Hard Power, Soft Power and Smart Power: What’s the difference?

In International Relations, hard power, soft power, and smart power are concepts that have been introduced by Joseph Nye since the 1990s. He sought to understand a world in which the Soviet Union was collapsing and the United States seemed poised to rule uncontested. Yet he realized that American supremacy rested on much more than its sheer military and economic strength. It was also based on American culture and values, and in their worldwide acceptance. These attributes of power, usually in combination, explain why countries succeed or fail internationally. But differentiating them helps us make sense of what foreign policy strategy is best for each country.

What is power in international relations?

According to Chris Brown and Kirsten Ainley, there are 3 categories of power:

• Power is an attribute: it is something that states possess or have access to. In other words, it is something that they have at hand to deploy in the world. Examples of this are population size, territorial breadth, the size of the armed forces, the success of an economy, etc. The amount and significance of these factors may change over time. For instance, nuclear weapons allow North Korea to wage war even with a relatively small military.
• Power is a relationship: it is the ability that states have to exercise influence on others, to get their way in the world. In other words, it is the ability to get someone to do what it wouldn’t have done (compelling others) or not to do what it would have done (deterring others).
• Power is the property of a structure: it is something that either instigates or prevents change in social structures. For example, Antonio Gramsci, a Marxist revolutionary, believed that it was easier to overthrow capitalism in Russia than in Italy. According to him, capitalist institutions had so much power within Italian society that people considered them an essential part of it. If a Communist revolution was to break out, people would resist it.

Hard, soft and smart power can be both attributes of a country and how such a country uses these attributes to influence others. They are not so much related to the notion of power as the property of structure. But what are these concepts?

What is hard power?

When one thinks of power, the immediate image that often comes to mind is military or economic might. Hard power is the use of this measurable strength as a means to influence the behavior or interests of other states.

There are many elements that give such a capacity to a country, such as:

• The size of the population.
• The size of the GDP.
• The readiness of its armed forces.
• The amount of its strategic resources — for example, oil reserves.

Countries that are abundant in these elements usually have a much bigger voice in international affairs. They are able to coerce others into doing (or not doing) certain things. While this approach can be effective, it’s not without its limitations, and overreliance on it can sometimes backfire.

Sometimes, countries that have less coercive capacity can prevail over those that have more. That was the case in the Vietnam War (1955-1975), when the Communist government and its guerrilla successfully defeated the United States.

How did the idea of soft power emerge?

When the Cold War ended, many international relations scholars hypothesized that military and economic clout would lose importance in the world.

One of those was Samuel Huntington, whose book The Clash of Civilizations claimed that the “most important distinctions among peoples are [no longer] ideological, political, or economic. They are cultural”. He believed that the West would fade while other civilizations would flourish. To him, America’s hard power would not be enough to forestall that process.

Another author interested in the post-Cold War dynamics was Francis Fukuyama. Unlike Huntington, Fukuyama speculated that the demise of the Soviet Union meant the triumph of liberal democracy and capitalism. He thought that the United States and its partners would rule the world by the force of their institutions. Because of this, he claimed to be witnessing the “end of history” — that is, the end of all competition to Western ideals.

What both authors have in common is that they highlight the relevance of non-military and non-economic variables in today’s world. This idea goes hand in hand with the concept of soft power.

What is soft power?

According to Joseph Nye, soft power is the employment of cultural, ideological, and informational assets to persuade other nations to align with one’s goals, without resorting to coercion. It is not as mensurable as hard power, because it takes into account intangible assets of a state, such as:

• The traditions of its diplomacy.
• The appeal of its culture.
• The resilience of its political institutions.

For countries such as Brazil, these assets help to alleviate eventual weaknesses in its economy and armed forces. By pursuing a peaceful foreign policy and promoting cultural events abroad, the Brazilians hope to persuade others of their relevance. In the same vein, states like Switzerland expect to be left alone in exchange for their neutrality in international conflicts. Being neutral is a tradition and, most of the time, it prevents others from attacking them.

What is smart power?

In the beginning of the 2000s, Joseph Nye coined the expression “smart power”. It refers to a combination of the two other types of power: investing on material attributes while simultaneously building alliances and relationships to further one’s goals. It signifies the ability of a nation to use the right blend of coercion and persuasion, depending on the situation.

Countries like the United States and China actively work to increase their smart power. For instance, while American troops still have the world’s biggest budget, American movies and songs have long influenced foreigners. In fact, the “American way of life” remains an aspiration for many peoples around the globe. In addition, military alliances, like NATO and the TIAR, make its members more susceptible to favor American foreign interests.

The Chinese have been trying to counter this by promoting the Mandarin language and by engaging in charm offensives. In the past, for example, “panda diplomacy” was the practice of donating pandas to other nations as a friendly gift. Most recently, the Confucius Institute and the CGTN TV network are being used to promote Chinese culture overseas. In certain countries, these institutions are considered a part of the official propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party.

In essence, smart power means to recognize that neither hard nor soft power alone is adequate in today’s complex global landscape. It necessitates an adaptive approach, adjusting to the specific context and challenges at hand.

Conclusion

In the vast realm of global politics, understanding the differences between hard power, soft power, and smart power is pivotal. While hard power focuses on coercion through tangible means, soft power emphasizes attraction and persuasion. On the other hand, smart power seeks to merge the two, ensuring a more adaptive and strategic approach to international relations. According to Joseph Nye, countries that master smart power have a greater chance at becoming superpowers.