"Have U.S. public diplomacy efforts during the post-9/11 period successfully improved foreign publics’ appraisals of U.S. foreign policy? We examine this question by estimating the effects of U.S. high-level visits to foreign countries on public opinion in those countries…we show that the effects of such visits were initially significantly large and positive, but weakened once the war in Iraq began and international media started reporting negative aspects of the ‘‘war on terror.’’ Most interestingly, we find some evidence that high-level visits eventually exhibited a backlash effect."
That is from this new paper by Benjamin Goldsmith and Yusaku Horiuchi (gated; ungated). The data come from surveys in 61 countries conducted between September 11, 2001 and 2006, each of which asked questions about how respondents viewed the US. Goldsmith and Horiuchi then determine whether respondents surveyed in the wake of a high-level visit from American officials had more positive or negative views of the US.
Right after September 11th, public diplomacy worked. Compared to respondents in countries with no visit, respondents in countries who had just experienced a high-level visit gave 8% more positive responses and 16% fewer negative responses when asked their opinions of the US.
In the period between the beginning of the Iraq War and the Abu Ghraib scandal, high-level visits had no significant effect on positive responses but were associated with 17% more negative responses.
After Abu Ghraib , high-level visits made responses made things even worse, driving down positive responses by 9 points and driving up negative responses by 20 points.
The lesson, say Goldsmith and Horiuchi, is that diplomacy depends on credibility:
"A U.S. leader perceived as credible abroad, even to the somewhat limited extent that this was so for George W. Bush or Colin Powell before March 2003, can have a substantial impact on public opinion about the United States and its foreign policy in the country he or she visits. As that credibility is diminished, however, our findings clearly show a loss of influence and indicate the potential for negative backlash."
- ► 2013 (95)
- ► 2012 (129)
- ► 2011 (365)
- ► 2010 (478)
- This Is How I Feel About Comprehensive Exams
- Was I Wrong to Be Worried About Deflation?
- Obama's Realism
- When Walloons and Flemings Collide
- Neda Agha-Soltan
- If the Chinese Pop a Bubble, Does It Make a Sound?...
- More on Pirates!
- Religiosity and College Majors
- Blowing Bubbles
- Kenneth Arrow on Macroeconomics, Health Care, and ...
- Sentences I Liked
- Miss Teen South Carolina on Economics
- What I've been reading (July Edition)
- Show Some Love, Harvard Law School!
- Weekend Links
- What the U.S., China, Russia, and Turkmenistan Hav...
- More Evidence on the Effectiveness of Microfinance...
- Is China Really Pulling Away from American Debt?
- American Diplomacy and Public Opinion
- Obama's New International Poll Numbers
- The Fed's Balance Sheet
- US Treasury Cashes in
- What, Me Worry?
- Morning Links
- Politics =/= Magic
- Perception and Misperception in Trade Politics
- Who Gets E.U. Farm Subsidies (redux)?
- Quote of the Day
- Political Science and Economics Professors
- Video Time!
- How Soccer Illustrates Globalization
- It's Earnings Season!
- Thomas Schelling on Climate Change
- The State of Banking
- IR Theory and Rap Music
- FDI, Regulation, and Shifting Power Centers: China...
- How Not to Conduct Diplomacy
- The Pope on Development
- Some Things Get Better, Some Things Get Worse
- Obama's Summer Vacation
- Link Dump
- No G-8 Climate Change Deal
- The Data Do NOT Show the Paradox of Thrift
- Iran Organizational Chart
- Art Imitates Social Science
- Basel's Revenge
- The U.S. Plays Chicken with the BRICs
- We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident
- Straight Outta Lagos
- More Musings on Climate Change
- How to Destroy An Economy, in Five Easy Steps
- ▼ July (53)
- ► 2008 (134)
- ► 2007 (142)
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Posted by Alex Parets at 3:12 PM . Thursday, July 23, 2009