A hard measure of Obama's soft power [UPDATED]

Thu, 07/23/2009 - 11:54am

The Pew Global Attitudes project has released their 2009 report, which means we finally have some hard numbers to see whether the election of Barack Obama has altered global perceptions of the United States. 

And it turns out the answer is yes in most places: 

The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama. In many countries opinions of the United States are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office. Improvements in the U.S. image have been most pronounced in Western Europe, where favorable ratings for both the nation and the American people have soared. But opinions of America have also become more positive in key countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, as well.

Here are the numbers:

Most of the results are not surprising.  The Obama effect is pretty substantial in Western Europe and Latin America, and nonexistent or negative in the Middle East and Russia.  A small positive effect in sub-Saharan Africa, though this is in pat due to the fact that U.S. favorables were already pretty high in that region. 

The surprising results are in Eastern Europe, Pacific Rim and South Asia.  Obama does poorly in Poland -- perhaps because he's been perceived as more accomodating towards Russia. 

In the Pacific Rim and India, however, favorability ratings increased by a fair amount.  I'm particularly surprised by the bump in India, given the occasionally prickly tone between the policymakers of the two countries. 

Question to readers:  Obama said a few weeks ago that he thought a soft power bump would help advance U.S. interests.  Given the data, do you agree? 

UPDATE:  Wow.  Kevin Drum digs through the report and finds an even better measure of the increase in U.S. standing -- asking respondents whether they think "America will do the right thing in world affairs."  The numbers here are pretty stunning: 

Wow.  I mean, wow.  In a lot of ways this is the more interesting result, because it suggests that other countries think the United States is now more competent. 

Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Explaining India's Warmth to Obama

by KobayashiMaru on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 1:06pm

After pouring through the data, attempting several regression analyses, and adding an instrumental variable or two, I've come up with a complex mathematical model to explain India's change in attitude towards the U.S. despite the, as you said, sometimes "prickly tone" between the two:

(Change in India's U.S. Favorability Rating) = -3*(Change in Pakistan's U.S. Favorability Rating)

In other words, the enemy-of-my-enemy is my friend. Threefold.

hmmm

by Mark Eichenlaub on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 4:46pm

It's interesting that some of Bush's early numbers were actually higher than Obama's.

Soft power skeptic

by Raoul Heinrichs on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 9:55pm

Soft power supposedly arises not from the accumulation of capabilities that can affect the behaviour of other states, but from the magnetism of a country’s culture, values, ideals, and the style — as well as the substance — of its domestic and foreign policies

Two problems with this formulation come to mind.

First, even if a state is full of admiration for those elements of another society that supposedly give rise to its soft power, it is not clear to me why, when divergent interests are concerned, that admiration might lead the first state to subordinate its own objectives to the other’s.

And second, the concept seems to imply that a state can be powerful, and capable of attaining its preferences in international affairs, by virtue of its goodness, and not just its strength.

This is a nice thought. Americans in particular have always found it much easier to accept their state’s privileged global role as confirmation of the universal applicability of its values and the providential endorsement of its mission, rather than a product of its immense power.

But it does not square with reality, as demonstrated by the need to create ‘smart power’, which seeks to integrate all elements of national power.

My takeaway from those

by blue13326 on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 1:10pm

My takeaway from those figures: Dang, the Muslim world really hates us. Our key ally, Turkey, and Obama only gets us up to 14%; that's rough.

Really?

by Chris_Israel on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 2:12pm

While the this year numbers are certainly better than those from the previous year, saying that "In many countries opinions of the United States are now about as positive as they were at the beginning of the decade before George W. Bush took office." means stretching things too far. Simple look at the numbers shows that this is not so, the exceptions being mainly the countries where US ratings were high even during GW tenure.

Well, let's not ignore the

by Buzz Killington on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 11:25am

Well, let's not ignore the counter-point to these increasing numbers: doing "the right thing" usually means putting their interests over our own.

A good presidential campaign.

by BAstudent on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 8:28am

As a venezuelan residing in Argentina,

Mobilisation to follow the Obama campaign in Buenos Aires was outstanding, considering the sour relationship between the argentine public and the United States. As the Obama camp successfully forged an outstanding personal image of their candidate, the crisis of political parties is ever more apparent. The United States image abroad depends much on the charm of their political elite and not on the strength of their foreign policy.

Having said this, soft power IS an important part of the multidimensional nature of power. Households that I have visited in Argentina, the mighty cab drivers, the hairdressers all seem to have a sheer interest in Obama and renewed US leadership. This would certainly play against any political manouver by Fernandez de Kirchner to diss American proposals in the future. Result: improved US influence in the Southern Cone.

Sadly, academics have the lesser take on Obama, they do not agree with the banking system bailout as they feel it is the perfect opportunity to change directions and to rethink IMF, WB, and economic policy as a whole (Beatriz Gurevich and Carlos Escude might have hinted at this but this is in no way a direct citation)

I am open to criticism, please!