Soft power debate has not analytically moved beyond the questions of whether soft power matters and of whether soft power can work independent of hard power since Nye’s initial formulation. Furthermore, the question of how a state selects the source(s) of its soft power remains silent in the literature. This neglect leads to the underspecification of the nature and content of a given state’s soft power policy. In this article, we fill in these gaps by recasting the conventional understanding of soft power conceptually and analytically. Conceptually, we make the case that soft power should be understood as a form of productive power for its conceptual and analytical distinction. On the basis of this reformulation, we specify an analytical framework that helps map out how a state determines the sources of its soft power. The crux of the framework is the notion of ‘dual process’ of international recognition and domestic self-identification mutually informing and reinforcing each other for the identification of a specific source of a given state’s soft power. We illustrate the analytical framework with an empirical example of South Korea’s launch and consolidation of its new ODA policy, Knowledge Sharing Program.

中文翻译：

---

社会化软实力：重塑分析路径与公共外交

自 Nye 最初提出以来，软实力辩论并没有超越软实力是否重要以及软实力是否可以独立于硬实力发挥作用的问题。此外，一个国家如何选择其软实力的来源的问题在文献中仍然保持沉默。这种忽视导致对特定国家软实力政策的性质和内容的不明确。在本文中，我们通过在概念上和分析上重塑对软实力的传统理解来填补这些空白。从概念上讲，我们认为软实力应该被理解为一种生产力形式，因为它在概念上和分析上有所区别。在此重新表述的基础上，我们指定了一个分析框架，以帮助描绘出一个国家如何确定其软实力的来源。该框架的关键是国际承认和国内自我认同的“双重过程”概念，在确定特定国家软实力的特定来源时相互通知和加强。我们用韩国启动和巩固其新的官方发展援助政策知识共享计划的实证例子来说明分析框架。