Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Their relationship.

Both nation branding and public diplomacy have been defined in such a way, which make them open to a wide range of interpretations. Their relationship suffers from poor conceptualisation as well as from misunderstanding between international relations scholars and marketing communication scholars.

The theory and practice of Public diplomacy has an American origin, whereas nation branding has a more European root with a clear British dominance. Simon Anholt and Wally Olins the advocates of nation branding who have largely contributed to its evolution and practice are both British. British marketing and branding agencies are prime providers of nation branding services to countries and their governments. However there are dozen books that deal with the theory, practice and history of public diplomacy, but there are only few books devoted to the concept of nation branding, mostly authored by Simon Anholt “the father” of nation branding.

Public Diplomacy dates back to the middle of the 19^th century. In the mid 1960’s the term acquired a new meaning when Edmund Gullion referred to public diplomacy to describe the influence of public attitudes on the formation of foreign policies. Based on the Gullion’s concept public diplomacy “encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in their countries; interaction of private groups and interests of one country with another; communication of diplomats and foreign correspondents. On the other hand the practice and theory of nation branding its new although some practitioners (Olins 2002) argue that countries have branded and re-branded themselves thought the history, therefore nation branding it is not a new concept but just a new term. Nations have long engaged in image cultivation and image management. Bolin has examined the World’s Fairs as a long-standing tool of nation marketing from the middle of 19^th century.

Public diplomacy is rooted in conflicts and related to different levels of tension between states and other actors; a peaceful political environment it is not necessary condition for engaging in public diplomacy, which is not the case with nation branding. However nation branding can be conceptualised as a special area of place branding. Nation branding concerns applying branding and marketing communication techniques to promote a nation’s image. (Fan, 2006; 6). This definition highlights that nation branding is concerned with image promotion. Gudjonsson (2005) states that: “Nation branding occurs when a government or a private company uses its power to persuade whoever has the ability to change a nation’s image. Nation branding uses the tools of branding to change the behavior, identity or image of a nation in a positive way. (Gudjonsson , 285). He also argues that nations cannot be branded per se, however governments and other public institutions can use the techniques of branding. Nation branding however can be conceptualised independently from branding. It can be defined as a strategic self-representation with the aim of creating reputational capital through economic, political and social interest promotion at home and abroad. Widler concludes the distinction between nation –as- state and nation-as- people is vague and it is not clear what exactly is exercised in the course of nation –branding.

Public diplomacy means government communication aimed at foreign audiences to achieve changes in the “heart or mind “of people. Public diplomacy can also refer to domestic public in two ways: either as a domestic input from citizens for foreign policy formulation or explaining foreign policy goals and diplomacy to domestic public. Earlier definitions of public diplomacy evolved strategies of promotion and persuasion and were related to self-interest and impression management. Public diplomacy also describes activities directed abroad in the fields of information, education and culture, whose objective is to influence foreign governments by influencing their citizens. It could therefore be said that the cultural diplomacy forms a part of the public diplomacy. However public diplomacy is linked to conflicts and tensions between sates. Frederick (1993) positions public diplomacy as one of the means of low intensity conflict resolution. According to his approach public diplomacy is not practiced in peaceful relations but in a certain degree of conflict. Public diplomacy is based on three dimensions: the first dimension is the condition in which the communication occurs the relationship between the communicating and target country. The second dimension refers to the levels of the objectives of communication from persuasion to relationship building. The third dimension is the power defined, as the ability to affect the outcomes one wants. Soft power conceptualised as a power of attraction has become central to public diplomacy.

There exist five different views for the relationship between nation branding and public diplomacy. According to the first one these concepts are unrelated and do not share any common grounds. In other views these concepts are related and it is possible to identify different degrees of integration between public diplomacy and nation branding. In the final version the concepts are exactly the same, public diplomacy and nation branding are the same, public diplomacy and nation branding are synonyms for the same concept. Moreover it is argued that public diplomacy and nation branding has different goals, strategies and actors. Branding is very much image-driven with the aim of creating positive country image. It is a one-way communication where he communicator has control over the message and leaves no space for dialogue. On the other hand public diplomacy relies on two-way communication. A core idea of nation branding is to identify the “uniqueness” of the country, people and culture and draw on features that distinguish different nations, opposed to public diplomacy, which tries to identify those elements of history, culture and people that unite rather than separate “us”. Nation branding has more visibility as it relies on visuals and symbols, unlike public diplomacy, which is a more subtle operation, which relies more on behavior rather than symbolism. Under particular circumstances nation branding is more accountable and transparent than public diplomacy.

Moreover, nation branding is considered as an instrument of public diplomacy. Peter Van Ham is one of the first international relations scholars who argued that branding can be used in international relations as well as public diplomacy. Also, nation branding could be conceptualised as the economic dimension of public diplomacy or as the public dimension of economic diplomacy. Economic diplomacy aims “to promote national prosperity and to conduct a foreign economic policy”.

References:

Szondi, G. ( October 2008), “Public Diplomacy and Nation Branding: Conceptual Similarities and Differences.”, The Hague, Netherland Institute of International Relations.

Anholt, S. ( 2008), “Place Branding : Is it marketing or isn’t it? “, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol (4) , p 1-6.

Simon Anholt blog website: http://www.simonanholt.blogspot.com/