Theoritical Framework Of Soft Power

1. Theoretical Framework
1.1. Power
To begin with, it is essential to note that this part of the thesis intends to establish a coherent framework for further analysis of the case study. A coherent framework is essential to provide clarity over the concept of power and how it further defines the concept of soft power. It begins with a literature review which aims to establish comprehensive parameters to analyze the case.
1.1.1. The concept of Power: Result from the debates
As many researchers argue, power might be one of the most interesting concepts in the social sciences. This is not only because power is contested and arguable in terms of its definition but also because power can be viewed from different disciplines. The conflict among scholars

This is considered one of the most famous debates about power (Baldwin, 2013). It is important to discuss this here to better understand how the form of power is depicted in different approaches. Bachrach & Baratz (1962) predominantly discussed the importance of looking at the forms of power because of its elusiveness (p.947). They introduced two forms of power that were produced by sociological (first face of power) and political approaches (second face of power) (ibid) as their response to the study of Government by Robert Dahl (1961) in New Haven, US. Robert Dahl developed an approach to power in three subject areas. He further tried to determine who is more influential in initiating a policy proposal in the decision-making process. According to Bachrach and Baratz (1962) this kind of approach neglected one of the variables in power analysis, which made the analysis biased. A decade later, Lukes (1974) finally introduced the third face of power which is articulated as "the ability of A to make B do something B would not otherwise do through influencing B's options, desires and mind" (Baldwin, 2013, p.276). Although the forms of power mentioned earlier were the production of sociological and political approaches, Baldwin (2013) argues that the three faces of power are still relevant in the

The first face of power focuses on the decision-making process with regards to particular issues. Baldwin (2013, ibid) argues that this face of power is associated with how one particular country tries to influence the making of foreign policy in another country (p.276). Furthermore, the second face of power is "getting what you want through indirect means" (Nye, 2004, p. 5). An example of this is how a particular country can supress the agenda items of other countries to get the desired result (Baldwin, 2013, p. 276). Finally, the third face of power according to Shapiro (2006, p.146) in his review of Luke's piece refers to the ability of a country to "manipulate" the agenda in order to get the desired outcomes. In Baldwin's view (2013), the last face of power is closely related to Nye's definition of power or Gramci's view of "hegemony" (Luke, 2005,2007). An example of this is the ability of the United States (US) to make other states embrace the "Washington Consensus" (Baldwin, 2013, p. 276).
Because the concept of power remains controversial, the debates have stimulated scholars of IR to generate new terms of power, which means the concept is developing. We could not ignore that the heated conceptual debates have led scholars to develop several types of power, such as hard power, economic power, soft power (Nye,