hard power essay

Hard Power: Definition, Examples, Benefits & Limitations

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

In political theory, hard power refers to the use of military and economic force to influence the actions and behaviors of other political entities.

It is contrasted to soft power , which refers to tools like diplomacy, cultural exchange, and foreign aid in order to exert influence.

While hard power is seen as an extremely powerful way of achieving geopolitical ends, it is also generally decried as overly interventionist, violation of rights, and even contravening established global norms.

Hard Power Definition

Hard power and soft power represent two fundamental strategies in international relations, with different mechanisms and impacts.

Soft power , a term coined by American political theorist Joseph Nye (1990; 2011; 2021), was defined by Nye as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments” (Nye, 2009, p. 2).

Nye regularly uses the term “attractiveness” when referring to soft power (Nye, 2009). In his view, the best way to achieve geopolitical ends is to convince others that your perspective is the most attractive, legitimate, and desirable of all perspectives.

With Nye having defined soft power, it was only natural that the opposite would also be defined – hard power.

Hard power , as the name suggests, is a more forceful approach involving military might and economic leverage – carrots and sticks (Qin, 2018; Wagner, 2014). It operates under the philosophy that might makes right, using coercive tactics like:

• Intervention

The use of hard power often indicates a power imbalance, as it tends to be exercised primarily by powerful entities against weaker ones, and often only after they were unable to use soft power to get their way. Soft power, after all, is much less costly, and therefore the preferred route. Nevertheless, when soft power fails, nations often turn to hard power to get their way.

Go Deeper: Hard Power vs Soft Power

Hard Power Examples

1. coercive diplomacy.

Coercive diplomacy refers to the tactic of using threats or limited force to persuade an adversary to halt or undo an action. Typically, it involves verbal threats, shows of force, or small-scale military actions that underscore the risk of a larger confrontation if the adversary remains non-compliant. A famous example is the U.S. quarantine (a kind of naval blockade) of Cuba during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

2. Economic Sanctions

Economic sanctions represent a type of economic warfare aimed at depriving a target nation of resources or trade opportunities to force it to comply with the sanctioning nation’s political or policy objectives. It can involve trade embargoes, freezing of financial assets, and the withdrawal of foreign aid.

3. Military Action

This is the most explicit form of hard power. Military action uses a nation’s armed forces to dominate, damage or destroy an adversary’s military capabilities, or to seize control of their territory. Examples include the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States. Historically, this was the means by which the world was divided up, and was the ultimate form of power, because the strongest military wins all.

4. Military Alliances

A military alliance is an international agreement concerning national security, where the countries commit to support each other in case of a crisis. These alliances, such as NATO or the Warsaw Pact, can be seen as a form of hard power, because they serve to deter potential enemies by creating a military force that is greater than the sum of its parts.

5. Trade Embargoes

Trade embargoes are a type of economic sanction that prohibits trade with a target country. This can be damaging for economies that heavily rely on international trade. A notable example is the United States’ embargo against Cuba, which lasted for over five decades. We consider this to be hard power because it’s the use of coercive foreign policies designed to harm another country’s economy, even bringing it to its knees.

6. Financial Asset Freezing

This involves the freezing of a country’s assets that are held in foreign banks in order to cripple the country’s economy. This is often used as a means to deter countries from engaging in undesired activities. Famously, Iran’s financial assets were frozen by the United States for decades following the 1979 anti-democratic takeover and creation of the Islamic Republic. Similarly, following the invasion of Ukraine, Russia had many of its assets frozen by the international community.

7. Tariffs and Import/Export Controls

These measures influence trade relations by manipulating the prices and quantities of goods that can be imported or exported. Tariffs can be used to make foreign products more expensive and unappealing to domestic buyers, promoting domestic products. Import/Export controls can be directly limiting the amount of certain goods a country can buy or sell internationally. While this action can harm economic competitors, it often also causes harm to your own economy because the costs of tariffs end up being passed-on to consumers.

8. Suspension of Aid

This involves stopping of financial or humanitarian assistance to a target country. Countries that are heavily reliant on foreign aid can be significantly impacted by such moves. Oftentimes, aid from Europe, the United States, and the World Bank is contingent upon economic liberalization and political reforms. We saw this, for example, when the European Union made their post-2008 funding to Greece dependent on liberalization. Here, the threat of suspension of aid was enough to coerce Greece into changing their policies.

Case studies

1. the iraq war.

Type: Military Action

In 2003, the United States, alongside its allies, initiated an invasive military action against Iraq, primarily based on the disputed grounds that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

This move can be viewed as a clear demonstration of hard power, as it involved the use of direct, tactical force to achieve political objectives.

Despite its clear demonstration of military might, the action received widespread international criticism. In particular, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared it as illegal since it violated the UN charter.

2. U.S. Sanctions against Iran

Type: Economic Sanctions

In an attempt to pressure Iran to cease uranium enrichment activities, the U.S. government has imposed a series of stringent economic sanctions on Iran.

These measures, intensified since 2005, aimed to isolate Iran economically by cutting off its financial and business transactions with other countries.

They targeted not only the energy and financial sectors of Iran, but also industries such as shipping, airlines, and automotive. The sanctions significantly impacted the Iranian economy, leading to a fall in the value of the Iranian Rial and increases in inflation and unemployment.

While critics argued that the sanctions primarily hurt ordinary Iranians rather than the government, proponents argue they put necessary pressure on Iran to deter the country from developing nuclear weapons.

3. The Cuban Missile Crisis

Type: Coercive Diplomacy

In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, U.S. President John F. Kennedy engaged in a famous act of coercive diplomacy. The Soviet Union, under Nikita Khrushchev, had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, sparking a severe confrontation between the two superpowers.

In response, Kennedy ordered a naval “quarantine” (effectively, a blockade) of Cuba to prevent the Soviets from bringing in additional missiles, and demanded the removal of those already installed. This threatened the potential for escalated military action if the demands were not met.

Eventually, Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the missile sites in Cuba, demonstrating the effectiveness of Kennedy’s strategy of coercive diplomacy, thus wielded as a type of hard power.

Benefits and Limitations of Hard Power

Hard power holds numerous benefits especially for nations with strong military and economic resources.

A country successfully implementing hard power can bring about swift and direct change in line with its national and international objectives.

Benefits include:

• Quick Results: Hard power can produce immediate outcomes when time is of the essence. For example, using economic sanctions or military force can quickly pressure a country to alter its actions.
• Deterrence: Hard power can act as a deterrent to potential adversaries. The exhibition of strength, through military might or economic impact, can deter other nations from engaging in aggressive behaviors against a country.
• Protection of National Interests: Hard power can be essential for protecting national sovereignty, maintaining territorial integrity, and enforcing a nation’s interests at the international level (Lemke, 2016; Qin, 2018)

Despite these benefits, there are significant drawbacks and limitations associated with the application of hard power.

Limitations include:

• Breeds Resentment: The use of military action or sanctions can breed resentment among the targeted populations, creating an environment conducive to radicalization or revenge, which can lead to prolonged conflicts.
• Damages International Relationships: Over-reliance on hard power can lead to strained relationships with allies and other countries who may view such actions as oppressive or imperialistic.
• Humanitarian Costs: Particularly in the case of military action, the use of force often leads to death, displacement, and suffering among innocent civilians.
• Economic Costs: There are also economic costs to hard power. Engaging in war or imposing economic sanctions can have financial repercussions for the country enforcing them.
• Failure to Solve Root Problems: While hard power can sometimes stop immediate challenges, it often fails to address the root causes of conflict, and may even exacerbate them. (Lebedeva, 2017; Nye, 2009)

Smart Power: Beyond Hard vs Soft

‘Smart power’ is a term in international relations used to describe a strategic balance between hard and soft power approaches (Volten, 2016; Whiton, 2013).

Coined by Suzanne Nossel (2009) and popularized by Joseph Nye, it emphasizes the necessity of a strong military, but also invests heavily in alliances, partnerships, and institutions at all levels to expand one’s influence and establish legitimacy.

This approach prioritizes diplomacy, economic investment, and cultural exchange as effective means to project influence, but integrates the use of coercion and force when necessary.

One notable example of smart power can be seen in the U.S foreign policy approach towards China.

The U.S. attempts to use a mix of hard and soft power in dealing with China’s rising influence. On the one hand, it uses hard power by strengthening its military presence in Asia-Pacific and by implementing tariffs and trade restrictions. This is also reflected in the tough stance taken on issues like South China Sea disputes and human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

On the other hand, it employs soft power through strong cultural and educational ties, with a large number of Chinese students studying in U.S. colleges. Also, the U.S. diplomatic efforts to bring China into international institutions like World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Health Organization (WHO), and engagement on global issues like climate change, reflect the elements of soft power.

Together, these strategies represent an integration of soft and hard power, embodying the concept of smart power (Whiton, 2013).

Lebedeva, M. M. (2017). Soft power: the concept and approaches. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 3 (54), 212-223.

Lemke, D. (2016). Dimensions of hard power: Regional leadership and material capabilities. In  Regional leadership in the global system  (pp. 31-50). Routledge.

Nossel, S. (January 28, 2009). “Smart Power”.  Foreign Affairs . No. March/April 2004

Nye, J. S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign policy, (80), 153-171.

Nye, J. S. (2009). Soft Power: The Means To Success In World Politics. PublicAffairs.

Nye, J. S. (2011). The Future of Power. PublicAffairs.

Nye, J. S. (2021). Soft power: the evolution of a concept. Journal of Political Power, 14 (1), 196-208.

Qin, Y. (2018). A Relational Theory of World Politics . Cambridge University Press.

Volten, P. (2016). Hard power versus Soft power or a balance between the two?.  All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace ,  5 (2), 91-94.

Wagner, J. P. N. (2014). The effectiveness of soft & hard power in contemporary international relations.  E-International Relations , 1-2.

Whiton, C. (2013). Smart Power: Between Diplomacy and War. Potomac Books.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hard and Soft Power: Why You’re More Powerful Than You Think

Let me see your whole palace, or else! […] Or else we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are. Hans Blix to Kim Jong-il, Team America: World Police (2004)

Kim Jong-il was not impressed by Hans Blix’s threat. In the movie, the former United Nations weapons inspector ends up being fed to the sharks. No matter what letter the UN ended up sending off-screen, the scene is a great juxtaposition of two concepts famously coined by Joseph S. Nye: hard power and soft power.

Nye’s book, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics is a much-discussed classic in international relations. His conceptualisation is popular to this day. Arguably because ‘power’ is such a notoriously malleable concept. Nye’s dichotomy is an attempt to break an abstract concept down into more tangible categories and characteristics.

Granted, the political scientist was concerned with the relationships between states. But that shouldn’t stop us from using his typology to gauge our personal influence in this world. What can hard and soft power do for us?

In common parlance, having power means to be in control, to be able to impose your will on someone. Hard power comes closest to this kind of ability. It’s the one most of us probably have in mind and would like to have. Hard power is all about deterrence and the interplay between enticement and coercion.

Hard Power in World Politics

In the international sphere, hard power can involve the very convincing deployment of forcible means such as leveraging one’s military or economy. Consequently, a state’s hard power can be measured by the strength of a nation’s armed forces, or the number of shark tanks if you will. The prowess of a country’s economy and financial system are other important criteria.

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean going to war. While military intervention is the ultimate exercise of hard power, the mere ability to wield a credible threat can do the trick. The same goes for the imposition of tariffs or economic sanctions. Granting or denying access to a market would be another example. Broadly speaking, hard power is about the good old carrots and sticks, the ability to offer or withdraw incentives and issue credible threats.

As Nye points out, the upshot of hard power is its immediate and visible consequences. Whoever is at the receiving end usually doesn’t have too much of a choice. They are volunteered to give up territory, sign a treaty, or otherwise bend the knee. I think it’s that clear cause-and-effect relationship that makes hard power so tempting. But how does this apply to those of us who don’t command a standing army or preside over a national economy?

Everyday Hard Power

Analogous to the world stage, we might classify our personal economic, financial and physical strengths and abilities as a form of hard power. This extends to any tools and assets we have at our disposal. Any type of wealth or self-defence abilities come to mind.

I think it’s important to note that we pretty much all possess aspects of this kind of power. There are only 195 countries in the world. But I’d argue there are considerably more people in your wider social circle. Particularly over the course of your lifetime. This implies your personal hard power is much more relative than that of a nation.

Financially, we may provide or withdraw funds to and from someone, wield a credible threat when it comes to someone’s employment or exploits moral dependencies. Even the mere act of giving out or withholding information and knowledge could be seen as falling under hard power. The same applies to our physical attributes and abilities of course. While you may not stand a chance against a Mixed Martial Arts fighter in a bar brawl, you can easily overpower a toddler. In short, we can include any dependent relationships that allow for forced interactions.

So we all have hard power over someone. We have plenty of carrots and sticks that get us immediate, visible and tangible results. Perhaps just not at the level and over the people we have in mind. Regardless, there’s a solid case to be made for cultivating your hard power as an individual. Even if you only think of it as the ability to defend yourself should the need arise. Because it can also act as a deterrence, so the need never arises.

The Weak Spot of Hard Power

The benefits of hard power are obvious. It can solve problems fast and potentially pre-empt conflicts in the first place. However, it can create new ones equally quickly. When we look at hard power in isolation, it has some major weak spots:

• Being a top-down approach, it’s not a good long-term solution. People don’t like being controlled. They love their autonomy, which is one reason why we have so much trouble saying ‘No’ without feeling guilty .
• The more you control people the more they will find ways to evade or resist. With counterfeit obedience or by creatively breaking the rules you impose on them.
• Hard power can give you a (false) sense of control, especially if your counterpart is smart, quick-witted and knows how to play the game from an inferior position.
• Invariably, hard power comes with the temptation to be corrupted. The more hard power you acquire, the more susceptible you tend to be.

Overall, the potential price for imminent and visible short-term results are invisible and unintended negative long-term consequences.

This type of power introduced in Nye’s eponymous book is probably less known. To the very least it entails aspects we wouldn’t normally associate with the term. Soft power hinges on persuasion, attraction and relationships.

Soft Power in World Politics

According to Nye, soft power is exerted in a much more subtle way. It entails a wide variety of non-coercive means. The art of diplomacy is among them. So is the level of trust and credibility of an actor in the international community. Obviously, it is much more likely that a state will be considered a reliable negotiating partner if past agreements were consistently honoured. This is why an administration’s track record and a country’s history can play into this type of power, too.

What may be less obvious is the significance and attractiveness of know-how and competence in science and engineering. Also, think about how a country’s entertainment sector impacts a nation’s influence in the world. American culture, for instance, with its music and movie industry, has enormous appeal. Through culture, the beliefs and values of American society are communicated. It’s Captain America and his genius, playboy, billionaire, philanthropist pal Tony who are featured in one of the highest-grossing movies of all time. Not Hauptmann Liechtenstein.

In sum, soft power is a passive and rather underestimated type of power. The impact of its means cannot easily be seen. As opposed to the hard stuff, their effect is not immediate and is difficult to evaluate. As Nye explains, there’s also no guarantee that soft power will yield results. Or did Avengers: Endgame have any measurable effect on Australian foreign policy decisions?

Everyday Soft Power

It’s fairly obvious. Individuals can attract, persuade and build personal relationships as a means of soft power, too. Expertise, know-how and competence are attractive features that build relationships and invite collaboration. How we conduct ourselves, the values we convey, our customs and traditions take the place of culture. The art of diplomacy, constructive disagreement, ability to debate and negotiate enable us to persuade and solve conflicts without coercion.

We could even argue that it’s easier for a private person to exert soft power. Our individual resources are limited. But being a single actor, our credibility is more reliant on the current and past versions of ourselves. Not the collective deeds and misdeeds of past administrations spanning over centuries and across party lines.

No doubt, the invisibility of impact is a concern. Though, there are prominent examples of an individual’s ability to take on a powerful regime with soft power alone: Václav Havel’s 1978 The Power of the Powerless comes to mind. In his essay, the former Czech dissident and statesman dissected the nature of the Soviet regime. Using Nye’s terminology, we could say that Havel encouraged people to cultivate their soft power by making the case for the importance of living a truthful life. The essay gave people hope and caused them to realise that they mattered.

So soft power is fairly accessible. It starts with learning how to think, read, write and otherwise communicate in the pursuit of a goal. It’s the opposite of forced interactions without reciprocity. That is not to say there aren’t downsides. It looks like the growth of soft power tends to be organic. It is cultivated slowly and exerted passively. Nye’s caveat also applies to us. Don’t expect immediate tangible results. If there are outcomes, they might not be directly attributable to a particular action you took. Also, trust and credibility are fragile commodities that can be destroyed in an instant.

The Sharp End of Soft Power

It is no surprise people tend to underestimate soft power. While it may not be perceived as power at all, it has a distinctly sharp end:

• It”s the ability to attract and persuade, build relationships and collaborate in a way that people would deal with you again.
• This is done by creating opportunities and things people love and find useful.
• It’s the ability to define a problem, expose a situation, bring attention to a potential solution or attract supporters for your cause.
• Instead of relying on carrots and sticks, you plant ideas in people’s heads, make them think, and help them solve problems without expecting something in return.
• Since it requires competence, patience and consistent effort, it’s a sustainable long-term strategy for long-term goals.

Oddly enough, soft power can become the source of hard power, which you might be given sooner than you think.

Balancing Hard and Soft Power

On the one hand, we have deterrence, coercion, carrots and sticks. On the other hand, we have relationships, persuasion and attraction. Clearly, both approaches have their merits. So the question is: How should you balance the acquisition and use of both? Well, here’s one way to think about it.

Hard and soft power are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Though, striving for both comes with trade-offs. While strength and the mere ability to coerce if needed can be attractive features, adopting too much of a threatening posture tends to be off-putting by design. Then there’s the possibility that mere competence is perceived as threatening; a phenomenon Australians have dubbed Tall Poppy Syndrome . Having limited resources also means we have to prioritise one over the other.

It all depends on your personal circumstances and goals. Since soft power is associated with long-term success, it seems reasonable to prioritise it. The better your relationships, the more you can attract and persuade, the less often you need to threaten or coerce. Wielding soft power also gives you options, including the ability to walk away from a toxic job or when you’re dealing with a cut-throat negotiator.

Talking someone out of punching you in the face is not always possible. But since using the means of coercion can cost you trust and credibility, hard power should only be wielded in exceptional circumstances. With minimum necessary force, guard yourself against coercion, while not creating more new problems than needed. In essence, the limiting principle to acquiring and using hard power could be the preservation of your ability to pursue your long-term goals.

I don’t think there’s virtue in avoiding or rejecting any type of power. On the contrary, ultimate virtue lies in having ultimate hard and soft power without being corrupted.

Closing Thoughts

Puppet Blix made a spectacular and deadly mistake. He tried to exert hard power with the means of soft power. Like threatening to stab someone with a feather and not being John Wick. It makes for an entertaining movie scene. The real Hans Blix, however, doesn’t underestimate his soft powers.

I still can’t get over the fact that he referenced his portrayal in Team America during a press conference. While having a giggle about his alter ego’s fate, Blix contends that writing a letter to the board was “not such an innocent thing”. In other words, soft power is a form of power, albeit an underestimated one.

You see, I’ve never met Nye, the screenwriters of Team America , or Hans Blix. I have a sneaking suspicion they don’t even know I exist. What I can do, though, is confirm that neither of them has coerced me into amplifying their work in this post. Now, what about you? Can you think critically? Can you write? Do you have a pen and paper at hand? Then you have more power than you think.

Chris Meyer

I'm a writer, teacher & analyst with a background in languages, martial arts & failing at things. I collect and connect ideas while attempting humour. Here are 50 unbelievable facts about me .

• The Tenth Man Rule
• 25 Critical Thinking Quotes
• Four Stages of Competence
• The 48 Laws of Power
• Hierarchy of Disagreement
• Baloney Detection Kit
• Top 25 Interesting Ideas
• 5 Habits of the Master Thinker
• Orwell's Writing Rules
• 5 Structured Analytic Techniques

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans differ from people in other societies over some aspects of U.S. ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power

Americans don’t always see eye to eye with people in other societies over various dimensions of U.S. “hard” and “soft” power, according to a February Pew Research Center survey of the United States and 16 other advanced economies. While Americans see some aspects of U.S. power more positively than people elsewhere, they offer more negative views in other areas.

When it comes to the U.S. military, for example, 44% of U.S. adults say it’s the best in the world and another 34% describe it as above average. These self-evaluations are slightly rosier than those offered by publics in the other advanced economies surveyed, where, outside of South Korea (42%) and Taiwan (37%), no more than around three-in-ten adults see the U.S. military as the best in the world. Still, large majorities in the U.S. and every other place surveyed describe the American military as at least above average.

This Pew Research Center analysis focuses on comparing attitudes in the United States about American “soft” (e.g. cultural products, technology) and “hard” power (e.g. military) with views in other advanced economies. For non-U.S. data, this post draws on nationally representative surveys of 16,254 adults from March 12 to May 26, 2021, in 16 advanced economies. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

In the U.S., we surveyed 2,596 adults from Feb. 1 to 7, 2021. Everyone who took part in the U.S. survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.

This study was conducted in places where nationally representative telephone surveys are feasible. Due to the coronavirus outbreak, face-to-face interviewing is not currently possible in many parts of the world.

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses. Visit our methodology database for more information about the survey methods outside the U.S. For respondents in the U.S., read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Around three-in-ten Americans (29%) describe their country’s entertainment products – including movies, music and television – as the best in the world, while another 39% call them above average. Large majorities in every other place surveyed agree that U.S. cultural exports are at least better than average, but only in Greece, Japan, Singapore and Italy are people as likely as Americans to declare the U.S. the global leader.

Americans are notably less positive when it comes to their nation’s technological achievements. Only 16% think U.S. achievements in this area are the best in the world. On this question, people in other countries are slightly more likely to see the U.S. positively. A median of 20% of adults across the 16 other advanced economies say U.S. technology is the best in the world, including 45% in Greece, 38% in South Korea and 31% in Taiwan. While relatively few Americans see their own country’s technological achievements as the world’s best, 64% of U.S. adults see them as at least better than average – a view that is broadly shared across the other surveyed publics (median of 72%).

Americans do not offer especially glowing evaluations of their universities, either. Only 14% call them the best in the world, though another 33% describe them as better than average. Across the other publics surveyed, a median of 59% describe U.S. universities as at least better than average. And in Greece (40%), South Korea (31%), Japan (24%) and Singapore (23%), around a quarter or more describe them as the best in the world.

When it comes to the U.S. standard of living, around half of Americans (51%) describe it as above average or better, including 12% who call it the best in the world. Yet outside of Taiwan (53%), South Korea (52%), Spain (51%) and Greece (47%), people in other advanced economies offer less positive assessments. Across the other 16 places surveyed, a median of only 33% describe the U.S. standard of living as above average or better. In fact, in most places, a plurality describes the American standard of living as solidly “average” – including half who give it this rating in Germany. Around half of the Dutch (47%) and Swedes (53%) call the American standard of living below average or worse.

Few people in any of the advanced economies surveyed – the U.S. included – describe the American health care system as the best in the world. Americans themselves are relatively divided over whether it is better than average (31%), average (30%) or worse than average (39%). Elsewhere, majorities say the American health care system is below average or worse, including one-in-five or more in Australia (24%), Spain (20%) and Belgium (20%) who say the American health care system is the worst in the world.

Views differ by age, income, party affiliation

Younger people tend to evaluate America more positively than older people in some of the advanced economies surveyed. In the U.S., however, the opposite is often true: Older Americans, for example, are more likely than younger adults to describe their nation’s standard of living, health care system, military, technological achievements and universities as above average. Younger Americans, however, are more likely than older adults to see their country’s entertainment products positively.

Across many advanced economies surveyed, people with higher incomes are more likely than those with lower incomes to describe the U.S. as above average across nearly all dimensions asked about – with the notable exceptions of the health care system and the overall standard of living. In the U.S., however, higher-income people are more likely than lower-income people to compliment America’s standard of living.

In the U.S., there are also stark partisan and ideological differences in views about American power. Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party are more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to describe America’s health care system, standard of living and military as above average or better. The opposite is true when it comes to universities and entertainment.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses. Visit our methodology database for more information about the survey methods outside the U.S. For respondents in the U.S., read more about the ATP’s methodology .

• Global Balance of Power
• Health Care
• Higher Education
• Military & Veterans
• National Conditions
• U.S. Global Image

Laura Silver is an associate director focusing on global attitudes at Pew Research Center .

Growing Partisan Divisions Over NATO and Ukraine

Americans remain critical of china, how americans view the conflicts between russia and ukraine, israel and hamas, and china and taiwan, comparing views of the u.s. and china in 24 countries, views of india lean positive across 23 countries, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Advertisement

Supported by

THE WAY WE LIVE NOW: 1-30-05: IDEA LAB

The New Hard-Soft Power

• Share full article

By James Traub

• Jan. 30, 2005

In his 2002 book, "The Paradox of American Power," Joseph S. Nye Jr., the scholar and former Pentagon official, famously distinguishes between "hard" and "soft" power. The first is the power to coerce, largely through military might; the second, the power to co-opt through such "intangible" factors as culture, values and institutions (the media, churches, schools and so forth). In an era of globalized information, Nye observes, the power to persuade has become almost as important as the power to compel, and he criticizes American policy makers for their single-minded focus on brute force.

Where, in this taxonomy, do we put the images we saw in recent weeks of United States Navy helicopter pilots aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln ferrying supplies to victims of the tsunami in the Indonesian province of Aceh? Is that hard power with a human face? Soft power in a flak jacket? Whatever it is, it produces an inherently attractive narrative. I arrived in Indonesia 11 days after the disaster hit, and in that day's Jakarta Post, the capital's chief English-language daily, I read a long and reverent profile of the American pilots bearing the headline, "U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln Enjoys Aceh Humanitarian Mission."

As the Bush administration tries to blunt the hostility fostered by four years of swaggering belligerence, it should think about reconfiguring Nye's parlor-game-cum-political-theory to its own purposes. We know all too well that this administration does not do soft. Nye himself once told me Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to the concept: "I don't know what 'soft power' is." President Bush's chintzy initial response to the tsunami implies that he doesn't know quite what it is either.

The problem with the hard-soft dichotomy itself is that it fails to take account of the soft-power potential of military helicopters and aircraft carriers. We live in an era not only of globalized information but also of the nearly $450 billion defense budget. The United States military is now an instrument of absolutely everything -- warfare, diplomacy, social policy, humanitarianism. It just depends how we deploy it. The critical attributes that make the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln an instrument of persuasion rather than of coercion are, first, that it is being put to nonlethal use and, second and no less important, that it is advancing humanitarian ends -- that it is not directly serving American self-interest. "This was an act of God," the Jakarta Post reporter quotes an American serviceman. "We are here and happy to help."

Soft power, in short, need not be squishy soft. And this hard-jacketed form of persuasion may actually be more effective than the classic instruments of soft power, at least as they are embodied in popular culture. Nye argues that, whatever its flaws, our culture projects the core values of "democracy, personal freedom, upward mobility and openness." Well, maybe that's the subtext of "The Day After Tomorrow" and "The Apprentice," but you could make at least as good a case that our coarse entertainment products have proved even more frighteningly hegemonic than our military.

Of course we should have exchange programs and American libraries abroad and all the other tools of public diplomacy. But it will not be easy for even the best expressions of American culture to escape the overwhelming suspicion that now dogs all things American. The same is true, naturally, of humanitarian helicopter missions. But at least these are acts, with an unambiguously positive outcome. And the use of our immense hard power for soft purposes has the additional benefit of humanizing the fierce image inevitably projected by that power: the same military that shocks and awes can also save and heal.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Corpus ID: 211267478

The Effectiveness of Soft & Hard Power in Contemporary International Relations

• Published 2020
• Political Science

8 Citations

Significance of soft power for pursuing foreign policy objectives, impact of soft power on traditional global dynamics, hard and soft power approaches to armed conflicts: the united states in iraq and russia in syria, qatar soft power: from rising to the crisis, exploring eu culture policy towards eastern partnership countries, a battle for foreign perceptions: ukraine’s country image in the 2022 war with russia, nepal’s relationship with india and china in the changing context, defense diplomacy in peace time to strengthening military partnership and enhancing defense capabilities between indonesia and france through the acquisition of rafale jets, 19 references, public diplomacy and soft power, book review: soft power: the means to success in world politics, soft power: what it is, why it’s important, and the conditions for its effective use, soft power and smart power in africa.

• Highly Influential

Soft Power in Foreign Policy

Hard power, soft power, smart power, america's sticky power, global politics, smart power, real leaders do soft power: learning the lessons of iraq, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

The Benefits of Soft Power

It is a central paradox of American power: The sheer might of the United States is unquestioned: U.S. troops are stationed in some 130 countries around the globe, and no opposing army would dare to challenge it on a level playing field. But as America's military superiority has increased, its ability to persuade is at low ebb in many parts of the world, even among its oldest allies. In the following remarks, drawn from an address given on March 11 at the Center for Public Leadership's conference on "Misuses of Power: Causes and Corrections," Joseph S. Nye Jr., Dean [until June 30, 2004] of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, distinguishes between hard power—the power to coerce—and soft—the power to attract.

The dictionary says that leadership means going ahead or showing the way. To lead is to help a group define and achieve a common purpose. There are various types and levels of leadership, but all have in common a relationship with followers. Thus leadership and power are inextricably intertwined. I will argue below that many leadership skills such as creating a vision, communicating it, attracting and choosing able people, delegating, and forming coalitions depend upon what I call soft power. But first we should ask, what is power?

What is power? At the most general level, power is the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants. There are several ways to affect the behavior of others.

• You can coerce them with threats.
• You can induce them with payments.
• Or you can attract or co-opt them.

Sometimes I can affect your behavior without commanding it. If you believe that my objectives are legitimate, I may be able to persuade you without using threats or inducements. For example, loyal Catholics may follow the Pope's teaching on capital punishment not because of a threat of excommunication, but out of respect for his moral authority. Or some radical Muslims may be attracted to support Osama bin Laden's actions not because of payments or threats, but because they believe in the legitimacy of his objectives.

Practical politicians and ordinary people often simply define power as the possession of capabilities or resources that can influence outcomes. Someone who has authority, wealth, or an attractive personality is called powerful. In international politics, by this second definition, we consider a country powerful if it has a relatively large population, territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability.

The virtue of this second definition is that it makes power appear more concrete, measurable, and predictable. Power in this sense is like holding the high cards in a card game. But when people define power as synonymous with the resources that produce it, they sometimes encounter the paradox that those most endowed with power do not always get the outcomes they want. For example, in terms of resources, the United States was the world's only superpower in 2001, but it failed to prevent September 11. Converting resources into realized power in the sense of obtaining desired outcomes requires well-designed strategies and skillful leadership. Yet strategies are often inadequate and leaders frequently misjudge—witness Hitler in 1941 or Saddam Hussein in 1990.

Measuring power in terms of resources is an imperfect but useful shorthand. It is equally important to understand which resources provide the best basis for power behavior in a particular context. Oil was not an impressive power resource before the industrial age, nor was uranium significant before the nuclear age. Power resources cannot be judged without knowing the context. In some situations those who hold high office, command force, or possess wealth are not the most powerful. That is what revolutions are about.

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 limits of soft power Some skeptics object to the idea of soft power because they think of power narrowly in terms of commands or active control. In their view, imitation or attraction do not add up to power. Some imitation or attraction does not produce much power over policy outcomes, and neither does imitation always produce desirable outcomes. For example, armies frequently imitate and therefore nullify the successful tactics of their opponents and make it more difficult for them to achieve the outcomes they want. But attraction often does allow you to get what you want. The skeptics who want to define power only as deliberate acts of command and control are ignoring the second or "structural" face of power—the ability to get the outcomes you want without having to force people to change their behavior through threats or payments.

At the same time, it is important to specify the conditions under which attraction is more likely to lead to desired outcomes, and those when it will not. All power depends on context—who relates to whom under what circumstances—but soft power depends more than hard power upon the existence of willing interpreters and receivers. Moreover, attraction often has a diffuse effect of creating general influence, rather than producing an easily observable specific action. Just as money can be invested, politicians speak of storing up political capital to be drawn upon in future circumstances.

Of course, such goodwill may not ultimately be honored, and diffuse reciprocity is less tangible than an immediate exchange. Nonetheless, the indirect effects of attraction and a diffuse influence can make a significant difference in obtaining favorable outcomes in bargaining situations. Otherwise leaders would insist only on immediate payoffs and specific reciprocity, and we know that is not always the way they behave.

Soft power is also likely to be more important when power is dispersed. A dictator cannot be totally indifferent to the views of the people under his rule, but he can often ignore popularity when he calculates his interests. In settings where opinions matter, leaders have less leeway to adopt tactics and strike deals. Thus it was impossible for the Turkish government to permit the transport of American troops across the country in 2003, because American policies had greatly reduced our popularity there. In contrast, it was far easier for the United States to obtain the use of bases in authoritarian Uzbekistan for operations in Afghanistan.

The information revolution The conditions for projecting soft power have transformed dramatically in recent years. The information revolution and globalization are transforming and shrinking the world. At the beginning of the 21st century, those two forces have enhanced American power. But with time, technology will spread to other countries and peoples, and America's relative preeminence will diminish.

Even more important, the information revolution is creating virtual communities and networks that cut across national borders. Transnational corporations and nongovernmental actors will play larger roles. Many of those organizations will have soft power of their own as they attract citizens into coalitions that cut across national boundaries. Political leadership becomes in part a competition for attractiveness, legitimacy, and credibility. The ability to share information—and to be believed—becomes an important source of attraction and power.

This political game in a global information age suggests that the relative role of soft power to hard power will likely increase. The most likely gainers in an information age will have:

• multiple channels of communication that help to frame issues,
• cultural customs and ideas that are close to prevailing global norms,
• and credibility that is enhanced by values and policies.

Soft power resources are difficult to control. Many of its crucial resources are outside the control of governments, and their effects depend heavily on acceptance by the receiving audiences. Moreover, soft power resources often work indirectly by shaping the environment for policy, and sometimes take years to produce the desired outcomes.

Of course, these differences are matters of degree. Not all hard power actions promptly produce desired outcomes—witness the length and ultimate failure of the Vietnam War, or the fact that economic sanctions have historically failed to produce their intended outcomes in more than half the cases where they were tried. But generally, soft power resources are slower, more diffuse, and more cumbersome to wield than hard power resources.

Information is power, and today a much larger part of the world's population has access to that power. Technological advances have led to dramatic reduction in the cost of processing and transmitting information. The result is an explosion of information, and that has produced a "paradox of plenty." When people are overwhelmed with the volume of information confronting them, it is hard to know what to focus on. Attention rather than information becomes the scarce resource, and those who can distinguish valuable information from background clutter gain power. Editors and cue-givers become more in demand.

Among editors and cue-givers, credibility is an important source of soft power. Politics has become a contest of competitive credibility. The world of traditional power politics is typically about whose military or economy wins. Politics in an information age may ultimately be about whose story wins.

Reputation has always mattered in political leadership, but the role of credibility becomes an even more important power resource because of the paradox of plenty. Information that appears to be propaganda may not only be scorned; it may also turn out to be counterproductive if it undermines a reputation for credibility. Under the new conditions more than ever, the soft sell may prove more effective than a hard sell.

Finally, power in an information age will come not just from strong hard power, but from strong sharing. In an information age, such sharing not only enhances the ability of others to cooperate with us but also increases their inclination to do so. As we share with others, we develop common outlooks and approaches that improve our ability to deal with the new challenges. Power flows from that attraction. Dismissing the importance of attraction as merely ephemeral popularity ignores key insights from new theories of leadership as well as the new realities of the information age.

Conclusion Soft power has always been a key element of leadership. The power to attract—to get others to want what you want, to frame the issues, to set the agenda—has its roots in thousands of years of human experience. Skillful leaders have always understood that attractiveness stems from credibility and legitimacy. Power has never flowed solely from the barrel of a gun; even the most brutal dictators have relied on attraction as well as fear.

Reproduced with permission from "Soft Power and Leadership," Compass: A Journal of Leadership , Spring 2004. Compass is published by the Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

For more information on Compass, write to [email protected] .

See the latest issue of Compass

Joseph S. Nye Jr. is the Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. From December of 1995 through June of 2004 he was Dean of the Kennedy School.

Joseph Nye on Soft Power

To find out more about E-IR essay awards, click here.

Part One: Introducing Liberalism

Liberalism dominated the International Relations discipline since its foundation and until the post-war years, when Realism emerged. Later, in response to the domination of Neorealism in the late 1970s, a distinctive school of thought was created: Neoliberalism. It shares some common assumptions with Neorealism, such as the existence of anarchy and the difficulty of cooperation, whilst being close in many aspects to Liberalism – as it mainly studies the importance of international institutions.

Liberalism identifies one main problem in international politics: war. To solve this, it proposes three solutions. The first is democracy: Liberals argue that democratic states are more peaceful with all other states and never go to war against other democracies. This is the argument of Democratic Peace Theory. The main reason for this is that states’ leaders are accountable and they fear that they may not be re-elected if they go to war: ‘When the citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible’ (Doyle, 1986, p.1151). The second solution is economic interdependence. Liberals affirm that international trade binds states together, as the interests of a state become those of other states. Thus, war appears too costly for states and they prefer to cooperate. International institutions are the third solution proposed by Liberalism. The theory implies that institutions enhance cooperation between states and therefore make war less likely. Neoliberal Institutionalism particularly looks at this solution: it argues that international institutions promote cooperation and limit the effects of anarchy.

Indeed, Neoliberals accept the existence of anarchy within the international system, but that does not prevent cooperation. Keohane (1984) presents three advantages of international institutions under anarchy: they lower coordination costs, they raise the cost of cheating, and they diffuse information. Furthermore, Neoliberals believe that states are more concerned with absolute gains rather than relative gains. States conceive of their gains not in comparison with other states but looking towards the total gains, which enhances cooperation between them. Therefore, international relations may be a positive-sum interaction, where each side benefits from cooperation. Eventually, Keohane and Nye (1998, p.83) developed the notion of “complex interdependence”, ‘a world in which security and force matter less and countries are connected by multiple social and political relationships’. They found three conditions of complex interdependence: an increasing number of channels of contact between societies, the fact that governments reluctantly use military force, and that security is no longer the main issue in international relations.

Part 2: Relevance of the Theory

Joseph Nye differentiates between two types of power. Hard power is ‘the ability to get others to act in ways that are contrary to their initial preferences and strategies’ (Nye, 2011, p.11). This is the ability to coerce, through threats and inducements (“sticks” and “carrots”). On the contrary, soft power is the ability to get ‘others to want the outcomes that you want’ (Nye, 2004a, p.5), and more particularly ‘the ability to achieve goals through attraction rather than coercion’ (ibid., x). Finally, Nye introduces smart power as the ‘balance of hard and soft power’ (Nye, 2005). He argues that soft power is as important as hard power, and even more so in international politics. Indeed, soft power enables a change of behaviour in others, without competition or conflict, by using persuasion and attraction. Furthermore, the use of hard power in the modern day would be more costly (both financially and politically), whereas it is possible to say that soft power is “free”, in the sense that it does not require substantial resources and has limited consequences in case of failure. He also points out the importance of style: as soft power is a matter of seduction, behaviours such as arrogance might be counterproductive and entail repulsion rather than attraction. Nye finally acknowledges that soft power does not always have good purposes, as for example propaganda is a form of soft power: ‘It is not necessarily better to twist minds than to twist arms’ (Nye, 2011, p.81).

Therefore, the concept of soft power is close to the Liberal tradition, even if ‘there is no contradiction between realism and soft power’ (Nye, 2011, p.82). In opposing hard power, soft power emphasizes not the ever-possibility of war, but the possibility of cooperation; not military power, but the power of ideas. More precisely, soft power is relevant to the three solutions that Liberals propose to solve the problem of war. The first is that democracies will not go to war against other democracies. In a democracy, the people have a say in the country and can impose peaceful goals. Democracies are therefore more inclined to use soft power rather than hard power. Furthermore, Nye asserts that even in case of difficulties, a democratic state will not lose its soft power. For instance, ‘in democracy, the presence of dissent and self-criticism can be beneficial: it enhances the credibility of messages’ (Nye, 2011, p.109). Thus, when a policy is criticised, it may produce some soft power as the people from other countries may see that as a proof of authenticity and as a sign of freedom of speech.

The second solution to the problem of war for believers of Liberalism is economic interdependence. The fact that it constrains states to cooperate with others appears more to be coercion rather than attraction, and this solution would be therefore closer to hard power than soft power. Nye’s writings agree with that in the sense that a state with significant economic resources is likely to exert pressure on, and change the behaviour of, other states that are economically weaker. However, ‘economic resources can also produce soft as well as hard power. They can be used to attract as well as coerce’ (Nye, 2011, p.85). Thus, a free trade economy will produce soft power, as it will attract others to its model. A successful Liberal economy may create a desire in other countries to adopt this model.

International institutions are the third solution posed by Liberals to the problem of war. In promoting cooperation through common rules and norms, they foster peaceful relations. This is a core assumption of Neoliberalism, which sees institutions as a means to tone down the effects of anarchy. Nye agrees with this argument and without forgetting that cooperation is difficult to achieve; he asserts, with Robert Keohane, that the simple establishment of institutions enables them to last: ‘a set of networks, norms and institutions, once established, will be difficult either to eradicate or drastically rearrange’ (Keohane and Nye, 1998).  Furthermore, Nye (2005, p.10) affirms that ‘institutions can enhance a country’s soft power’. Indeed, they are likely to promote a country’s values, ideas, policies, both with other members and countries outside the institution. Therefore, ‘if a country can shape international rules that are consistent with its interests and values, its actions will more likely appear legitimate in the eyes of others’ (ibid). For instance, the United States uses institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization to promote its values of liberalism and democracy. Thus, soft power, as presented by Joseph Nye, adopts a lot of Liberal theory, and particularly of Neoliberal Institutionalism.

Joseph Nye uses the theory to study the particular case of the United States. He aims to prove that the country is not in decline and that isolationism must be avoided. Indeed, in a globalized and interdependent world, the United States has to cooperate and it also needs the cooperation of other countries. Because an increasing number of issues are global, a multilateral approach in international relations is required. Therefore, it is soft power that will be helpful in this situation, rather than hard power. Indeed, issues such as global warming, outer space and cyberspace are more likely to be solved with soft power, whereas military force would be inefficient or insufficient.  Nye justifies the use of multilateralism in U.S. foreign policy as it enables other countries not to feel threatened by its supremacy: ‘The multilateralism of American pre-eminence was a key to its longevity, because it reduced the incentives for constructing countervailing alliances’ (Nye, 2005, p.65). Likewise, Nye agrees with Neoliberalism that absolute gains are more important for states than relative gains. Even with soft power, a positive-sum interaction can be implemented. ‘Soft power need not be a zero-sum game in which one country’s gain is necessarily another country’s loss’ (Nye, 2011, p.90). Soft power can therefore benefit each side. It contradicts the Realist assumption that states only seek security. For Nye and other Liberal thinkers, states sometimes seek prosperity.

Thus, Nye succeeds in putting together the assertion of the pre-eminence of the United States with the Liberal theory of a multilateral international system. He uses a three-dimensional chess game (Nye, 2004a, p.136-137): on the top chessboard, military power is unipolar, with the hegemony of the United States. On the economic board, power is multipolar: even though the U.S. takes first place, it is not hegemonic. And on the bottom chessboard, transnational relations are a dispersed power where no one leads. Therefore, the author can conclude that the U.S. must be mainly concerned with the bottom chessboard and it must use soft power to deal with this problem. Finally, for both the concept of soft power and the case of the U.S., Nye uses Liberalism, and particularly Neoliberal theory, to justify his arguments.

Part 3: Limits of the Theory

Having demonstrated the relevance of the Liberal theory in Nye’s writings, I will explain in this third part the limits of this relevance. Nye’s writings are closer to Neoliberalism, and therefore they contradict some of the Liberal assumptions. First, he acknowledges the existence of anarchy within the international system: ‘The context of international politics is often understood as an anarchic world of states seeking security in which the ultimate (but not only) instrument is the use of military force’ (Nye, 2008b, p.55). Secondly, Neoliberals focus mainly on the state as a unitary actor. While acknowledging the Liberal view that the power of states is declining due to globalization and the emergence of non-state actors, they maintain that the state is still relevant. ‘The modernists of 1910 and the 1970s were right about the direction of change but simplistic about its consequences’ (Keohane and Nye, 1998, p.82). Indeed, Neoliberals admit that transnationalism undermines states’ power, but they do not conclude that they are less resilient.

Further evidence that Nye is defending the U.S., and trying to find the best solution for it, is that he sometimes steps away from Neoliberal assumptions themselves. He acknowledges that military force is sometimes useful when the security of the state is threatened. That may challenge his theory of complex interdependence, of which the main condition is abandonment of military force. Thus, he sometimes takes off the clothes of the theorist to put on those of the politician, noting:

‘As a former assistant secretary of defense, I would be the last to deny the continuing importance of military power. Our military role is essential to global stability. And the military is part of our response to terrorism’ (Nye, 2002, XV).

Furthermore, he argues that ‘the military can sometimes play an important role in the generation of soft power’ (Nye, 2008a, p 106). Indeed, attraction and seduction of the opposite camp may be crucial in wartime, such as being seen in a positive way by the people or persuading soldiers to desert. However, even though Nye admits that military force may be useful, it does not challenge his theory of soft power, nor is he contradicting Liberalism. Indeed, he instead introduces the notion of smart power, ‘the ability to combine hard and soft power effectively’ (Nye, 2008a, p.107). He argues that soft power is always more important, in the long-run, than hard power. It is therefore legitimate to use military force in exceptional circumstances, but one should mainly focus on soft power. Furthermore, Nye does not think of gains in absolute terms only. He acknowledges that international politics can be positive-sum and both sides may benefit from interdependence. However, he adds that joint gain may entail conflicts over who gets the larger slice: ‘the distribution of benefits – who gets how much of the joint gain – is a zero-sum situation in which one side’s gain is the other’s loss’ (Nye, 2003, p.212). Likewise, he denies the idea that globalization automatically entails cooperation. Indeed, using the example of economic sanctions, he affirms that ‘economic interdependence can also be used as a weapon’ (Nye, 2003, p.212). Here, states are more concerned with relative gains.

The main criticism of Nye’s writings on soft power is that they focus recurrently on the United States’ power. Thus, the use of Neoliberal theory is sometimes orientated to prove that the pre-eminence of the U.S. will last. The most relevant one is his article ‘ Recovering American Leadership’ , where he is seeking the conditions for ‘the United States [remaining] the leading power in world politics well into the twenty-first century’ (Nye, 2008b, p.66). Moreover, by focusing on the example of the U.S., the author sometimes moves away from theory. In his article ‘ Obama’s soft power’ (Nye, 2009) , Nye tries to adopt an optimist view of America’s reputation in the world, which he argues has been dramatically damaged by the “war on terror”. He affirms that soft power can be easy and quick to recover, but he takes the risk to lessen the importance of the concept of soft power itself.

Finally, it is useful to remember that Nye’s writings always must be analysed within the context. Nye wrote his article ‘ Soft Power’, published in Foreign Policy , in 1990, at the end of the Cold War, and he tries to contradict the thesis of a U.S. decline. Thus, he creates his famous concept in this context. In 2002, his book ‘ The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone’ is a direct response to the 9/11 attacks. Likewise, when Nye published ‘ Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics’ in 2004, it followed the war in Iraq and a worldwide decrease in the United States’ attraction. However, these Western-centric and American-centric views and the context in which Nye’s writings are published do not challenge the relevance of the Liberal theory in his work. The concept of soft power does not only apply to the U.S., it also works with all other countries: ‘The United States is not alone. Others, both countries and nonstate actors, also possess soft power’ (Nye, 2005, p.73). Therefore, even though Nye’s use of Liberal theory has some limits and some contradictions with his work, he often comes back to it, eventually.

To conclude, after having presented the Liberal theory, I have assessed the extent to which Joseph Nye uses it, and particularly Neoliberalism, in his writings on soft power. Although the relevance of the theory is undeniable, the author sometimes takes the liberty to depart from it. Thus, I have discovered that scholars are not bound by theories, they do not have to follow all their points, and they may even use opposite arguments in their writings. However, they always keep the theory in mind and incorporate the opposite arguments in their works, as, for instance, Nye creating the concept of smart power. Therefore, I think that theories are not completely closed and that they may interact with others, but nevertheless they could never be fused together.

References  

Axelrod, R., and Keohane, R., 1985. ‘Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions’, World Politics, 38(1), pp.226-254.

Burchill, S., 2009. ‘Liberalism’. In: S. Burchill and A. Linklater, eds. Theories of International Relations , 4 th ed. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.57-85

Doyle, M., 1986. ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, The American Political Science Review, 80(4), pp.1151-1169.

Ikenberry, G., 2009. ‘Liberalism in a Realist World: International Relations as an American Scholarly Tradition’, International Studies, 46(1, 2), pp.203-219.

Keohane, R., 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Chichester: Princeton University Press

Keohane, R., 2012. ‘Twenty Years of Institutional Liberalism’, International Relations, 26(2), pp.125-138 .

Keohane, R., and Nye, J., 1977. Power and Interdependence . Boston: Little, Brown and Company

Keohane, R., and Nye, J., 1998. ‘Power and Interdependence in the Information Age’, Foreign Affairs, 77(5), pp.81-94 .

Koenig-Archibugi, M., 2001. ‘International Relations Theory’, In Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences [online] Available at:  http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.uwe.ac.uk/entry/routsocial/international_relations_theory [Accessed 4 December 2012]

Nye, J., 1990. ‘Soft Power’, Foreign Policy , No. 80, pp.153-171.

Nye, J., 2002. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone . New York: Oxford University Press

Nye, J., 2003. Understanding International Conflicts . New York: Longman

Nye, J., 2004a. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs

Nye, J., 2004b. ‘When Hard Power Undermines Soft Power’, New Perspectives Quarterly, 21(3), pp.13-15.

Nye, J., 2005. ‘On the Rise and Fall of American Soft Power’, New Perspectives Quarterly , 22(3), pp.75-77.

Nye, J., 2008a. ‘Public diplomacy and soft power’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol. 616, pp. 94-109.

Nye, J., 2008b. ‘Recovering American Leadership’, Survival , 50(1), pp.55-68.

Nye, J., 2009. Obama’s Smart Power, New Perspectives Quarterly , 26(2), p.7-9.

Nye, J., 2011. The Future of Power . New York: Public Affairs

Russett, B., 2010. ‘Liberalism’. In: T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith, eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity , 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.95-115.

Sterling Folker, J., 2010. ‘Neoliberalism’. In: T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith, eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity , 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 116-134

— Written by: Maxime Gomichon Written for: Dr. Aida Abzhaparova Written at: University of the West of England, Bristol Date Written: January 2013

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• How Far Does Anime Challenge Joseph Nye’s ‘Soft Power’ and Its Approach to Culture?
• Struggle and Success of Chinese Soft Power: The Case of China in South Asia
• Principles or Power: Mussolini’s Invasion of Ethiopia
• Understanding Power in Counterinsurgency: A Case Study of the Soviet-Afghanistan War
• Conceptualising Europe’s Market Power: EU Geostrategic Goals Through Economic Means
• ‘Governmentality’ and ‘the International’: A Power(ful) Love Story

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Case for Hard Power

Related Papers

International Politics Reviews

Christopher Preble

Kylie Barton

It is useful to think of the balance between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power as means to implement US grand strategy in the modern historical context of the Middle East and the ‘War on Terror’. After 9/11, America had felt the physical effects of war for the first time in the modern age on its own shores which sharply altered its use of power. The Middle East has been the strategic centre of the world long before these events, but it was at these times America decided to get directly involved as opposed to simply enabling European allies who laid the groundwork for the international political landscape we see today. After such a direct attack, the US ramped up its military intervention agenda to regain credibility as world leader, but also strategically altered the use of soft power to justify its actions under a republican-primacy rhetoric. America is the modern father of military intervention and the use of hard power, but it is also the mother of PR and the ability to represent to manipulate; a true hegemon. In this essay I will be looking at how these two facets of power interact, with particular reference to the post 9/11 context to ascertain their roles in the world today. “Never had the world seen such a combination of unilateral military might with unyielding diplomatic pressure and untrammelled strategic reach.” (Bennis, 2003, pp.137)

Voice of Intrnational Affairs

Faruk Hadžić

The essence of geopolitics is most often sought and seen in political forces that fight each other, intending to achieve a dominant role in and over society. Within such views on politics, science undoubtedly owes the most to Machiavelli, whose works can be considered the first inspirers of modern realistic theories in political science. Such understandings have gained an even more critical position in the international relations developed in the West. Although US military force is primarily preventive, it has been used to change the other states' behavior, not just to protect the physical security of the American people. The tendency to solve issues by threatening force and using force policy is the dominant geopolitical component, although not based on international treaties, agreements, and the UN Charter. International law finds its place as an instrument of order which undoubtedly arises from harmonizing aspirations for just possibilities in international relations. Historically, the US policy reduced and marginalized the UN legislation with a series of geopolitical moves. The politics of "now and always" turned into geopolitical realism. The Russian question of Crimea's affiliation with the international legal system is still topical and sensitive. In the case of the failed penetration of the Ukrainian military under Crimea, Russia has shown no intention of passively tolerate provocations. The war act could materialize (minor incidents have already occurred). While for Trump, the focus of foreign policy was on the principle of "America first," the new US president Biden stressed that international alliances are a valuable asset of the US. The path remains as to whether the US foreign policy will gain its idealistic dimension to promote the values of liberal democracy and whether it will restore credibility, humanitarianism, and moral authority.

Political Science Quarterly

Simon bromley

Tran Hoang Hai

Neorealism predicts that because of the anarchic order in international politics, balances of power recurrently form to check and prevent any potential hegemon from becoming a real one. But this rule does not hold any more in the contemporary world. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has become the only superpower in the world and U.S. hegemony has gone unchecked since then. This dissertation is intended to find the answer to this question in looking at the very core element of neorealist theory, i.e. the structure of the international system. By differentiating itself functionally from other countries, the United States has gone beyond the self-help principle of international politics to provide essential values to other major powers. It is able and willing to care about not only its security and economic prosperity but also those of other major powers. This makes the United States a legitimate and necessary hegemon to the world and balancing against the United States extremely costly. Overexpansion is the internal reason which could lead to American decline and might operate in two forms: self-encirclement (through soft balancing), and imperial overstretch. If the United States is to maintain its hegemonic position and delay the return of multipolarity, it should avoid engaging in those overexpansionist policies.

European Journal of International Law

E. Benvenisti

Gülce Elif Atabey

Journal on Baltic Security

David Takacs

In times when the public, political and academic discourses flourish with contributions that deliberate on whether it is 'all quiet on NATO's Eastern flank', Jakub J. Grygiel and A. Wess Mitchell are among a handful that dare advance a straightforward argument on the 'unquiet frontier' with their 2016 book 'The Unquiet Frontier: Rising Rivals, Vulnerable Allies, and the Crisis of American Power'. The authors – one a renowned academic, the other a think-tanker – have successfully managed to address the topic from both academic and policy-oriented perspectives. The book dismantles the current US strategy in relation to its allies – but also vis-à-vis growing revisionist powers – and advocates for both continued US presence abroad as well as the strengthening of ties with US allies worldwide.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs

Juliana G Pilon

Lukas Milevski

International Affairs

mary kaldor

Lucero Benitez

Francesca Costantini

Phillip Gray

Erry Prasetyo

Danillo Alarcon

Kevin M Generous, Ph.D.

Ville Sinkkonen

International Studies Perspectives

Choice Reviews Online

Simon Reich

J Michael Waller

Joanna Williams

Government Information Quarterly

Lawrence Freedman

KazNU BULLETIN. International relations and international law series

Saken Mukan

Perspectives on Politics

William C. Wohlforth

Monitor Strategic no. 1-2/2013, pp. 54-87

simona soare

Afolabi Toye

Global Summitry

Kyle Lascurettes

Orient Research Journal of Social Sciences

Dr Muhammad Nadeem Mirza

International Security

U.S. Foreign Policy: Theory, Mechanisms, Practice (eds. A. Mania, P. Laidler, Ł. Wordliczek), Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków

Robert Kłosowicz

The Future of US Global Power

stuart brown

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War’s End Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The cold war is one occurrence that has had the greatest influence on the manner in which countries across the world handle diplomacy issues. The tensions experienced between the eastern and western blocs following the conclusion of the World War II led to its eruption (Wilson, 2104). The eastern bloc was comprised of the Soviet Union and its allies, while the western bloc was comprised of the United States along with its allies. The two super powers had numerous differences that involved issues relating to economic supremacy, political dominance, and social status. Unlike the World War I and II, this tension had very little fighting between the two blocs (Matlock, 2004).

This explains the reason as to why this war that started in 1947 and ended in 1991 was termed as being cold. There are a number of theories that have been developed over the years in a bid to explain the main factors that influenced the conclusion of the cold war (Service, 2015). One of such theories is the one that tags between the role played by both hard and soft powers in ending the tensions. According to diplomacy and world history experts, it was hard power that ended the cold war. During the cold war, the United States was headed by President Ronald Regan while the Soviet Union was under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev (Matlock, 2004).

Reports indicate that Mikhail Gorbachev is one of the main people that featured prominently in the events that led to the conclusion of this conflict. The soviet statesman is famed for his foreign policy that brought an end to the cold war, as well as his domestic policy that led to the introduction of major reforms that included the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 (Snyder, 2011). Although many people have questioned the motivations behind the leadership style used by Gorbachev, it is very clear that the actions were guided by the desire to protect the sovereignty of his people, as well as the ability of the Soviet Union to remain highly competitive on the global scene (Snyder, 2011).

The changes that have brought Russia to its current economic and political state started in 1985, when Gorbachev assumed leadership. He believed in the use of hard power as the best way to save the Soviet Union from collapsing by opening investment opportunities to the western world (Service, 2015). Gorbachev knew the opportunities that would benefit his people and did not waste any time approving them. One of his famous policies was glasnost, which allowed the people to enjoy more freedom discussing social problems (Hogan, 2009). This was an effective strategy that made the transition process more inclusive. Another famous strategy by Gorbachev that helped in ending the cold war was perestroika, which was an economic policy that aimed to increase automation and labor efficiency by ending central planning in the country’s economy (Wilson, 2104).

After successfully rescuing the country’s economy, Gorbachev embarked on a mission to help dissolve the Soviet Union in 1989 (Fischer, 2002). One of the things that Gorbachev considered in this mission was the impact that the earlier military interventions made by the soviet bloc on some of its members had on their bid to go separate ways. Since the union was built on communist ideologies, a lot of people were very keen to observe the response that Poland’s decision to elect a noncommunist government would trigger among its soviet counterparts (Fischer, 2002).

The members failed to respond to that move because leaders such as Gorbachev felt that the time was right to end the system of communism and declare independence. This sparked a series of revolutionary changes across the soviet starting with the falling down of the Berlin wall, which was followed by ousting of communist governments in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia (Summy & Salla, 2005). These occurrences stimulated the declaration of independence in Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. Although Gorbachev felt the need to allow the western countries to control a part of their economy, it was very important to ensure that they retained full control (Hogan, 2009).

Although the United States had their input in ending the cold war through the involvement of President Reagan, many analysts argue that the Soviet Union were the real winners following the conclusion of the conflict. They managed to transition from a communist system of governance and their economy received a major boost through the participation of foreign investors (Matlock, 2004). One of the biggest motivations that triggered the involvement of the United States in the cold war was the need to stop the Soviet Union spreading their communist ideologies into other parts of the world.

Although his predecessors were very supportive of the idea to ease the growing tension between the two blocs, President Reagan opposed the idea. The main reason for this is that he felt supporting détente would come across as a sign of weakness on the part of the United States, thus increasing their vulnerability to the threat posed by the Soviet Union (Fischer, 2002). President Reagan believed that the United States could only manage to secure their position by achieving economic and military dominance over the members of the eastern bloc. By intimidating the Soviet Union economically, President Reagan believed that the Soviet Union would finally agree to their demands and ease the need for spreading their communist ideologies (Snyder, 2011). President Reagan successfully predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union because he felt they were not strong enough.

The American free market system of running the economy had placed them in a pole position to handle any form of challenges. In addition, he believed that America’s democratic system of governance made them a stronger and more united front (Hogan, 2009). His strategy for winning the cold war was to develop policies that would ensure the promotion of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. President Reagan was ready to make use of America’s military strength in a bid to prevent the spread of communism (Matlock, 2004). This was one of the American strengths that often intimidated the Soviet Union until they agreed to lower the number of nuclear weapons that they were planning to build.

President Reagan left office in 1989, and the war ended two years later. In 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Gorbachev considered the proceedings as a good victory for eastern bloc (Hutchings, 2006). Many people lauded Gorbachev, especially for the role he played in ensuring that the conflict was concluded peacefully. His policies played a crucial role in enticing the western bloc into making investments in the country, amid strong fears by the people that they would lose control over their economy. However, the conclusion of the conflict created a slight battle in the United States between the democrats and the republicans over the people responsible for the successful outcome (Hutchings, 2006). Since President Reagan was a republican, the democrats were quick to correct them over their calls to be credited with the success of the cold war. They argued that the resources of all Americans were used in pushing for the interests presented by President Reagan, thus the need to give credit to all citizens for the kind of support they offered to the government (Hogan, 2009).

Both President Reagan and Gorbachev used hard power to ensure that the cold war concluded in a peaceful manner. One of the characteristic elements of their leadership style was the policies they developed. President Reagan primarily developed policies that were geared towards promoting freedom, peace, respect for human rights, and democracy across the countries that constituted the Soviet Union. The United States was very keen to ensure that communist ideologies did not spread to other parts of the world beyond the territories that were controlled by the Soviet Union following the conclusion of World War II. On the other hand, Gorbachev developed policies that were geared towards promoting freedom, openness, increase automation, as well as labor efficiency.

Although there have been numerous debates over whether there was a winner following the conclusion of the war, many analysts argue that its peaceful end was the best outcome for either parties. However, it is fair to conclude that both the eastern and western blocs benefited from the way the conflict ended. The United States managed to retain its economic and military superiority, as well as successfully stopping the spread of communism. On the other hand, members of the eastern bloc managed to attain their independence and stabilize their economies through the input of foreign investors.

Fischer, B.A. (2002). The Reagan Reversal: Foreign Policy and the End of the Cold War . Missouri: University of Missouri Press.

Hogan, M.J. (2009). The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hutchings, R.L. (2006). American Diplomacy and the End of the Cold War: An Insider’s Account of US Diplomacy in Europe . New Jersey: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Matlock, J. (2004). Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended . California: Random House Publishing Group.

Service, R. (2015). The End of the Cold War: 1985-1991 . New York: Pan Macmillan.

Snyder, S.B. (2011). Human Rights Activism and the End of the Cold War: A Transnational History of the Helsinki Network . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Summy, R., & Salla, M. (2005). Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations . New York: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Wilson, J.G. (2104). The Triumph of Improvisation: Gorbachev’s Adaptability, Reagan’s Engagement, and the End of the Cold War . New York: Cornell University Press.

• Pearl Harbor and 9/11: Intelligence Failure
• US Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences
• End of Communism in Eastern Europe
• Honecker and the Belated Reforms
• The Political Rise of Ronald Reagan
• "Who Is a Refugee?" by Andrew E. Shacknove
• North and South Korea Unification: Issues and Probability
• Continental Defense and Sovereignty Debates in Canada
• China’s Foreign Policy: Opium Wars and Tiananmen Protests
• Humanitarian Aid to Poor Countries by the US
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, June 9). Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War's End. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hard-or-soft-power-in-the-cold-wars-end/

"Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War's End." IvyPanda , 9 June 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/hard-or-soft-power-in-the-cold-wars-end/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War's End'. 9 June.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War's End." June 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hard-or-soft-power-in-the-cold-wars-end/.

1. IvyPanda . "Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War's End." June 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hard-or-soft-power-in-the-cold-wars-end/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Hard or Soft Power in the Cold War's End." June 9, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/hard-or-soft-power-in-the-cold-wars-end/.

Essay on Hard Work

500 words essay on  hard work.

Hard work is an essential thing we all need in life. It is impossible to achieve greatness without working hard. In other words, an idle person cannot gain anything if they wish to sit and wait for something else. On the other hand, one who keeps working hard constantly will definitely gain success in life and this is exactly what essay on hard work will elaborate upon.

Importance of Hard Work

Hard work is important and history has proved it time and again. The great Edison used to work for many hours a day and he dozed off on his laboratory table only with his books as his pillow.

Similarly, the prime minister of India, late Pt. Nehru used to work for 17 hours a day and seven days a week. He did not enjoy any holidays. Our great leader, Mahatma Gandhi worked round the clock to win freedom for our country.

Thus, we see that hard work paid off for all these people. One must be constantly vigil to work hard as it can help you achieve your dreams. As we say, man is born to work. Just like steel, he shines in use and rusts in rest.

When we work hard in life, we can achieve anything and overcome any obstacle. Moreover, we can also lead a better life knowing that we have put in our all and given our best to whatever work we are doing.

Key to Success

Hard work is definitely the key to success. What we earn by sweating our brow gives us greater happiness than something we get by a stroke of luck. As humans, we wish to achieve many things in life.

These things need hard work to be able to come true. Poverty is not the curse but idealness is. When we waste our time, time will also waste us. Hard work can help anyone achieve success. Great people were born in cottages but died in palaces.

Thus, it shows how through great work one can get the key to success. When you start working hard, you will notice changes in your life. You will become more disciplined and focused on your work.

Moreover, you will start seeing results within a short time. It is nothing but proof that when you work hard, things like determination, focus, concentration, come automatically to you. As a result, nothing will stop you from achieving success .

Success is not just someone being famous and rich in life. When you work hard and lead a comfortable life filled with love that is also a success. Hard work must not limit to work but also your personal life. When you put in hard work in work and relationships, life will prosper.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Hard Work

If we get the determination and focus, we can all work hard for a better future. It is important to concentrate as it ensures our work is finishing on time and in a better manner. Therefore, by working hard, we can increase our concentration power and open doors to new opportunities.

FAQ of Essay on Hard Work

Question 1: What is the importance of hard work?

Answer 1: Hard work teaches us discipline , dedication and determination. It is certainly important because it is only through hard work that we can achieve the goals of our life. Thus, we all must work hard.

Question 2: Does hard work lead to success?

Answer 2: Yes, hard work, together with the time will definitely lead to success. It is what can help you achieve a better life. Moreover, the harder you work, the more confident you will become in life.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App