Remembering Joseph S. Nye Jr.: An Ad Hoc Test of Soft Power

Joseph S. Nye Jr. passed on May 6, 2025. Unless you have studied international relations, you probably never heard of him, but you have heard of his ideas. He coined the term soft power, using diplomacy, cultural influence, and persuasion to achieve policy objectives over a prolonged period. Scholars and diplomats distinguish soft power from hard power, which uses military and economic force to achieve goals. He taught that hard and soft power are more effective when combined to create smart power, using strategic alliances, partnerships, and institutions to expand our influence and establish legitimacy in international affairs. He believed that soft power, properly applied, could reduce the overall cost of foreign policy by reducing the level of hard power needed to achieve objectives.

Nye summarized power and its use in a May 16, 2025, article by Project Syndicate titled “The Future of American Soft Power.” The Future of American Soft Power by Joseph S. Nye, Jr. - Project Syndicate

 “Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion (“sticks”), payment (“carrots”), and attraction (“honey”). The first two methods are forms of hard power, whereas attraction is soft power. Soft power grows out of a country’s culture, its political values, and its foreign policies. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” But the papacy continues today, while Stalin’s Soviet Union is long gone. 

 “When you are attractive, you can economize on carrots and sticks. If allies see you as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and follow your lead. If they see you as an unreliable bully, they are more likely to drag their feet and reduce their interdependence when they can. Cold War Europe is a good example. A Norwegian historian described Europe as divided into a Soviet and an American empire. But there was a crucial difference: the American side was “an empire by invitation.” That became clear when the Soviets had to deploy troops to Budapest in 1956, and to Prague in 1968. In contrast, NATO has not only survived but voluntarily increased its membership.”

 The Kennedy administration created the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 1961. It became an essential part of the government's projection of soft power. On March 28, 2025, the Trump administration shut it down. The action has been contested. The status of USAID and its programs is being argued in the courts. 

 The Chicago Booth’s US Economic Experts Panel answered three questions about the impact of eliminating its programs. Foreign Aid - Clark Center Forum These questions do not directly test Nye’s theories, but I have shoehorned them as an ad hoc test. As a note, I eliminated the category “did not answer” and adjusted the results. The questions and responses are as follows:

Question A: The cancellation of the majority of programs run by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) will have no measurable effects on GDP growth in the recipient countries over the next five years.

Question B: The cancellation of the majority of USAID programs will have substantially negative effects on the most vulnerable people in the recipient countries over the next five years.

Question C: Development assistance motivated by the potential benefits for the donors in terms of prosperity and security is measurably more effective in promoting GDP growth in recipient countries than aid based on humanitarian or other moral principles.

The survey, which I had appropriated to test Nye's theory of soft power, might be interpreted as weakly supporting the theory. Most economists (51%) were uncertain about how ending USAID aid would impact the future GDP growth of recipient countries. Thirty-five percent believed removing aid would impact future growth, and 12 percent thought it would not. Nearly all the economists believed that the USAID aid achieved humanitarian objectives. Ninety-eight percent believed that removing the aid would “have substantially negative effects on the most vulnerable people in the recipient countries over the next five years.” Is hard power, carrots and sticks, more effective for donor nations than soft power, honey? Most economists, 54 percent, were uncertain. Thirty-four percent believed it is not. None of the economists surveyed thought that hard power is more effective. Twelve percent offered no opinion.