Comparative public diplomacy: Message strategies of countries in transition

G ModelP

Co

CS

ARRA

KCIP

1

nWrfihtpa

dtmcc

f

0

ARTICLE IN PRESSUBREL-1244; No. of Pages 7

Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

omparative public diplomacy: Message strategiesf countries in transition

andace White ∗, Danijela Radicchool of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Tennessee, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 3 December 2013eceived in revised form 16 January 2014ccepted 29 January 2014

eywords:omparative public diplomacy

nternational public relationsublic diplomacymessage strategy

a b s t r a c t

This exploratory study used infrastructural variables that have been used in comparativepublic relations research and applied them to the study of public diplomacy. It also com-pared message strategies using a content analysis of Ministry of Foreign Affairs websites ofeight countries that are recent members or candidates to join the European Union to exam-ine how public diplomacy message strategies correlate with economic development, levelof democracy, and perceptions of the country. The most common message strategy wasinformational. There were no statistically significant correlations between reputation andmessage strategy, but descriptive statistics show countries that used advocacy strategieshad higher means for reputation. There was a significant correlation between the level ofdemocracy and the use of advocacy messages. Findings indicate that transitional countriescould benefit from advocacy and promotional message strategies.

© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

The conceptual and theoretical convergences between public relations and public diplomacy have been increasinglyoted by public relations scholars over the past decade (Fitzpatrick, 2007, 2010; L’Etang, 2009; Signitzer, 2008; Szondi, 2009;ang, 2006; Zaharna, 2010). Theoretically and paradigmatically, public diplomacy as a strategic dialogic communication and

elationship-building process is closely related to global public relations. Signitzer and Wamser (2006) argued that the twoelds are strategic communication functions with very little intellectual divide. They both facilitate information exchange,elp build positive perceptions, and foster goodwill (Melissen, 2005). Fitzpatrick and Vanc (2012) explicated the substantialheoretical and practical links between public relations and public diplomacy, and noted both the growing interest aboutublic diplomacy among public relation scholars as well as the potential for public relations to contribute to the intellectualnd practical development of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy is, in effect, a nation-state’s international public relations.

Just as the practice of public relations is altered by different infrastructural and cultural variables, the nature of publiciplomacy may vary among countries based on differing political goals and national characteristics. However, studies tend

Please cite this article in press as: White, C., & Radic, D. Comparative public diplomacy: Message strategies of countriesin transition. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.012

o focus primarily on U.S. public diplomacy and ignore other countries (Gilboa, 2008). As more countries use public diplo-acy, the definitions, functions, and practices will likely become less universal; it will be increasingly important to develop

omparative theories and frameworks of public diplomacy that take into account the differing infrastructures and differentommunication goals of nation-states. To address the gap, this study explores how public diplomacy message strategies

∗ Corresponding author at: 476 Communications Building, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States. Tel.: +1 865 974 5112;ax: +1 865 974 2826.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. White).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.012363-8111/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.012


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03638111

mailto:[email protected]


G Model
ARTICLE IN PRESSPUBREL-1244; No. of Pages 7
2 C. White, D. Radic / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

found on Ministries of Foreign Affairs websites differ among countries. Countries, for the purpose of this study, are definedas geographic entities with recognized political borders.

2. Public diplomacy in transitional countries

The nature of public diplomacy is evolving throughout the world as a result of political changes that include the increasednumber of democracies worldwide since the end of the Cold War, ever-changing networked communication technolo-gies, and the profound effects of globalization. Public diplomacy is increasingly multi-directional and has moved fromgovernment-to-government propaganda to nation-to-nation communication, dialog, and relationship building. Melissen(2011) believes public diplomacy can only be understood if analyzed in the context of change. A major change in recentworld politics has been the increased influence of the European Union and the number of transitional countries in Centraland Eastern Europe that wish to join it. According to Europa World Plus, in 2012 the EU had 7.3% of the world’s population(more than 500 million) and represented approximately 20% of the global gross domestic product (GDP), making it thelargest overall economy in the world. (Its 2012 GDP equaled $16.6 trillion USD compared to the United States $15.7 trillionUSD.) For Europe with its long history of wars among nation-states, the EU has represented peace. To countries in Easternand Central Europe, it represents security, democracy, and the opportunity for increased prosperity.

While all countries in Eastern and Central Europe have unique histories and cultures, they share a common processof transition as they move from centrally planned, government-controlled systems to free-market economies. The publicdiplomacy goals of transitioning countries are different from those of more developed nations; transitional countries areincreasingly concerned with reputation management and global competitive positioning to attract tourism and investment(Wang, 2006; Szondi, 2009). Countries in Europe that were previously dominated by communist regimes have “seized theopportunity to invent themselves” (Szondi, 2009, p. 292) and to manage their reputations. They often seek to distancethemselves from former authoritarian governments, to re-establish cultural identities that may have been lost when theyexisted behind the Iron Curtain, and to establish themselves as trustworthy partners in international relations as well asreliable and eligible candidates for EU membership (Szondi, 2009).

The current exploratory story looks at countries that share a political goal – to become members of the European Union –achievement of which requires the use of public diplomacy to some degree. The sample is eight countries that have recentlyjoined or are candidates to join the European Union. These countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland, Macedonia, Montenegro,Romania, Serbia, and Turkey) range in economic achievement and in achievement of fully democratic forms of government.(Iceland is not in the same geographic region, but as an EU candidate was included in the sample.) The purpose of the study isto examine how diverse countries may use different public diplomacy message strategies, and how those strategies correlatewith political and economic development and perceptions of reputation.

3. Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

3.1. Message strategy

Scholars have grappled to find theoretical frameworks for the study of public diplomacy. Entman (2008) noted that schol-arly work about public diplomacy lacks a theoretical infrastructure; however, his attempt to develop theory was limitedto mass mediated messages (from a U.S. perspective) and did little to establish a broad analytical structure. Fitzpatrick(2010) reviewed an array of scholarly and professional literature about public diplomacy and identified six functional cate-gories of research about public diplomacy that represent different ways of thinking about and practicing public diplomacy.They are: public diplomacy as advocacy, public diplomacy as communication/information, as relational, as promotional, aswarfare/foreign policy propaganda, and public diplomacy as a political strategy.

Advocacy/influence is the intention to influence attitudes, opinions, and behaviors of foreign publics, and to persuadeforeign publics and governments that the values, policies, and actions of the country deserve their support. This approach maybe likely to emphasize self-interests of a country rather than relational objectives or common concerns and shared interests.The communication/informational perspective is that the function of public diplomacy as a nation-state’s communicationis to inform and educate. The purpose of the relational function is to establish and sustain beneficial relationships withother countries. It is involved with relationship building, and seeks dialog and engagement with foreign publics. Thereforeinteractive communication (through websites and social media) plays a part in this function. The promotional function ofpublic diplomacy is to promote or “sell” particular aspects of a country by promoting positive perceptions of culture andnational identity. It often deals with tourism, trade, and investment. Warfare/propaganda is the use of public diplomacy as aninstrument of national security used to support and/or complement military efforts and foreign policy. The political functionof public diplomacy is engagement in international politics, which includes elections, foreign policies, democracy, humanrights, etc., but not warfare. The categories and functions, according to Fitzpatrick, are not mutually exclusive. A countrymay employ a variety of functions, and even single messages can serve more than one function. The commonality is that the


messages are aimed at foreign publics to cause them to view the sender nation in a more favorable light.Functions and conceptualizations of public diplomacy may differ based on national interests. For example, a U.S. perspec-

tive of public diplomacy is that its purpose is to create a more secure nation and world (warfare/foreign policy function), butother countries have different priorities. In developing nations, public diplomacy may be more focused on communicating


G ModelP

aab

Isw

3

actdpro

3

hiFstet

3

tihpmcu

4

wpsi

at1pTpa

4

w


C. White, D. Radic / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

bout democracy and human rights (political function). For transitional countries, establishing a favorable reputation tottract foreign investment (promotional and relational functions) and to achieve EU integration (advocacy/influence) maye more important than using public diplomacy to achieve military and foreign policy goals.

The current study used the six functions of public diplomacy and operationalized them as types of message strategies.n other words, a message can be informational, it can advocate for the position of the country, it can be promotional, ando on. This leads to the first research question: What are the types of message strategies used on Ministries of Foreign Affairsebsites according to Fitzpatrick’s typologies?

.2. Infrastructural variables

A second consideration of the study is the political and economic environment of the countries in the sample. Srirameshnd Vercic (2009) provide a theoretical framework for the study of global public relations that includes understanding aountry’s infrastructure. Just as public relations practice is affected by infrastructural variables, these variables may affecthe practice of public diplomacy. The current study looks at two environmental variables – the political system (level ofemocracy) and level of economic development – to consider the relationship between those variables and the typology ofublic diplomacy messages. Different stages of democratization as well as different levels of economic development may beeflected in public diplomacy messages. The next two research questions are: Do message strategies correspond with the levelf economic development? Is there a relationship between the level of democracy and types of public diplomacy messages?

.3. Public diplomacy and reputation management

Public diplomacy is a nation-state’s attempt to favorably influence public opinion in other countries, which relies on andelps build national reputations. The perception of national reputation is a collective judgment based on a number of factors

ncluding foreign policies, responsible government, people and culture, economic policies, and economic strength (Passow,ehlmann, & Grahlow, 2005). Szondi (2005) places public diplomacy as a pillar of national reputation management; othercholars have depicted public diplomacy and national reputation management as interlocking circles. Wang (2006) contendshat cultivating a positive reputation is a mandate of public diplomacy. For countries vying to enter the European Union,stablishing a favorable reputation as a responsible, cooperative, and economically stable nation-state is paramount. Thushe fourth research question is: Are message types related to perceptions of the reputation of the country?

.4. Public diplomacy and new communication technologies

The nature of diplomacy has been completely altered by the confluence of globalization and instantaneous communica-ion including social media. While secretive, diplomat-to-diplomat encounters are still an important part of diplomacy, thencreasingly important role of public opinion and the involvement of non-governmental entities in foreign policy formationave resulted in the recognized need for governments to communicate not only with other governments, but directly toeople in other countries. Internet technologies, including social media, transcend national borders and distribute infor-ation globally, bringing wider circles into the opinion process. Social media can help public diplomacy become a more

ollaborative process by providing a channel for dialogic communication; thus, the final research question: Is social mediased for messaging on Ministry of Foreign Affairs websites?

. Methodology

The methodology for the study is content analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of the Ministries of Foreign Affairsebsites for the eight countries in the sample. Official websites are important tactics for public diplomacy and internationalublic relations since they contribute to image cultivation, advocacy of national interests, and promotion of mutual under-tanding. All of the countries in the sample have English versions of their websites, which indicates the information on thems aimed at international publics.

A combination of qualitative and quantitative content analysis can best resolve the issue of manifest and latent contentnalysis (Berg, 1989). While manifest content is studied by counting the frequency of elements that are present or absent,he analysis of latent content allows for discovery and interpretation of elements that are below the surface level (Weber,985). In the current study, textual analysis, which critically deconstructs a text and then reconstructs it in the context of thehenomenon under study, was used to determine the message strategies, which were then quantified according to typology.o guide the textual analysis, coders used an analytic technique described by Corbin and Strauss (2008) which begins withosing questions about the data, then making comparisons by looking at meanings of words. Additional quantitative contentnalysis was used to measure items on Likert scales, which will be explicated below.


.1. Coding and training procedures

The code book was pretested using Foreign Ministry websites of countries not in the sample. During training, codersere first familiarized with the public diplomacy message strategy categories. Websites were coded for articles (speeches,


ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelPUBREL-1244; No. of Pages 7


Table 1Message type found in all articles (n = 62).

N Mean Std. deviation

Warfare 0Informational 54 1.15 .408Advocacy 10 2.00 .667
Political 38 2.16 .789Promotional 6 2.17 1.169Relational 29 2.31 .806
statements, stories, or press releases) that appeared on the home page of the website, for links to social media on theweb page (Facebook, YouTube, blogs, Twitter, Flickr, RSS feed), and for assessment of perceptions of country reputation.Two coders coded each website. Pairs of coders initially coded independently on the same day (in order to assure theywere seeing the same version of the website), then met to reconcile differences through discussion and further analysis.Inter-coder reliability was computed using percent of agreement between each pair of coders (Kassarjian, 1977). Overallpercent of agreement before reconciliation was 62%, calculated based on the mean agreement for each pair of coders (M = 4.2disagreements; SD = 1.7). SPSS was used to analyze the quantitative data.

4.1.1. Measures of message strategiesAfter reading each article, coders were instructed to revisit Fitzpatrick’s description of typology – advocacy, informational,

relational, promotional, warfare, political – and indicate the presence of a message strategy in the article; multiple messagestrategies could be selected for each article. After the message strategies in each article were noted, coders listed in rankorder the strategies used in the article, ranked according to which strategy was the most to least prevalent.

4.1.2. Measures of perception of reputationPerceptions of reputation were measured based on items developed for the Fombrun-Reputation Institute Country Rep-

utation Index (CRI) developed by Passow et al. (2005). Their 20-item scale is based on six dimensions: emotional appeal,physical appeal, financial appeal, leadership appeal, cultural appeal, and social appeal of a country. The scale used in thecurrent study incorporated the four dimensions found to be among the drivers of reputation in the CRI scale. The itemswere: [Country] has a well-developed economic sector; I would be willing to invest in [country]; [Country] has a high levelof innovation; and [Country] is a responsible member of the global community. Each item was measured on a five-pointLikert scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

4.1.3. Measures of political and economic developmentThree variables – level of freedom, political rights, and civil liberties – based on Freedom House, 2012 data, were collapsed

to create a variable for level of democracy. Freedom House used a 7-point scale for each measure (1 = most free; 7 = leastfree). The mean levels of democracy for the countries in the sample were: Iceland (1.00), Croatia (1.33), Bulgaria (1.67),Romania (1.67), Serbia (1.67), Montenegro (2.00), Macedonia (2.67), and Turkey (2.67). The level of economic developmentwas measured by the gross national product (GDP) of each country, derived by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) aspurchasing power parity (PPP) per capita. PPP measures are more useful than nominal GDP measures because they reflectthe standard of living and are adjusted for currency differences. The value of all goods and services produced in a countryin a given year is divided by the population. The GDP for each country, derived as PPP based on 2012 data and calculated inmillions US dollars, were: Iceland (39,224), Croatia (17,810), Bulgaria (7033), Romania (12,808), Serbia (10,405), Montenegro(6882), Macedonia (10,579), and Turkey (15,001).

5. Results

RQ1: What are the types of message strategies used on Ministry of Foreign Affairs websites according to Fitzpatrick’s typology?A total of 62 articles that appeared on the eight websites were analyzed. Across the sample for all eight countries, themost commonly used message strategy was communication/informational. Because a single article could contain morethan one message type, all of the strategies that were used in an article were ranked for that article. As Table 1 shows, themost prevalent occurrence was informational articles. Messages were predominantly informational for all countries exceptMontenegro and Romania. The most common message typology on the website of Montenegro was advocacy; the primarymessage strategy for Romania was promotional. The two second-most used message strategies were political and relational.All countries used all of the message strategies except warfare/propaganda to some extent; the warfare typology was notused at all.

RQ2: Do message strategies correspond with the level of economic development? The level of economic development was


measured by Gross Domestic Product per capita. Bivariate correlations (Spearman’s rho) between the GDP of each countryand each of the six message strategies showed no significant correlations.

RQ3: Is there a relationship between the level of democracy and types of public diplomacy messages? Bivariate correlationsbetween level of democracy and the six message strategies were conducted using Spearman’s rho since the sample size was




Table 2Primary message type by country.

Country Message type and rank mean

Bulgaria Informational (1.00)Advocacy (2.00)Political (2.33)

Croatia Informational (1.00)Political (2.00)Relational (2.33)

Iceland Informational (1.00)Relational (2.00)Promotional (2.00)

Macedonia Informational (1.38)Political (1.88)Advocacy (2.50)

Montenegro Advocacy (1.00)Informational (1.11)Relational (2.00)

Romania Promotional (1.00)Informational (1.33)Political (1.40)

Serbia Informational (1.33)Political (1.83)Advocacy (2.00)

Turkey Promotional (1.00)

sptboG

oT(sc

pcFhaws

TL

Informational (1.10)Advocacy (2.33)

mall. There was a significant correlation between the level of democracy and the use of advocacy messages (rs (8) = .834, = .010), which was the only message strategy to show significance. The less democratic the country, the more likely it waso use advocacy as one of its top-three message strategies. The relationship strategy was correlated with level of democracy,ut fell slightly short of statistical significance, possibly as a function of the small sample size. The correlation between levelf democracy and GDP was not significant, although Iceland, the country with the highest level of democracy has the highestDP (Tables 2–5).

RQ4: Are message types related to perceptions of the reputation of the country? After the textual analysis of the articlesn the country’s website, the coders were asked to rank their perception of the country using items from the CRI index.he means of the four items used to measure the dimensions upon which reputation is based were: Iceland (4.00), Croatia3.50), Bulgaria (3.50), Romania (3.50), Serbia (3.00), Montenegro (3.75), Macedonia (3.25), and Turkey (3.25). There were notatistically significant correlations between reputation mean and message strategy, but the descriptive statistics showedountries that used an advocacy strategies a higher percent of the time had higher overall means for reputation.

RQ5: Is social media used for messaging on Ministry of Foreign Affairs? The content analysis identified links to social medialatforms that were present on the home page; however, how social media is used was beyond the scope of this study. Allountries’ website except Montenegro and Serbia had links to Facebook. Only two countries, Bulgaria and Romania, usedlickr on their website. All countries except Bulgaria, Croatia, and Montenegro used RSS feed. YouTube was used by onlyalf of the countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, and Turkey. Twitter was used by Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania,nd Turkey. There was not a significant statistical correlation between social media use and GDP per capita. In fact, Iceland,


hich has the highest GDP in the sample, only used two forms of social media which was among the lowest number for theample.

able 3evel of democracy (mean of freedom status, political rights, and civil liberties).

Country Level of democracy

Iceland 1.00Croatia 1.33Bulgaria 1.67Romania 1.67Serbia 1.67Montenegro 2.00Macedonia 2.67Turkey 2.67




Table 4Means for perception of reputation.

Country Item mean Overall mean

Bulgaria Willing to invest (3.0)

3.50Economic sector (4.0)Innovation (3.0)Global community (4.0)

Croatia Willing to invest (3.0)


Iceland Willing to invest (3.0)


Macedonia Willing to invest (3.0)


Montenegro Willing to invest (3.0)


Romania Willing to invest (3.0)


Serbia Willing to invest (3.0)


Turkey Willing to invest (3.0)


6. Discussion

This exploratory study attempts to examine some of the infrastructural variables that have been used for studies ofcomparative public relations and apply to them to a closely related field of study, public diplomacy. As theory developmentabout public diplomacy evolves, it is necessary to include comparative and cross-cultural paradigms that go beyond theoriesof relationship management and dialogic communication applied to war and peace, and to take into account differing publicdiplomacy goals among countries. The nature of public diplomacy is ever-evolving, and the variables that impact it aredifferent in different countries. Therefore, it is important to assess the diverse context and conditions under which individualcountries work. With much of the scholarly and professional literature based on the study, experiences, and observation ofWestern nations, some of the differences may go unnoticed unless approached from a comparative paradigm. It is incumbentupon researchers not to adopt Western-only perspectives and frames of reference for considering public diplomacy around


the world.The study found that even with a small amount of data, differences were found in countries with similar diplomacy

goals. The configuration of the top three message strategies found in website articles varied from country to country. Themost frequently used message strategy was communication/informational, which may be the least effective in terms of

Table 5Presence of social media.

Country Facebook Twitter RSS YouTube Flickr

Bulgaria Yes Yes Yes YesRomania Yes Yes Yes YesCroatia Yes Yes YesIceland Yes YesMacedonia Yes Yes Yes YesMontenegroSerbia YesTurkey Yes Yes Yes Yes


G ModelP

csfpo

ltudsaAEu

7

(mdati

af

nbetc

R

BCEEFFF

FGKLMMP

S

S

SS

S

WWZ



hanging perceptions of foreign publics and bringing about understanding of a country’s ideas. It makes sense that the twoecond-most used message strategies were political and relational considering the goal of EU membership and the needor close political and economic relations and cooperation with EU countries. What makes less sense is that advocacy andromotional strategies were not used more. Public diplomacy is intended to create an environment in which the positionsf a country will be favorably received. Strategies that include advocacy and promotion would help achieve these ends.

A purpose of public relations is to advocate for the organization for which it operates (L’Etang, 2009). Public diplomacy,ike public relations, can benefit advocacy stance. In the current study, the countries that used advocacy and promotion asheir top message strategies were perceived more favorably in terms of reputational measures. For example, Montenegrosed an advocacy strategy as its most frequently used message strategy. Despite the fact that Montenegro is lower on theemocratic and economic scales, the means for reputation was second only to Iceland, which was the country highest on bothcales. Obviously the differences between the two countries are great in terms of economic development and democraticchievement, but the fact that Montenegro advocated for its positions may have helped decrease the difference in perception.n advocacy strategy is even reflected in the fact that the Montenegro ministry is called the Ministry of Foreign Affairs anduropean Integration, which reflects its diplomacy goals. This suggests that for many countries, public diplomacy should besed to advocate and promote a country, rather than only communicating information.

. Limitations and future research

This study investigated a way to compare public diplomacy strategies among counties. It explored the use of Fitzpatrick’s2010) typologies of functions of public diplomacy, operationalized as message strategies, and found evidence that different

essage strategies are used. Larger samples are needed to confirm the current findings and to establish patterns to helpetermine how public diplomacy differs among countries with different goals. Since the typologies are based on studiesbout public diplomacy conducted primarily in the United States and other Western countries, as other countries aroundhe world are included in the study of public diplomacy, other functions may emerge. Future research about public diplomacyn non-Western countries can help determine this.

The study considered levels of democracy and economic development, but did not look at all variables noted by Srirameshnd Vercic (2009) that can be used for comparative studies. Cultural differences among countries should be considered inuture studies to explore how they may affect message strategies in public diplomacy.

Limitations of the study are that only eight countries were compared, and comparison was made using a single commu-ication platform at a single point in time. It is recognized that while official websites of Ministries of Foreign Affairs maye one channel for public diplomacy communication, they do not necessarily indicate a country’s overall public diplomacyfforts and strategy. The study looked at whether social media was used by foreign ministries (measured by presence onhe website), but did not examine how it was used. Future research should include a greater variety of countries and moreomprehensive communication channels.

eferences

erg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.orbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.ntman, R. M. (2008). Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The U. S. case. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(2), 87–101.uropa World Plus database. http://www.europaworld.comitzpatrick, K. R. (2007). Advancing the new public diplomacy: A public relations perspective. Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2, 187–211.itzpatrick, K. R. (2010). The future of U.S. public diplomacy: An uncertain fate. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill.itzpatrick, K. R. & Vanc, A. (2012). Public relations and public diplomacy: A divided past, a shared future. Paper presented to the Association for Education in

Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.reedom House. (2012). Freedom in the world in 2012 report. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012. Accessed 21.09.12ilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55–77.assarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8–18.’Etang, J. (2009). Public relations and diplomacy in a globalized world: An issue of public communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 607–626.elissen, J. (2005). The new public diplomacy: Soft power in international relations. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.elissen, J. (2011, October). Beyond the new public diplomacy. In Clingendael discussion paper in diplomacy. No. 27.

assow, T., Fehlmann, R., & Grahlow, H. (2005). Country reputation – From measurement to management: The case of Liechtenstein. Corporate ReputationReview, 7, 309–326.

ignitzer, B. (2008). Public relations and public diplomacy: Some conceptual explorations. In A. Zerfaß, A. B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public RelationsResearch: European and International Perspectives and Innovations (pp. 205–218). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

ignitzer, B., & Wamser, C. (2006). Public diplomacy: A specific governmental public relations function. In C. H. Botan, & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public RelationsTheory II (pp. 435–464). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

riramesh, K., & Vercic, D. (2009). The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.zondi, G. (2005). The pantheon of international public relations for nation states: Country promotion in Central and Eastern Europe. In R. Ławniczak (Ed.),

Introducing market economy institutions and instruments: The role of public relations in transition economies (pp. 207–229). Poznan: Piar.pl.


zondi, G. (2009). Central and Eastern European public diplomacy: A transitional perspective on national reputation management. In N. Snow, & P. M.Taylor (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy (pp. 292–313). New York: Routledge.

ang, J. (2006). Managing national reputation and international relations in the global era: Public diplomacy revisited. Public Relations Review, 32, 91–96.eber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

aharna, R. S. (2010). Battles to Bridges: U.S. strategic communication and public diplomacy after 9/11. New York: Palgrave McMillan.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0363-8111(14)00028-9/sbref0005






































http://www.europaworld.com/

































http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2012





















































































































































































































































































































Documents

Comparative public diplomacy: Message strategies of countries in transition