Ko ea Jou nal, ol. 57, no. 3 (au umn 2017): 83–111.
© Ko ean Na ional Commission o UNESCO, 2017
* This a icle is a e ision o mas e ’s hesis submi ed o he G adua e School o Pan-Paci ic
S udies a he Kyung Hee Uni e si y in Suwon (2014), Republic o Ko ea.
Muza a S. ABDUAZIMOV was Lec u e a he Uni e si y o Wo ld Economy and Diplo-
macy in Tashken , Uzbekis an and cu en ly wo ks in public sec o . E-mail: abduazimo .
muza[email p o ec ed].
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case
h ough an E olu iona y App oach*
Muza a S. ABDUAZIMOV
Abs ac
Despi e a ising academic in e es in Sou h Ko ea’s public diplomacy, li le is known
abou i s o igins and e olu ion. Mos exis ing s udies ha e ocused on he mode n pe i-
od o Sou h Ko ea’s public diplomacy, in pa icula he go e nmen ’s new o eign policy
agenda since he la e 2000s. Con a y o popula belie , his a icle a gues ha he
ecen in il a ion o public diplomacy in o Sou h Ko ea’s o eign policy ep esen s de
ju e in ensi ica ion o ac i i ies ha de ac o ha e been p ac iced om he second hal
o he 20 h cen u y. The p esen esea ch di ides he e olu ion o Sou h Ko ea’s public
diplomacy in o ou pe iods: o igins, di e si ica ion, polycen ism, and ins i u ionaliza-
ion. Each pe iod has i s own speci ic pa e ns, ends, and means. Fo ins ance, whe eas
he o igins pe iod a ose wi h cul u al and spo s diplomacies, di e si ica ion included
speci ic a eas o engagemen wi h o eign publics h ough o icial de elopmen assis-
ance, knowledge, and exchange diplomacies. In u n, polycen ism has s uc u ally
ans o med public diplomacy om a solely s a e-led ac i i y in o a polycen ic ame-
wo k o public and p i a e pa ne ship. Las ly, he ins i u ionaliza ion pe iod e p esen s
he go e nmen ’s ecen e o s o es ablish a uni e sal coo dina i e au ho i y abo e i s
public diplomacy, which ep esen s a agmen ed se o ac i i ies conduc ed by a ious
go e nmen al ins i u ions.
Keywo ds: public diplomacy, so powe , o igins, di e si ica ion, polycen ism, in -
s i u ionaliza ion
84 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
In oduc ion
Sou h Ko ea (he ea e , Ko ea) ep esen s a case o apid socioeconomic and
poli ical de elopmen . The coun y, once pe cei ed as a “bo omless pi ” a
“nigh ma e,” and a “sick socie y” (Sung 2010, 11) which, in he wo ds o Gen-
e al Douglas MacA hu , e en i a “mi acle” happened, would ha e needed a
cen u y “ o eco e om he Ko ean Wa ” (KOICA 2011, 34). How e e ,
only hal a cen u y la e he coun y had be come one o he wo ld’s economic
powe houses. In e ms o powe , he coun y’s de elopmen expe ience has
had a dyadic ou come— he ise o Ko ean ha d powe and, successi ely, i s
con ibu ion o Ko ea’s so powe . In o he wo ds, socioeconomic de elop-
men pe se (along wi h mili a y) has mean he ise o Ko ea’s ha d powe ,
while concu en ly i has become a so powe asse . Speci ically, i has been
p o ed o g ea impo ance since dozens o de eloping coun ies ha e ound
Ko ea’s de elopmen model a ac i e o ollow.
Besides being a success ul s o y o socioeconomic de elopmen , since
he la e 1990s and ea ly 2000s Ko ea has expe ienced a sha p ise in he
popula i y o i s cul u al p oduc s, gene ally known as Hallyu, o he Ko ean
wa e. Hallyu, pe cei ed in he 1980s as “p o incial and edious,”1 has ecen -
ly almos caused Ko ea mania (Jang and Paik 2012; Kim and Ryoo 2007).
O e all, due o he abo e-men ioned easons and, simila ly, he go e n-
men ’s de ju e in ensi ica ion o public diplomacy, he opic o Ko ea’s so
powe and public diplomacy has ecei ed ising academic in e es .2 Ye i is
wo h no ing ha all hese s udies3 ha e ac ually ocused on he con empo-
a y s a e o Ko ea’s public diplomacy (he ea e , KPD) since he la e 2000s,
1. Economis , “Sou h Ko ea’s So Powe . Soap, Spa kle and Pop. How a Really Uncool Coun-
y Became he Tas emake o Asia,” Augus 9, 2014, h p://www.economis . com/news/
books-and-a s/21611039-how- eally-uncool-coun y-became- as emake asia-soap-spa -
kle-and-pop.
2. These esea che s include: Cho (2012); Dal (2012); Hong (2014); Jang and Paik (2012);
Kalinowski and Cho (2012); T. Kim (2012); Kim and Ryoo (2007); Kinsey and Chung
(2013); S. Lee (2011, 2012); Lim (2008); Ma, Song, and Moo e (2012); Melissen and Sohn
(2015); Shim (2008); Walsh (2014); and Wa son (2012).
3. Excep ions include T. Kim (2012).
85
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
pa icula ly when “MOFA o icially began laying he g oundwo k o [ he]
s eng hening o ” KPD “as he hi d pilla o i s o eign policy along wi h
poli ical and economic a ai s” (MOFA 2014, 299–300). Be o e he 2000s, o
he bes o my knowledge, only Manheim (1990) had conside ed he 1988
Seoul Olympics h ough he p ism o a public diplomacy campaign. Among
mo e ecen schola s, Taehwan Kim (2012) has p esen ed he his o ical back-
g ound o KPD and di ided i in o “old” and “new public diplomacy” pe i-
ods. Un o una ely, so a no o he esea ch has been ca ied ou on he com-
p ehensi e analysis o his unde s udied opic, ocusing on i s o igins and
linking i o he cu en s a e o a ai s. The e o e, his s udy has been con-
duc ed in o de o be e unde s and he o igins and e olu ion o KPD, con-
side ed in ou pe iods: o igins (la e 1940s–la e 1980s), di e si ica ion (ea ly
1990s), polycen ism (ea ly 2000s), and ins i u ionaliza ion (2011–p esen ).
This pe iodical di ision consis s o he logic “eme gence-con inui y-change”
(he ea e , ECC), which encompasses he ounda ions, con inui ies and
changes o KPD along wi h he goals, ways and means o i s conduc .
This a icle has se en sec ions. A e he in oduc ion, he second sec-
ion p esen s a b ie o e iew o he e m “public diplomacy.” The hi d sec-
ion shows he o igins pe iod, which eme ged wi h cul u al and spo s
diplomacies. The ou h sec ion conside s he di e si ica ion pe iod and
ocuses on speci ic a eas o engagemen wi h o eign publics, including o i-
cial de elopmen assis ance (ODA), knowledge and exchange diplomacies.
The i h sec ion p esen s he polycen ism pe iod ha s uc u ally ans-
o med KPD om a solely s a e-led ac i i y in o a polycen ic amewo k o
public and p i a e pa ne ship. The six h sec ion explo es he ins i u ional-
iza ion pe iod and encompasses he go e nmen ’s ecen e o s o es ablish
a uni e sal coo dina i e au ho i y abo e i s public diplomacy, which has so
a been ep esen ing a agmen ed se o ac i i ies in a ious go e nmen al
ins i u ions. The se en h sec ion concludes.
Public Diplomacy
The e m “public diplomacy,” coined in 1965 by Edmund Gullion, he dean
86 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
o he Fle che School o Law and Diplomacy a Tu s Uni e si y (Cull
2009), is commonly de ined as “ he subs ance o o eign policymaking and
message exchange capaci y” (Kelley 2009, 73–74), “ he cul i a ion by go -
e nmen s o [posi i e] public opinion in o he coun ies” (Szondi 2008, 2),
“co ec ing mispe cep ions” (Kelley 2009, 74), “ he p ocess o in e cul u al
communica ion” (Сull 2009, 19), and “p omo ing in e es s h ough a ac-
ion” (P a kanis 2009, 111). P incipally, unlike “ adi ional diplomacy” and
i s “go e nmen - o-go e nmen ela ions (G2G),” public diplomacy is “abou
go e nmen s alking o global publics (G2P)” (Snow 2009, 6). In e ms o
powe , “public diplomacy is ine i ably linked o . . . so powe ” (Snow 2009,
3) which is an abili y o in luence o he coun ies’ p e e ences by co-op ing
hem, wi h he p oduc ion o admi a ion and desi e o be hem h ough he
a ac i e powe o i s alues, le el o p ospe i y, and o he cul u al asse s
(Melissen 2005; Nye 2004, 5). A ms ong (2009, 64) b ie ly gene alizes i as
he policy o “winning hea s and minds” o a wide public.
In he p ac ice o public diplomacy, “in o ming” and “in luencing” a e
wo key ea u es (Helle and Pe sson 2009, 226). Especially, i s po en ial o
in o m has been aised emendously by he so-called “dea h o dis ance”
e ec , which has mean an inc ease in he speed o in o ma ion sha ing
capaci y ac oss he wo ld, s emming om he in en ion o mode n ICT
(Cai nc oss 1997). Besides he in o ma ional sphe e, public diplo macy is
exe cised in “spo s, cul u al e en s, exchange p og ams” (Helle and Pe s-
son 2009, 226), “language aining,” and “ adio and ele ision b oadcas ing”
(House o Commons 2011, 10). Acco ding o Cowan and A senaul (2008),
apa om adi ional engagemen in he abo e-men ioned a eas, public
diplomacy is likewise p ac iced h ough collabo a ion, which en ails join
wo k wi h o eign publics on sol ing p oblema ic issues and p omo ing ini-
ia i es. S uc u ally, public diplomacy is di ided in o he ollowing ou
pa s: (1) “unde s anding” o o he s’ “cul u es, a i udes, and beha io s”; (2)
“planning,” which includes “ o mula ion and implemen a ion”; (3) “engage-
men ” wi h o eign publics in he ea lie men ioned ields; and (4) “ad ocacy”
o in luence he shaping o publics’ hough s and minds h ough he “ ans-
e [ing] o in o ma ion” (G ego y 2011, 355–361).
T adi ionally, engagemen wi h o eign publics had been a p e oga i e
87
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
o go e nmen s, e e ed o abo e as G2P. Ye ecen ly, because o he de el-
opmen o “communica ion echnologies” and a ise in ci izen exchanges
ac oss na ional bo de s, accele a ed by globaliza ion, public diplomacy has
pa ly shi ed om G2P o a people- o-people (P2P) ype o engagemen
(Snow 2009, 6). Consequen ly, his shi has es uc u ed a s a is public
diplomacy owa d a polycen ic model, in ol ing non-s a e ac o s “i no in
de eloping, hen a leas in [i s] conduc ing” (d’Hooghe 2015, 35). A he
same ime, Kelley (2015) d aws a en ion o he ac ha “ o he wo k o
coun as ‘public diplomacy,’ he pe son doing he wo k mus be a go e n-
men employee o agen ,” “wo king on some goal o objec i e se by he
na ional go e nmen .” In o he wo ds, despi e s uc u al ans o ma ions,
na ional go e nmen is s ill he planne o public diplomacy, which in u n
coope a es wi h non-s a e ac o s in i s public diplomacy app oach. This is
how he e m public diplomacy is used in he p esen a icle.
O igins
Ch onologically, he o igins pe iod eme ged be ween 1948 and he la e
1980s, du ing which ime he Ko ean go e nmen began o engage local
and o eign publics h ough cul u al and spo s diplomacies. Impo an ly,
his new policy ajec o y was no me ely a pa o he go e nmen ’s o e all
socioeconomic de elopmen policy, bu also p opelled by geopoli ical ac-
o s on he Ko ean peninsula and in he ole o leade ship. In pa icula ,
hese included he end o Japanese coloniza ion in 1945, he ou b eak o he
Ko ean Wa in 1950, he es ablishmen o Pa k Chung-hee’s mili a y egime
in 1961 and Chun Doo-hwan’s aking o e he go e nmen in 1980. Fo
ins ance, he ini ial p ojec ion o cul u al policy in 1948 by he go e nmen
o Syngman Rhee was hough o heal he Ko ean cul u e, damaged in he
yea s o Japanese occupa ion, and o c ea e “na ional iden i y” (Pa k 2015,
73). A e he ou b eak o he Ko ean Wa he goal had likewise been
ocused on he clash o poli ical ideologies, o be p ecise on he p e en ion
o communis ideological pene a ion om No h Ko ea. Gene ally hese
p oblems, ce ainly along wi h economic di icul ies, we e mani es ed in he
88 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
s a e “ he o ic” o “Guknan4 (na ional di icul y)” (Pa k 2015, 79).
Conside ing he “cul u al iden i y” pa o gungnan, in 1948 he go -
e nmen decided o es ablish he “O ice o Public In o ma ion” (OPI) and
he “Na ional Film P oduc ion Cen e” (NFPC) (Pa k 2015, 79–81). Un o -
una ely, due o he socioeconomic challenges wi hin he coun y, he es ab-
lishmen o hese agencies did no coincide wi h he use o “a comp ehen-
si e cul u al policy” (Pa k 2015, 73). Ye hese agencies we e subsequen ly
used by he go e nmen o Pa k Chung-hee, which in ensi ied he p ojec-
ion and implemen a ion o cul u al policy and diplomacy. Pa icula ly, in
1962 he NFPC was “upg aded” wi h he “Mo ion Pic u e Law,” which
aimed o ci cula e “ he manda ed cinemas”; in 1966 “ he In e na ional Tae-
kwondo Fede a ion” was ounded o p omo e Ko ean ma ial a s a local
and in e na ional le els; in 1968 he OPI was ans o med in o he Minis y
o Cul u e and Public In o ma ion (cu en ly he Minis y o Cul u e,
Spo s and Tou ism) (Pa k 2015, 80–85); in 1973 in o de “ o es ablish [and
p omo e] a new cul u al iden i y” based on “a speci ic cul u al adi ion,”
“ he i s comp ehensi e long- e m plan o cul u al policy” was adop ed
(Yim 2002, 40); in 1976 he Ko ea In e na ional Cul u al Associa ion5 was
launched; and, las bu no leas , in 1979 “ he i s [o e seas] Ko ean Cul u -
al Cen e s we e opened in New Yo k Ci y and Tokyo” (S. Lee 2015b, 124).
Ce ainly, he use o cul u al policy by he go e nmen o Syngman
Rhee was di e en om ha o Pa k Chung-hee. Speci ically, whe eas in
he o me case he use o cul u al policy had been mo e s a e o ien ed, in
he la e case as well as being pe sonalized and egime o ien ed, i also
ocused on “cul i a ing loyal y o he go e nmen ” and pe sonal loyal y o
he P esiden (Pa k 2015, 80). Howe e , despi e his di e ence, bo h leade s
simila ly p io i ized he c ea ion o a speci ic Ko ean cul u al and na ional
iden i y. Pa icula ly in ega ds o ha ma e , Pa k Chung-hee announced
in his inaugu a ion speech in 1971 he mo o “Cul u al Ko ea,” which aised
he issue o es o ing Ko ea’s cul u al he i age and his o ical si es and ig-
4. Acco ding o he Re ised Romaniza ion o Ko ean p oclaimed by he Minis y o Cul u e
and Tou ism o he Republic o Ko ea in 2000, he Ko ean wo d “
국난
” should be an-
sc ibed as gungnan.
5. Haewon Pa k, e-mail in e iew by he au ho , Ma ch 20, 2017.
89
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
u es wi h he use o go e nmen al aid (Pa k 2015, 82–84). Acco dingly, in
alignmen wi h his, “ he go e nmen had ocused on his o ical memo ials
such as Gyeongju, King Sejong, and “Admi al Yi Sun-sin,” which e en ually
“became na ional symbols o mode n Ko ea” (Pa k 2015, 84).
G adually, consis en s a e policy owa d he e i al o adi ional cul-
u al he i age con ibu ed signi ican ly o he e olu ion o so powe po en-
ial. Especially, i has become appa en ha his o ical places and igu es
ha e become an indispensable pa o cul u al and exchange diplomacies,
which ep esen essen ial ools o mode n KPD. Ob iously, since he la e
1940s and especially 1960s he go e nmen p io i ized his o ical-cul u al
asse s. Ye , since he 1980s, a e Chun Doo-hwan came o powe , s a e
suppo expanded “ om adi ional” o “con empo a y cul u e along wi h
ac i e encou agemen o spo s ac i i ies” (Pa k 2015, 87). In his ega d,
he launch o spo s diplomacy was a big leap owa d b oadening he en-
gagemen ield wi h o eign publics, which un il he p esen day has like-
wise been a long-s anding ool o KPD.
Wi hin he amewo k o spo s diplomacy, Ko ea ini ially used a e-
gionalized app oach, and in 1986 hos ed he 10 h Asian Games in Seoul.6
Soon, he scope o he app oach was b oadened “wi h wo ldwide [audi-
ence] in mind,” which esul ed in hos ing he Seoul 1988 Summe Olympics
(La son and Ri enbu gh 1989, 2). Rega ding he managemen o he s a e
image, he decision o hos he games was made as a esul o he ollowing
goals: (1) “ o di e he [local] public’s a en ion om poli ics” (Pa k 2015,
86); (2) o imp o e he coun y’s in e na ional image damaged a e he
sociopoli ical u bulences o 1979 and 1980, speci ically Pa k Chung-hee’s
assassina ion and he bloody e en s in Gwangju (Manheim 1990); and (3)
o change in he minds o o eign publics he old image o Ko ea associa ed
wi h “ he Ko ean Wa ,” “na ional di ision,” “mili a y dic a o ship” (Y. Lee
2002, 69), and “ins abili y” (Kinsey and Chung 2013, 4), which since he
1950s had been a undamen al elemen s o i s his o y. Thus, he games we e
hough o p esen Ko ea wi h “a new ace” and ob ain “in e na ional ecog-
6. Olympic Council o Asia, “Seoul 1986,” accessed Janua y 17, 2017, h p://www.ocasia.o g/
Game/GamePa icula .aspx?9QoyD9QEWP emU/a Y96w==.
90 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
ni ion” o an “ad anced na ion” (La son and Ri enbu gh 1989, 2).
Impo an ly, among he bene i s o hos ing he games was he posi i e
“media co e age,” which usually helps o c ea e a a o able image o a coun-
y in o eign publics’ minds du ing megaspo e en s (Ri enbu gh 2004,
5). Pa icula ly, i was achie ed in he cases o BBC (Uni ed Kingdom) and
TEN (Aus alia), which du ing he Olympics can assed Ko ean adi ional
cul u e, his o y, and posi i e achie emen s in socioeconomic de elopmen
(La son and Ri enbu gh 1989, 29). Meanwhile, hos ing he Olympics sig-
ni ican ly inc eased he numbe o in e na ional isi o s o Ko ea, aised in
1988 by 24.9% (in compa ison o 1987) and composed o a ound 2.3 mil-
lion people, which has been he highes inc ease in pe cen age achie ed
be ween 1980 and 2015 (KTO 2015).
These p eceden s o he launch and subsequen conduc o cul u al and
spo s diplomacies a e conside ed in compliance wi h ECC logic, and indi-
ca e he eme gence o ools ha a e an in eg al pa o con empo a y KPD.
Fo ins ance, examples o con inui y include he p omo ion o Taekwondo,
Ko ean Cul u al Cen e s o he cu en Minis y o Cul u e, Spo s and
Tou ism ( ounded on he basis o OPI and subsequen MCPI), he Ko ea
Founda ion (KF) ( ounded in 1991 on he basis o Ko ea In e na ional Cul-
u al Associa ion),7 and, las bu no leas , commi men o hos ing a ious
in e na ional mega-spo e en s (S. Lee 2015b; Pa k 2015). On his poin , i
is a gued ha he gi en expe iences o nea ly ou decades basically laid he
ounda ions o he eme gence o he go e nmen ’s i s -e e engagemen
wi h o eign publics, aimed o build he image o Ko ea wi h indi idual cul-
u al and na ional iden i y.
Di e si ica ion
The ansi ion o KPD o i s second pe iod occu ed in 1991, embodied
in he es ablishmen o KOICA and he KF. The c ea ion o hese wo new
agencies had ins i u ionally di e si ied he public diplomacy ools h ough
7. Haewon Pa k, e-mail in e iew by he au ho , Ma ch 20, 2017.
91
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
he use o ODA, knowledge and exchange diplomacies. Be o e p oceeding,
i is wo h no ing ha he use o hese ools was no en i ely unknown in
he e olu ion o KPD be o e 1991. Fo ins ance, ega ding ODA- ela ed
ac i i ies, “ he i s ” Ko ean ini ia i e “as a dono ” was a aining p og am
o ganized o de eloping coun ies o icials in 1963, wi h he inancial sup-
po o USAID (CIDC 2014, 27). In 1965 aining p og ams s a ed wi h
Ko ea’s own unds, among which we e: expe ise sha ing in 1967; dispa ch
o medical expe s in 1968; dispa ch o Taekwondo Ins uc o s P og am in
1972; aid in kind in 1977; and he launch o an In e na ional De elopmen
Exchange P og am in 1982, wi hin he Ko ea De elopmen Ins i u e, o
sha e Ko ean “de elopmen expe iences” wi h de eloping coun ies and so
o h (CIDC 2014, 28). Ye , un il 1991, hese “p og ams we e conduc ed
sepa a ely by” a ious agencies and, o his ma e , he es ablishmen o
KOICA was hough o consolida e and coo dina e en i e “g an ODA p o-
jec s” unde one sys em, a ilia ed wi h he MOFA.8
Pe iodically, c i ics poin ou ha behind he launch and ins i u ional-
iza ion o ODA policy ha e been he “Ko ean [go e nmen ’s] economic
in e es s,” mani es ed in “ esou ce diplomacy” ha implies “close ela ions
wi h coun ies wi h desi able esou ces” and ge ing “p i ileged access o”
he “ esou ces o ecipien ” na ions (He manns 2013, 67–72; Wa son 2012).
Howe e , while acknowledging he abo e-men ioned ac i i ies, i is ap pa -
en ha since he beginning “a co e componen ” o he Ko ean go e n-
men ’s app oach has been he “p io i iza ion o human capi al” and “human
exchanges” (He manns 2013, 73). This pa e n o app oach has been con-
inued un il ecen ly, which in u n has amped up Ko ea’s so powe capac-
i y. Especially, i emana ed om he uniqueness o Ko ea’s case, achie ed a
quan um leap in socioeconomic de elopmen , changing he coun y om
majo aid ecipien 9 o “ he 24 h [dono ] membe ” o OECD DAC in 2010
8. K-De elopedia, “His o y o Ko ea’s ODA and KOICA,” accessed Janua y 5, 2017, h ps://
www.kde elopedia.o g/De elopmen -O e iew/o icial-aid/his o y-ko ea-s-odkoica--
201412110000389.do? ldRoo =TP_ODA&subCa ego y=TP_ODA_GE#.WG6OdxKNqpo.
9. F om 1945 o 1975 Ko ea “ ecei ed 6 billion USD” aid ha was nea ly equal o o e all aid
deli e ed o “A ican con inen ” (Sung 2010, 11). O e all be ween 1945 and “ he la e
1990s” Ko ea “ ecei ed abou USD 12.7 billion” (CIDC 2014, 23).
98 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
Taiwan i was he weakening “consump ion o Hong Kong and Japanese”
cul u al p oduc s ha c ea ed “ he niche ma ke ,” which in he la e 1990s
was illed by K-d amas (H. Cho 2005, 170). En y in o o eign ma ke s was
also in he business in e es o chaebols, who used he ising popula i y o
Hallyu “ o p omo e i s own p oduc s,” e en by “dis ibu [ing] ee copies o
[K] d amas o he b oadcas ing s a ions in Asia” (as in he case o Samsung
and LG) (H. Cho 2005, 170). P og essi ely, Hallyu en e ed in o he socie ies
o Asia (Kim and Ryoo 2007), he Middle Eas , A ica, he Ame icas, and
la e Eu ope (Jang and Paik 2012).
Rega ding he impac o Hallyu, i is wo h conside ing he exis ing
wo g oups o schola s ha iew cul u al indus y om a di e en pe spec-
i e. The i s g oup, called “cul u al na ionalis s,” poin o he exis ence o
au hen ic cul u e, whils he second g oup, called “indus ialis s and neo-
libe als,” claim ha he cul u al indus y aimed o ans o m he Ko ean
Wa e in o a sus ainable sou ce o income (H. Cho 2005, 159–160). Indeed,
bo h iews a e ele an , ye a he same ime i migh be inco ec o consid-
e he ole and impac o Hallyu om sepa a e, di e en pe spec i es, and
ins ead be be e o highligh i s mul idimensional impac , which a ied
om economic and cul u al o public diplomacy. Fo ins ance, acco ding o
he epo conduc ed by he Samsung Economic Resea ch Ins i u e in 2005,
coun ies “consuming Ko ean cul u al p oduc s” a e di ided in o ou ca e-
go ies as ollows: (1) “simply enjoying Ko ean pop cul u e”; (2) “buying
ela ed p oduc s such as pos e s, cha ac e i ems, and ou s”; (3) “buying
Made in Ko ea p oduc s”; and (4) “de elopmen o gene al p e e ence o
Ko ean cul u e i sel ” (H. Cho 2005, 169).
A ailable da a indica es he con ibu ion o Hallyu o he abo e-men-
ioned ca ego ies. Fo ins ance, acco ding o a su ey o “300 majo se ice
and manu ac u ing co po a ions,” conduc ed by he Ko ea Chambe o
Com me ce and Indus y, 82,8% o esponden s con i med Hallyu’s sway on
building “ he iendly image o Ko ea and Ko ean p oduc s,” while only
17.2%” s a ed “no imp o emen in image” (KCCI 2012). The same su ey
also showed ha 43.5% o he co po a ions indica ed i s impac on “explo -
ing new o e seas ma ke s” (KCCI 2012). Ano he su ey o 1,173 consume s
composed o isi o s om Japan, China, Taiwan, and Vie nam, conduc ed
99
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
by he Ko ea In e na ional T ade Associa ion’s Ins i u e o In e na ional
T ade, e ealed ha 80% o esponden s bough Ko ean p oduc s mainly
because o he Ko ean Wa e’s posi i e image in hei minds (KITA 2011).
Simila ly, he ou ism indus y has likewise expe ienced he impac o Hal-
lyu. Fo ins ance, acco ding o he New Yo k Times co esponden epo ,
a ound “80% o Taiwanese ou is s o Sou h Ko ea pick ele ision- hemed
ou s, isi ing” he places “whe e hei a o i e d amas we e ilmed” (H.
Cho 2005, 168).
A he same ime, conside ing he public diplomacy sway o Hallyu, i is
impo an o indica e i s speci ic pa e n as building he so-called “new con-
ac zone,” which implies he abili y o c ea ing a c osscul u al unde s anding
and engagemen wi h o eign publics h ough he low o cul u al p oduc s
(H. Cho 2005, 177). This pa e n o Hallyu p oduc s has been desc ibed by
a ious coun ies di e en ly. Fo ins ance, Asian coun ies ind he Ko ean
li es yle in e es ing o ollow; Middle Eas e n and Muslim coun ies ole a e
hem because o “ he sub le ep ession o emo ions,” “ oman ic passion wi h-
ou o e sexuali y,” and “emphasizing suppo and loyal y o he go e n-
men ” (Jang and Paik 2012, 198). Mo eo e , in Taiwan and he mos pa o
China i led o a boom in demand o hansik (Ko ean cuisine) (Lin 2014); in
Mexico i igge ed local ans o ask he P esiden Roh Moo-hyun (du ing
his isi o Mexico) o send some Ko ean mo ie s a s o Mexico (Shim 2008,
27); in Pa is i esul ed in a lash mob o 20,000 ans in on o he Ei el
Towe o dance and sing along wi h Psy’s “Gangnam S yle”; and, las bu no
leas , he well-known poli icians Ba ack Obama and Ban Ki-moon also paid
a en ion o Psy’s hi song (Whi e House 2013).15
Ul ima ely, Hallyu, o iginally being a comme cial ac i i y, subsequen ly
s a ed aising Ko ea’s popula i y ab oad, pene a ing in o he socie ies o
Asia (Kim and Ryoo 2007), he Middle Eas , A ica, he Ame icas, and
15. See also Economis , “Sou h Ko ea’s So Powe . Soap, Spa kle and Pop. How a Really
Uncool Coun y Became he Tas emake o Asia,” Augus 9, 2014, h p://www.economis .
com/news/books-and-a s/21611039-how- eally-uncool-coun y-became- as emake -
asia-soap-spa kle-and-pop; Hu ing on Pos , “Ban Ki-moon Dances Gangnam S yle,”
Oc obe 24, 2012, h p://www.hu ing onpos .com/2012/10/24/ban-ki-moon-dances-
gangna_n_2009883.h ml.
100 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
Eu ope (Jang and Paik 2012). A e his, he Ko ean go e nmen decided
“ o ake he ad an age o [Hallyu’s success] as a policy ool” (Jang and Paik
2012, 196), channeling i o enhance i s public diplomacy, which in e alia
laid he g ound o p i a e-public pa ne ship. E iden ly, Hallyu as a non-
s a e ac o has success ully con ibu ed o he e ec i eness o KPD. In pa -
icula , i has helped in building c osscul u al unde s anding and ela ion-
ships be ween Ko ea and o eign socie ies. Unlike he p eceding wo pe i-
ods, i has enla ged he ci cle o public diplomacy ac o s, s uc u ally ans-
o ming i om a solely s a e-led ac i i y in o a polycen ic amewo k o
public and p i a e pa ne ship. Based on his new pa e n, his e olu ion
pe iod is called polycen ism.
Ins i u ionaliza ion
KPD en e ed in o i s ou h e olu iona y pe iod in he la e 2000s, when he
hen newly elec ed P esiden Lee Myung-bak aised he issue o imp o ing
Ko ea’s in e na ional image “in a g oundb eaking manne ” (Tempo al 2015,
161) h ough he “Global Ko ea ision” (S. Lee 2015b, 121), and acco dingly
in ensi ied public diplomacy and na ion b anding ac i i ies. The go e n-
men ’s new ision o Ko ea’s in e na ional image was laid ou as he goal,
ye he ac i i ies o p eceding pe iods we e en iched and inco po a ed as
he means o ul illing i . In his ega d, i encompassed de ju e in ensi ica-
ion o ac i i ies ha de ac o had been p ac iced du ing he p e iously dis-
cussed h ee pe iods. Howe e , compa ed o p e ious p ac ices, public
diplo macy has become “a mo e comp ehensi e, p oac i e, and s a egic
go e nmen e o o in e ac ing wi h o eign publics,” which di e s “ om
he p e ious one limi ed o in e na ional exchange and cul u al unde -
s anding” (S. Lee 2015b, 121). A he same ime i is wo h no ing ha
du ing, and igh a e , he Cold Wa almos 90% o Ko ea’s “diploma ic
esou ces” we e ocused on “secu i y diplomacy,” “con ined o he Ko ean
peninsula and No heas Asia” (S. Kim 2012). Thus, he new ini ia i e mani-
es ed “changes in he pe cep ion o powe ” by he go e nmen , and, speci -
ically, he ising impo ance o so powe cul i a ion ha along wi h ha d
101
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
powe was deployed in o de o gain he ecogni ion o “a p oud and e spec -
ed na ion” o he in e na ional a ena (He manns 2013, 65–66).
Acco ding o Sook-jong Lee (2011, 140), he go e nmen ’s ecen in -
co po a ion o public diplomacy in o i s o eign policy has been inci ed by
ollowing easons: (1) unde s anding o i s eeble “poli ical and diploma ic
in luence . . . compa ed o” he coun y’s ha d powe capabili ies ( he 13 h
la ges economy and he 15 h s onges mili a y); and (2) he impossibili y o
“compe [ing] wi h [ he] su ounding big powe s China and Japan in e ms o
ha d powe .” The eby, in he gi en s a us quo o ha d powe , public di plo macy
and so powe ha e been “pe cei ed as an al e na i e powe sou ce” o
enhance Ko ea’s in luence a egional and global le els. Mo eo e , con idence
was u he s eng hened by Hallyu’s s agge ing success in aising he o e all
popula i y o haminjok (Ko ean na ion) a ound he globe (S. Lee 2011).
Unlike p e ious go e nmen s, he Lee Myung-bak go e nmen decid-
ed o es ablish egula o y au ho i y o e public diplomacy ela ed ac i i ies.
Pa ly, p eceding p esiden ial adminis a ions ounded ce ain ins i u ional
au ho i ies, ye hose au ho i ies had basically been o ien ed owa d s a e
image-making and na ion b anding campaigns. Fo ins ance, in 2001 he
Kim Dae-jung adminis a ion es ablished he Na ional Image Commi ee
(NIC), headed by he p ime minis e , which was used in he “p epa a ion”
and “hos ing” o 2002 FIFA Wo ld Cup unde he slogan “Dynamic Ko ea”
(Schmuck 2011, 101). Despi e he NIC con inuing o unc ion a e he
games, he successi e Roh Moo-hyun adminis a ion ga e “less p io i y and
budge ” o i , ins ead es ablishing in 2003 ano he b anding commi ee
wi hin he Go e nmen In o ma ion Agency (GIA), which p esen ed in
2007 he slogan “Ko ea, Spa kling” (Schmuck 2011, 101–102). In u n, when
Lee Myung-bak aised he issue o Ko ea’s lowe so powe a ac i eness,
compa ed o i s ha d powe achie emen s, in 2009 his go e nmen es ab-
lished he P esiden ial Council on Na ion B anding (PCNB) (Tempo al
2015). The ac ion plan o PCNB encompassed knowledge, exchange, and
cul u al diplomacies ha had likewise been p ac iced by o he go e nmen
agencies (R. Kim 2011). La e , he PCNB also did no ecei e he suppo o
he successi e Pa k Geun-hye go e nmen , and ceased o be ac i e om 2013
(Scha 2016).
102 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
Rega ding he es ablishmen o exac public diplomacy ins i u ions, he
go e nmen made subsequen e o s wi hin he MOFA, wi h he designa-
ion o “Ko ea’s i s Ambassado o public diplomacy in Sep embe 2011”;
ans o ma ion o he Cul u e Diplomacy Di ision in o he Public Diplo-
macy Di ision in Janua y 2012 (MOFA 2014, 300); and ecen ly es ablish-
ing wo new di isions o Di ec o a e o Public Diplomacy on Policy and
he Di ec o a e o Regional Public Diplomacy unde he Di ec o -Gene al
o Policy Planning.16 Un o una ely, despi e hese ans o ma ions wi hin
he MOFA and he acco ding placemen o public diplomacy “as he hi d
pilla o [Ko ea’s] o eign policy along wi h poli ical and economic a ai s”
(MOFA 2014, 299), p ac ically KPD had no go en i s uni e sal egula o y
au ho i y, as i s ill ep esen ed a agmen ed “se o p ac ices” ou o a
na ionally sha ed and accep ed “se o ules.”17 Consequen ly, i has caused
he ollowing “ h ee absences” (3Abs): au ho i y dilemma (1A), s uc u al
p oblem (2A), and lis ening (3A).
He e, he weakness o he go e nmen ’s ins i u ional au ho i y o e
i s public diplomacy ela ed ac i i ies can be e e ed o as he “au ho i y
dilem ma,” he i s o he 3 Abs. Ce ainly, nowadays s a es a e no longe he
sole ac o s in public diplomacy and comple e exe cise o au ho i y o e
mode n public diplomacy goes beyond hei powe capaci ies. Ye in Ko ea’s
case, he “au ho i y dilemma” has been speci ic. Ini ially, as i has showed in
i s o igins and di e si ica ion and polycen ism pe iods, he go e nmen
gene a ed a ious componen s o public diplomacy h ough a ious ini ia-
i es. Ye due o he ac ha since i s ea ly pe iod he go e nmen did no
comp ehensi ely use public diplomacy unde one sys em, i caused a p o-
g essi e agmen a ion o he go e nmen ’s a ilia e ins i u ions in hei
ac i i ies. Sook-jong Lee (2015a) desc ibes i as he absence o a “con ol
owe ” ins i u ion, which in u n caused “li le in o ma ion sha ing and pol-
icy coo dina ion among go e nmen al agencies,” and ope a ed wi h con-
lic ing and o e lapping ac i i ies a he han sha ed in e es s.
16. Minis y o Fo eign A ai s, “O ganiza ional Cha ,” accessed No embe 29, 2016, h p://
www.mo a.go.k /ENG/minis y/o ganiza ion/o ganiza ional/index.jsp?menu=m_50_
60_20.
17. The idea o ph ases “se o ules” and “se o p ac ices” is aken om Du ield (2007).
103
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
2A, which is igh ly linked o and caused by 1A, is he s uc u al p ob-
lem ha encompasses he absence o a comp ehensi e s a egy composed o
sho -, mid-, and long- e m ealis ic goals, and an accompanying pe o -
mance assessmen elemen . The esul so a has been “a lack o coo dina-
ion [in] in e -minis e ial coope a ion” while conduc ing public diplomacy
(Melissen and Sohn 2015, 4). Fo ins ance, T. Kim (2012) gi es he example
o cul u al diplomacy, as a pa o public diplomacy, which is conduc ed by
he h ee minis ies o MOFA, MCST, and Minis y o Educa ion (MOE).
Simul aneously, hese minis ies a e in cha ge o he p omo ion o Hangeul
(Ko ean language) in o e seas coun ies (T. Kim 2012, 540). MCST has
he Sejong Ins i u e wi h a ound 90 in e na ional b anches; MOE manages
o e seas Ko ea Educa ion Cen e s; and MOFA, h ough he KF, p omo es
Ko ean s udies p og ams in a ound 150 uni e si ies in 50 coun ies (T. Kim
2012). 3A, gene a ed by he p e ious p oblems, is he absence o he “lis en-
ing” pa o public diplomacy. In p ac ice, “lis ening” is essen ial o de e -
mine he a ge audiences’ eelings, needs, and eedback, and, acco dingly,
o o mula e o adjus public diplomacy ela ed ac i i ies o hei inc eas-
ing e ec i eness. Un o una ely, his pa has no so a go en he a en ion
o he Ko ean go e nmen . In his ega d, du ing he Six h KF Global Semi-
na in 2013, Jinwoo Choi, p o esso a Hanyang Uni e si y, c i icized Ko ea’s
public diplomacy as an e o o win he hea s and minds “by alking alone,”
because o he neglec o he “lis ening” elemen (KF 2013b).
Recen ly, he Ko ean go e nmen has s a ed o deal wi h hese p ob-
lems. So, in addi ion o he s uc u al ans o ma ions wi hin he MOFA,
he go e nmen adop ed he Public Diplomacy Ac (PDA), which wen in o
e ec on Augus 4, 2016.18 The goal o he PDA is “ o con ibu e o imp o -
ing [Ko ea’s] image and p es ige in he in e na ional communi y by o ming
ounda ions o s eng hen public diplomacy and enhance [i s] e iciency.”19
18. Ko ea He ald, “New Law o Boos Public Diplomacy,” Augus 4, 2016, h p://www.ko ea-
he ald.com/ iew.php?ud=20160804000679.
19. Public Diplomacy Ac , no. 13951, accessed Janua y 20, 2017, h p://mo a.go.k /webmod-
ule/h sboa d/ empla e/ ead/eng eadboa d.jsp? ypeID=12&boa did=15777&seqno=
317913&c=& =&pagenum=1& ableName=TYPE_ENGLISH&pc=&dc=&wc=&lu=
& u=&iu=&du=.
104 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
Im po an ly, he PDA legally de e mines he MOFA as he main ins i u ion
o public diplomacy and “gi es i he au ho i y o command Ko ea’s o e all
public diplomacy p og ams.”20 Speci ically, i planned o es ablish “ he public
diplomacy commi ee” in 2017 “unde he ju isdic ion” o MOFA,21 which
will be comp ised o “20 membe s” om go e nmen ins i u ions and “p i-
a e expe s,” including Minis e o Fo eign A ai s as he chai pe son.22
Whe eas he legal placemen o public diplomacy unde he con ol o
MOFA is hough o sol e he p oblem o 1A, he ensh ined unc ions a e
mean o cope wi h he emaining wo absences. Speci ically, a icle 6 o
PDA equi es he MOFA o adop a comp ehensi e s a egy e e y i e yea s,
called he “mas e plan.”23 A icle 7 calls o na ional and subna ional ac o s
o “ o mula e and implemen [an] annual ac ion plan o public diplomacy
ac i i ies in con o mi y wi h a mas e plan, and submi such ac ion plan
and [i s] pe o mance esul s” o he MOFA, hus a oiding “duplica ion”
and unde pe o mance.24 Addi ionally, in ega ds o 3A, a icles 10 and 11
eques he “conduc [o ] ac - inding esea ch” and he launch o an “in o -
ma ion sys em in o de o conduc public diplomacy in a sys ema ic and
e icien manne .”25 Ob iously, he PDA lays “ he legal and ins i u ional
g oundwo k” o KPD, which has been c ucial in emedying he p oblem o
ins i u ional au ho i y.26
In sum, he ou h pe iod o e olu ion in KPD is s ill in i s o ma i e
s age, whe e he “ h ee absences” ha e so a been hampe ing a comple e
20. Yonhap, “New Law Se o Take Fo ce o Ha ness S. Ko ea’s Public Diplomacy,” Augus 3,
2016, h p://english.yonhapnews.co.k /na ional/2016/08/03/0302000000AEN2016080-
3006251315.h ml.
21. Ko ea He ald, “New Law o Boos Public Diplomacy,” Augus 4, 2016, h p://www.ko ea-
he ald.com/ iew.php?ud=20160804000679.
22. Public Diplomacy Ac , no. 13951; Yonhap, “New Law Se o Take Fo ce o Ha ness S.
Ko ea’s Public Diplomacy,” Augus 3, 2016, h p://english.yonhapnews.co.k /na ional/201
6/08/03/0302000000AEN20160803006251315.h ml.
23. Public Diplomacy Ac , no. 13951.
24. Public Diplomacy Ac , no. 13951.
25. Public Diplomacy Ac , no. 13951.
26. Ko ea He ald, “New Law o Boos Public Diplomacy,” Augus 4, 2016, h p://www.ko ea-
he ald.com/ iew.php?ud=20160804000679.
105
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
accomplishmen o KPD o ma ion. As p e iously men ioned, i has esul ed
in he agmen a ion o go e nmen al ins i u ions’ public diplomacy ela ed
ac i i ies, coincided wi h he absence o a uni e sal egula o y au ho i y
and comp ehensi e s a egy composed o mid, sho , and long- e m o ien -
ed goals. Fo una ely, he go e nmen ’s ecen ini ia i es o s uc u al ans-
o ma ions wi hin he MOFA and he adop ion o he PDA ha e legally
b ough KPD in o i s ins i u ionaliza ion pe iod. Ye he e is much wo k
ahead o Ko ea o implemen he PDA and d a he mas e and ac ion
plans. Fo hese easons, so long as he ecen ini ia i es s ill need o be eal-
ized, i is mo e accu a e o call he cu en s age he “ins i u ionaliza ion
p ocess” pe iod.
Conclusion
Academic in e es in KPD is ising. Ye , he exis ing schola ship has p e-
dominan ly cap u ed he con empo a y p ac ice o public diplomacy in
Ko ea’s o eign policy since he la e 2000s, hus lea ing i s possible o igins
and e olu ion ba ely analyzed. In he cu en a icle I ha e a gued ha he
p esen s a e o KPD ep esen s du ju e in ensi ica ion o ac i i ies ha de
ac o ha e been p ac iced since he second hal o he wen ie h cen u y. In
his ega d, KPD has been conside ed om a long- e m pe spec i e,
ch onologically di ided in o ou e olu iona y pe iods as ollows: (1) o i-
gins (la e 1940s–la e 1980s), (2) di e si ica ion (ea ly 1990s), (3) polycen-
ism (ea ly 2000s), and (4) ins i u ionaliza ion (2011 o he p esen ). This
pe iodical di ision consis s o he logic ECC, and hus cap u es he ini ial
ounda ions, con inui ies and changes o KPD in e ms o he goals, ways,
and means o i s conduc .
The o igins pe iod e eals he Ko ean go e nmen ’s i s -e e launch o
engagemen wi h local and o eign publics h ough cul u al and spo s
diplomacies, aimed a building he image o Ko ea wi h an indi idual cul-
u al and na ional iden i y. The di e si ica ion pe iod implies he go e n-
men ’s expansion o public diplomacy engagemen a eas h ough ODA,
knowledge and exchange diplomacies, ins i u ionally mani es ed in he es -
106 KOREA JOURNAL / AU UmN 2017
ablishmen o KOICA and KF. The ansi ion in o his pe iod has been
explained by a quali a i e change in he go e nmen ’s app oach o public
diplomacy, inci ed by poli ical ans o ma ion wi hin he coun y and he
changing na u e o in e na ional ela ions. The polycen ism pe iod has con-
sis ed o he Hallyu phenomenon ha , as a non-s a e ac o , has success ully
con ibu ed o he e ec i eness o KPD. Unlike he wo p eceding pe iods,
polycen ism has s uc u ally ans o med KPD om a solely s a e-led ac i -
i y in o a polycen ic amewo k o public and p i a e pa ne ship. Las ly,
ins i u ionaliza ion has comp ised he pe iod o he go e nmen ’s o icial
placemen o public diplomacy as one o i s o eign policy pilla s, acco d-
ingly s a ing he ins i u ionaliza ion o KPD egula o y au ho i y. In his
sense, he s uc u al ans o ma ions wi hin he MOFA since 2011 and he
adop ion o he Public Diplomacy Ac in 2016 a e o be conside ed ins i u-
ionaliza ion e o s o he go e nmen , aimed a emedying he p oblem o
he 3Abs.
REFERENCES
A ms ong, Ma hew C. 2009. “Ope a ionalizing Public Diplomacy.” In Rou ledge
Handbook o Public Diplomacy, edi ed by Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylo ,
63–71. London: Rou ledge.
Cai nc oss, F ances. 1997. The Dea h o Dis ance: How he Communica ions Re olu-
ion Is Changing Ou Li es. Bos on: Ha a d Business School P ess.
Cho, Hae-Joang. 2005. “Reading he ‘Ko ean Wa e’ as a Sign o Global Shi .” Ko ea
Jou nal 45.4: 147–182.
Cho, Yun Young. 2012. “Public Diplomacy and Sou h Ko ea’s S a egies.” Ko ean
Jou nal o In e na ional S udies 10.2: 275–296.
CIDC (Commi ee o In e na ional De elopmen Coope a ion). 2014. Ko ea’s O i-
cial De elopmen Assis ance Whi e Pape 2014. Sejong: CIDC.
Cowan, Geo ey, and Amelia A senaul . 2008. “Mo ing F om Monologue o Dia-
logue o Collabo a ion: The Th ee Laye s o Public Diplomacy.” Annals o he
Ame ican Academy o Poli ical and Social Science 616 (Ma ch): 10–30.
Cull, Nicholas J. 2008. “Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and His o ies.” Annals o he
Ame ican Academy o Poli ical and Social Science 616 (Ma ch): 31–54.
107
Public Diplomacy: Reapp aising he Sou h Ko ean Case h ough an E olu iona y App oach
____________. 2009. “Public Diplomacy be o e Gullion: The E olu ion o a Ph ase.”
In Rou ledge Handbook o Public Diplomacy, edi ed by Nancy Snow and Philip
M. Taylo , 19–23. London: Rou ledge.
Dal, Yong Jin. 2012. “Hallyu 2.0: The New Ko ean Wa e in C ea i e Indus y.” In e -
na ional Ins i u e Jou nal 2.1: 3–7.
De Ceus e , Koen. 2005. “P ide and P ejudice in Sou h Ko ea’s Fo eign Policy.”
Copenhagen Jou nal o Asian S udies 21: 64–90.
d’Hooghe, Ing id. 2015. China’s Public Diplomacy. Leiden: B ill Nijho .
Du ield, John S. 2007. “Wha A e In e na ional Ins i u ions?” In e na ional S udies
Re iew 9.1: 1–22.
Fa dous , Shah okh, Yongbeom Kim, and Claudia Sepúl eda. 2011. “Pos c isis
G ow h and De elopmen : A De elopmen Agenda o he G-20: O e iew.”
In Pos c isis G ow h and De elopmen : A De elopmen Agenda o he G-20,
edi ed by Shah okh Fa dous , Yongbeom Kim, and Claudia Sepúl eda, 1–62.
Washing on: Wo ld Bank.
G ego y, B uce. 2011. “Ame ican Public Diplomacy: Endu ing Cha ac e is ics, Elu-
si e T ans o ma ion.” Hague Jou nal o Diplomacy 6.3/4: 351–372.
Helle , Ken S., and Liza M. Pe sson. 2009. “The Dis inc ion be ween Public A ai s
and Public Diplomacy.” In Rou ledge Handbook o Public Diplomacy, edi ed by
Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylo , 225–232. London: Rou ledge.
He manns, Heike. 2013. “Na ional Role Concep ions in he ‘Global Ko ea’ Fo eign
Policy S a egy.” Ko ean Jou nal o In e na ional S udies 11.1: 55–82.
Hong, Kiwon. 2014. “Na ion B anding o Ko ea.” In Cul u al Policies in Eas Asia:
Dynamics be ween he S a e, A s and C ea i e Indus ies, edi ed by Hye-Kyung
Lee and Lo aine Lim, 69–84. New Yo k: Palg a e Macmillan.
House o Commons Fo eign A ai s Commi ee. 2011. FCO Public Diplomacy: The
Olympic and Pa alympic Games 2012. London: Fo eign A ai s Commi ee.
Jang, Gunjoo, and Won K. Paik. 2012. “Ko ean Wa e as Tool o Ko ea’s New Cul-
u al Diplomacy.” Ad ances in Applied Sociology 2.3: 196–202.
Kalinowski, Thomas, and Hyekyung Cho. 2012. “Ko ea’s Sea ch o a Global Role
be ween Ha d Economic In e es s and So Powe .” Eu opean Jou nal o De el-
opmen Resea ch 24.2: 242–260.
Kelley, John R. 2009. “Be ween ‘Take-o s’ and ‘C ash Landings’: Si ua ional Aspec s
o Public Diplomacy.” In Rou ledge Handbook o Public Diplomacy, edi ed by
Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylo , 72–85. London: Rou ledge.
____________. 2015. “Non-S a e Ac o s.” The Public Diplomacy Council. Las modi-
ied Janua y 25, 2015. h p://www.publicdiplomacycouncil.o g/commen a ies/
01-25-15/non-s a e-ac o s.
