Soft Power a more effective tool?

[Helium]

Do you agree with this statement:
"In contemporary times, Soft Power is a more effective tool than Hard Power"

This is my opinion and an example I give you of soft powers capabilities; The Cold War was won with soft power, the hard power was just a deterant but didn't achieve any goals.

How would you rank the following countries in order of strongest to weakest in terms of "Soft Power":

Australia
Brazil
China
France
Germany
India
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
United States

[citanon]

What would you define as soft power? What would you define as hard power? Are there areas where hard/soft power overlap or interact? How do you treat those effects?

The conclusion that the Cold War was won by "soft power" is hardly uncontroversial and to state such as pretext is far too presumptuous.

[Helium]

What would you define as soft power? What would you define as hard power? Are there areas where hard/soft power overlap or interact? How do you treat those effects?

The conclusion that the Cold War was won by "soft power" is hardly uncontroversial and to state such as pretext is far too presumptuous.

Alright alright! I thought that people would just go look up the definition and use that as the goal posts or use their own knowledge of soft power etc to inform their opinion (thats what I am asking for).

But for you buddy and anyone else who needs the goal posts put down, we will go by this definition of soft power

Soft power
Everyone is familiar with hard power. We know that military and economic might often get others to change their position. Hard power can rest on inducements ("carrots") or threats ("sticks"). But sometimes you can get the outcomes you want without tangible threats or payoffs. The indirect way to get what you want has sometimes been called "the second face of power." A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries admire its values, emulate its example, aspire to its level of prosperity and openness. This soft power—getting others to want the outcomes that you want—co-opts people rather than coerces them.

Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. In the business world, smart executives know that leadership is not just a matter of issuing commands, but also involves leading by example and attracting others to do what you want. Similarly, contemporary practices of community-based policing rely on making the police sufficiently friendly and attractive that a community wants to help them achieve shared objectives.

Political leaders have long understood the power that comes from attraction. If I can get you to want to do what I want, then I do not have to use carrots or sticks to make you do it. Soft power is a staple of daily democratic politics. The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are seen as legitimate or having moral authority. If a leader represents values that others want to follow, it will cost less to lead.

Soft power is not merely the same as influence. After all, influence can also rest on the hard power of threats or payments. And soft power is more than just persuasion or the ability to move people by argument, though that is an important part of it. It is also the ability to attract, and attraction often leads to acquiescence. Simply put, in behavioral terms, soft power is attractive power. Soft power resources are the assets that produce such attraction.

If I am persuaded to go along with your purposes without any explicit threat or exchange taking place—in short, if my behavior is determined by an observable but intangible attraction—soft power is at work. Soft power uses a different type of currency—not force, not money—to engender cooperation. It uses an attraction to shared values, and the justness and duty of contributing to the achievement of those values.

The interplay between hard and soft power
Hard and soft power are related because they are both aspects of the ability to achieve one's purpose by affecting the behavior of others. The distinction between them is one of degree, both in the nature of the behavior and in the tangibility of the resources. Command power—the ability to change what others do—can rest on coercion or inducement. Co-optive power—the ability to shape what others want—can rest on the attractiveness of one's culture and values or the ability to manipulate the agenda of political choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences because they seem to be too unrealistic.

The types of behavior between command and co-option range along a spectrum from coercion to economic inducement to agenda-setting to pure attraction. Soft power resources tend to be associated with the co-optive end of the spectrum of behavior, whereas hard power resources are usually associated with command behavior. Hard and soft power sometimes reinforce and sometimes interfere with each other. A leader who courts popularity may be loath to exercise hard power when he should, but a leader who throws his weight around without regard to the effects on his soft power may find others placing obstacles in the way of his hard power.

The Benefits of Soft Power - HBS Working Knowledge

[lwarmonger]

This is my opinion and an example I give you of soft powers capabilities; The Cold War was won with soft power, the hard power was just a deterant but didn't achieve any goals.

I would disagree with this statement. In large part the Soviet economy collapsed because it couldn't keep pace with the arms race. Outspending (or even keeping up with) the whole of Western Europe and the US was beyond the Soviets, so when their economy collapsed (due to our and their investment in hard power) they could no longer maintain their empire.

Australia
Brazil
China
France
Germany
India
Japan
Russia
United Kingdom
United States

Soft power isn't something that can be measured in sheer "strength" because it isn't usually an "A country beat B country" type of yardstick. The most common method I've seen for measuring soft power is a return on investment style of assessment. How much does each nation benefit from the cultural and economic strength of their nation and its place in the world? In the physical manifestations of investing, selling, buying and systems abroad, does it get a good return on its money? And that all depends on what you are looking at. What is success? Is cultural influence success? Economic penetration? Political dominance? What measure of soft power is important, and how does a nation "win" the soft power game?

[Officer of Engineers]

Canada is a classic case where soft power is proven to be an illusion and military power restore Canadian influence amongst our allies and the world.

[Helium]

Canada is a classic case where soft power is proven to be an illusion and military power restore Canadian influence amongst our allies and the world.

I dont know that much concerning Canada politically can you explain more :))
I'm curious what you mean now :)), are you refering to the issue over the Arctic Circle Passage/sea lane?

[Officer of Engineers]

When Jean Chretien 1st came to power, the 1st goal was to replace military power with soft power. The goal was to use money instead of guns and through the moral voice of the UN to influence policies of other governments.

The result was that Canada was started to being ignored except at places where Ottawa did not want noticed, where her Battle Groups were. The height of this fiasco can very well be seen at the Iraq War. Despite being close family with the United States, Canada got dumped to 2nd tier after Great Britain and Australia. Canada got shut out and actually got punished for not publicly joining in that fight.

It was only after Canada took the lead in committing to Afghanistan that the fortune got reversed. Canada has actually restored and gotten the lead in a lot of policy influences when she took the lead in combat operations in Afghanistan. We were 1st in line for rides on USAF planes to transport our tanks.