 2.**

**Figure 1.**

**Figure 3.**

*Author's relation between public diplomacy and soft power.*

Since the function of public diplomacy is to create soft power resources, and soft power resources refer to those assets that are accepted or favoured by the people of the target country, the success of a public diplomacy project is judged according to whether or not it improves or enhances the people of the target country's evaluation of one aspect of the implementing country. In other words, what we actually measure is whether or not public diplomacy expands a country's soft power resources.

### **3. Functional boundaries and influencing factors of public diplomacy**

Given that the basic function of public diplomacy is to create soft power resources, could it also play a role in all problem areas by changing the perception or evaluation of the people of target countries? And if such restricted areas do exist, can the function of public diplomacy be fully realized in areas where it could play a role? The answer to all of these questions is clearly no. This is the utility boundary, and possible influencing factor of public diplomacy.

First, public diplomacy is likely to be of little use in the 'high politics' of territorial security. Whether the public diplomacy of the US in the Middle East since the turn of the twenty-first century or the publicity of the Chinese and Japanese governments against each other's people in recent years with regard to the Diaoyu Islands issue, the effect is not ideal. Obviously, it is not due to the US's public diplomacy work that people in the Middle East do not recognize the legitimacy of the US's invasion and interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Libya, and nor do the Chinese and Japanese people object to the territorial claims of their own governments due to the publicity work of the other government.

This reminds us that communication and mutual trust are ineffective when it comes to territorial security, especially territorial disputes, where one party gains a zero-sum conflict at the expense of the other. It will be difficult to persuade their people to accept 'legitimate' interference in their territory and to give up their claims to territory and rights no matter how convincingly countries tell their own stories. Public diplomacy is of little use, therefore, when it comes to the 'high politics' of territorial security.

Second, in the field where public diplomacy could play a role, its effect will still be affected by the following factors. The first is the inevitable structural contradiction between a country's rising power and that of other countries. The negative impact of this factor on the effect of public diplomacy is typified by China's public diplomacy towards Japan. Global View 2008 surveys taken in Chicago showed that the Japanese had the lowest level of favourable views on China, behind those of South Korea, Indonesia and Vietnam. 89% of Japanese respondents said they were either 'somewhat' or 'very' uncomfortable with the idea of China's 1 day becoming the leader of Asia [14].

The key reason lies in the semi-structured interviews with Dinnie and Lio. When asked, 'What are the key challenges facing China in its attempts to build a positive reputation within Japan?', one Japanese journalist interviewee admitted,

**335**

*Public Diplomacy: Functions, Functional Boundaries and Measurement Methods*

'The Japanese people and their elected representatives, sensitive to China's growing strength and acutely aware of Japan's deficiencies, are unnerved by China's growing power and Japan's economic dependence on China'. Another interviewee, a director of one of Japan's cultural and political institutes, agreed that there was 'fear in Japan of China getting bigger and Japan smaller, that's the heart of the matter. It's hard for

The second factor is that of differences in political systems. It is in China's public diplomacy towards Europe that this factor has the most obviously negative impact. According to Dutch scholar d'Hooghe, Europe is deeply concerned about China's domestic conditions; much more so, it appears, than the United States. China's high favourability rating in Europe at the beginning of this decade rapidly declined after 2006. 'China-hype' has gradually transmuted into fear of a rising China and dissatisfaction with the slow pace of China's political reform and human rights

Jhee's research also confirms the existence of national prejudice [14], which shows that people's evaluation of a country's political system is largely irrational. People tend to like a particular political system not because it works, but simply because their ideology and values align with it. On the other hand, cost-benefit considerations make it impossible for an executive to change his or her regime just to 'please' the people of the target country. This means that it is neither possible for China to change its own political system voluntarily nor to win the favour of Western people by demonstrating the effectiveness (superiority) of its own political system. In this sense, it is difficult to avoid completely the negative impact of the difference in political system on the public goodwill of the target country—that is,

The third factor is political relations between countries. A study the author conducted on the empirical evaluation of the effects of China's public diplomacy in six countries made clear that this factor has significantly influenced the public of the United States and of the United Kingdom's evaluation of China, but in different directions [24]. China-US relations have a negative impact on the favourable opinion of the American people towards China. The more positive China-US relations become, the less favourable the US public will feel towards China. Meanwhile, the political relationship between China and the UK has a positive impact on the favourable opinion of the British people towards China. Further research is undoubtedly needed as to why bilateral political relations should have such opposite effects. However, with regard to the issue of the effect of public diplomacy as subordinate to that of the level of political and security relations, this should be

All of the above variables are likely to influence (either drag down or improve) to varying degrees the goodwill of people in the target country towards the implementing country. Therefore, when these variables coexist with the public diplomacy activities themselves, we cannot assess whether or not the public diplomacy conducted towards the country is effective based simply on the decline or increase of favourable opinion, but need to control as far as possible the influence of these

If defining the function and effect evaluation criteria of public diplomacy is to define 'what to measure', then we need also to know what methods are needed to measure the effect of public diplomacy, that is, 'the measuring tools', and how to measure the effect of public diplomacy through these methods, that is, 'how to measure'. There

interfering variables through rigorous research design.

**4. Measurement of the effect of public diplomacy**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92664*

China to deal with this' [23].

on the effect of public diplomacy.

situation [15].

relatively certain.

#### *Public Diplomacy: Functions, Functional Boundaries and Measurement Methods DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92664*

'The Japanese people and their elected representatives, sensitive to China's growing strength and acutely aware of Japan's deficiencies, are unnerved by China's growing power and Japan's economic dependence on China'. Another interviewee, a director of one of Japan's cultural and political institutes, agreed that there was 'fear in Japan of China getting bigger and Japan smaller, that's the heart of the matter. It's hard for China to deal with this' [23].

The second factor is that of differences in political systems. It is in China's public diplomacy towards Europe that this factor has the most obviously negative impact. According to Dutch scholar d'Hooghe, Europe is deeply concerned about China's domestic conditions; much more so, it appears, than the United States. China's high favourability rating in Europe at the beginning of this decade rapidly declined after 2006. 'China-hype' has gradually transmuted into fear of a rising China and dissatisfaction with the slow pace of China's political reform and human rights situation [15].

Jhee's research also confirms the existence of national prejudice [14], which shows that people's evaluation of a country's political system is largely irrational. People tend to like a particular political system not because it works, but simply because their ideology and values align with it. On the other hand, cost-benefit considerations make it impossible for an executive to change his or her regime just to 'please' the people of the target country. This means that it is neither possible for China to change its own political system voluntarily nor to win the favour of Western people by demonstrating the effectiveness (superiority) of its own political system. In this sense, it is difficult to avoid completely the negative impact of the difference in political system on the public goodwill of the target country—that is, on the effect of public diplomacy.

The third factor is political relations between countries. A study the author conducted on the empirical evaluation of the effects of China's public diplomacy in six countries made clear that this factor has significantly influenced the public of the United States and of the United Kingdom's evaluation of China, but in different directions [24]. China-US relations have a negative impact on the favourable opinion of the American people towards China. The more positive China-US relations become, the less favourable the US public will feel towards China. Meanwhile, the political relationship between China and the UK has a positive impact on the favourable opinion of the British people towards China. Further research is undoubtedly needed as to why bilateral political relations should have such opposite effects. However, with regard to the issue of the effect of public diplomacy as subordinate to that of the level of political and security relations, this should be relatively certain.

All of the above variables are likely to influence (either drag down or improve) to varying degrees the goodwill of people in the target country towards the implementing country. Therefore, when these variables coexist with the public diplomacy activities themselves, we cannot assess whether or not the public diplomacy conducted towards the country is effective based simply on the decline or increase of favourable opinion, but need to control as far as possible the influence of these interfering variables through rigorous research design.
