A look back at which CPD features captured your attention this month.
Sir Martin Davidson analyzes why China's soft power ranking does not match the amount it spends.
At a time when Europe appears ever more self-absorbed and the U.S. questions many of the foundations of post-war prosperity which it created, China appears ever more self-assured in offering an alternative narrative. [...] Despite this massive investment, China’s soft power still languishes far behind that of its Western rivals in most comparative studies: 28th out of 30 in Portland’s 2016 report on soft power or 20th out of 25 according to Monocle.
Ilan Manor responds to a recent article which examined the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy's report on data-driven public diplomacy.
Last month, All Azimuth published an article by Bean and Comor titled "Data Driven Public Diplomacy: A Critical and Reflexive Assessment." As the scholars note, the rise of digital technologies, and the utilization of digital platforms in public diplomacy, has seen a greater emphasis on measuring public diplomacy activities and their ability to influence foreign populations. From big data sets to social media analytics, public diplomacy and its evaluation is indeed data-driven.
To be an effective public diplomat, you need a well of sufficient soft power resources on which to draw. There is no canonical definition of public diplomacy (PD), but the official practice of it involves using informational, educational, and cultural tools to engage with international audiences to advance foreign policy goals. For the United States, PD officials often design strategies and employ tools that leverage what makes America popular and attractive.
Katherine Brown delves into the importance of evaluating public diplomacy and offers advice on how to do so.
Authors Hamilton Bean and Edward Comor try to identify what motivates the search for methods to evaluate public diplomacy.