The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has made its Soft Power Index a regular “silly season” news story that fits into the university admissions period to give some positive news for education correspondents. It is, however, another example of how the sector’s smugness and tendency to self-congratulation diverts it from serious business such as reputation, student satisfaction, graduate employability and shifting global power. The Index’s use as an “..influential resource….regularly quoted by Government Ministers and in official documents..” suggests senior political decision makers are equally willing to suspend their critical faculties.
The claim that educating “world leaders” leads to having soft power is scarcely credible. It is difficult to believe that a Prime Minister, Finance Minister or central Banker, usually in post at least 20 years or more after graduation, is going to make decisions in favour of the country where they spent a year of their higher education. The Index does not gauge whether their experience was sub-optimal or might have given first hand insight into the tendency to treat international students like convenient, globally mobile cash machines.
In “Soft Power as a policy rationale for international education in the UK: A critical analysis”, Sylvie Lomer, offers a thoroughgoing critique of the entire concept. She notes that the linking of a student’s attendance to them being well disposed to the UK is “..next to impossible to empirically prove, and the existing evidence is equivocal at best”. She argues that “..unsubstantiated assumptions in the soft power rationale reveal that the assumptions of the last century are still in play, representing international higher education and students in an outdated power relation predicated on Cold War politics.”
A summary might be that the notion is out of date, lacks evidence and is based on exploitative power relationships. Over and above that that the HEPI list itself has some inaccuracies and questionable views about country leadership and executive authority that make it even more unreliable as a measure. Yet all of this makes the front page of UK national newspapers and is seen as a cause for celebration.
UK May Have Width But Not Weight
Even if it were true that senior decision makers were likely to do favours for the country of their alma mater, Nick Hillman’s claim that, “The number of world leaders educated in other countries…is a good proxy for the amount of soft power held by different countries.” seems wide of the mark. It is like suggesting that having the leaders of Vannatu, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Dominica1 (combined GDP of $2.3bn) well-disposed to trade deals equates to more soft power than having South Africa2 (GDP $418bn) onside. The size of the benefit or advantage conferred must surely be one measure of any form of power.3
South Africa is mentioned here because it has the lowest GDP of all the nations in the G20. This brings us to the second problem with considering the HEPI Soft Power Index as a “proxy for..soft power”, which is that the list of UK educated “leaders” does not include any of the current political leaders in the G20 countries. Those who would point to Emperor Naruhito of Japan by way of rebuttal should consider that Article 4 of the country’s Constitution defines his role as entirely ceremonial and representative, without even nominal powers related to government.
The G20 is referenced because it is commonly known as “the premier forum for international economic cooperation” and its members represent “around 85% of the global GDP, over 75% of the global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population.” While some other countries and organizations are invited to G20 events the members lead the substantive work throughout the year. Any reflection on “soft power” should be weighted to consider where that power brings economic and political clout.
US Is Not Much Better
Before anybody in the US gets too excited about its own array of world leaders, it’s worth noting that the HEPI list contains a glaring inaccuracy in suggesting that the leader of South Korea has any education in the US. Korea Net, the official voice of the Korean government, carries a biography that has President Yoon Suk-yeol3 firmly in Seoul National University for his BA and MA*. Unfortunately, the HEPI list (below) suggests that Hassan Sheikh Mohamud leads both Somalia and South Korea which is clearly a typo but adds an erroneous addition to the US numbers.
That leaves the US with Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of G20 member the UK, an alumnus of Stanford University. There is no doubt that the UK has been keen to do a trade deal with the US since leaving the European Union but that probably has more to do with the economic benefits than Sunak’s year in the “Golden State”. Sadly, the feeling was not mutual and the UK Prime Minister has accepted the Atlantic Declaration as the best available solution although short of a fully-fledged trade deal.
Royal Flush
One of the more annoying features of the Index is that it indiscriminately incorporates members of various Royal families around the world as leaders of the country. A little analysis would show that several cannot be assumed to carry any real authority. Emperor Naruhito, whose book suggests he thoroughly enjoy his time in the UK, might be a fan of the country but as noted above his potential to influence decisions is seriously circumscribed.
Other UK Royal alumni who might usefully be removed from the list are the King of Lesotho, Letsie III, who is the country’s head of state but serves a “largely ceremonial function”, no longer possesses any executive authority and is prohibited from actively participating in political initiatives. King Harald V of Norway has executive power but “..is not politically responsible for exercising it.” After a controversy the Constitution of Luxembourg was amended so that Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg no longer has to “sanction” laws for them to take effect.
The US list has far fewer members of Royalty than the UK. However, King Felipe VI of Spain may be a useful supporter with most Spaniards apparently wanting him to play a greater role in politics and Albert II, Prince of Monaco, also appears to have genuine executive authority and may be worth his place. .
The list could also do with tidying up so that the disproportionate number of small countries with two leaders listed do not distort the overall measurement. HEPI have noted that they do not list King Charles III of England as head of state of 14 Commonwealth countries so it’s unclear how some other decisions have been made to list two leaders. It may be as simple as a way of inflating the UK figures.
Looking At the G Force
Taking Wikipedia’s list of the 61 key representatives at the G20 – country leader, finance minister and central bank “governor” – it appears that 17 of them (28%) have some overseas education at undergraduate or postgraduate level. Three of the leaders, six of the finance ministers and 8 of the central bankers with US experience leading the UK by 11 to six. The most international of all seems to be Chrystia Freeland, finance minister of Canada, who has undergraduate experience in the US and postgraduate experience in the UK as well as having been an exchange student at the University of Kyiv , Ukraine.
Another issue to remember here is that the G20 has its own power divisions with the G7 – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US and European Union – meeting separately of BRICS (see below). The D-10 Strategy Forum has all of the G7 plus Australia, India and South Korea and is a further inititiative adding complexity to any suggestion that an individual decision makers personal preferences can make a difference.
More BRICS In the Wall
The growing strength and membership growth of the BRICS bloc could be further bad news for the notion that the UK and US are able to exercise soft power due to offering a superior schooling and student experience. In 2001 a Goldman Sachs economist suggested that the original four members of BRICS would dominate the global economy by 2050. The five current members account for 41.5% of global population and c32% of global GDP (PPP).
None of the leaders has any higher education outside of their home country and only South Africa has a connection with the UK in these senior posts. One of these, Lesetja Kganyago noted the limitations of soft power in his 2023 Michel Camdessus Central Banking Lecture to the International Monetary Fund, when saying that post-apartheid, “Foreign investors all loved South Africa, but they would not invest based on warm feelings.” It summarises the core problem with the “soft power” argument – you can love somewhere but decline to put your money where your heart is.
The addition of Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to the BRICS bloc may bring a few more UK educated faces to the table but also potential problems. It is argued that “British-Argentine relations will be stifled so long as the UK refuses to engage in discussions about the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.” The UK Home Secretary has recently stated that Iran is the “biggest threat to the UK” which seems unlikely to win friends and influence people.
Summary
It seems entirely possible that high quality higher education can be a powerful force in developing “soft power” through areas including collaborative research, meaningful exchange of good practice and genuine, shared initiatives offering mutual benefit. But time is running out for developed western countries that believe they can exploit countries by simply offering scholarships to smart students. The BRICS5 initiative is a clear sign that the old world order is being challenged and that countries who have been excluded or manipulated are rethinking their engagement with traditional powers.
NOTES
I undertook an analysis of the HEPI Soft Power Index last year and this blog extends the research and critique to a broader set of country leaders. The research for the current blog was undertaken during week ending 27 August, 2023. Authoritative comments on errors of fact are welcome and will be noted.
The title of this blog reflects US Vice President Theodore Roosevelt’s speech in 1901 where he described the ideal foreign policy as “Speak softly, and carry a big stick”. “Big stick” diplomacy came to reflect backing up discussions with the unspoken threat of military power. It is arguable that in a world where economic links are critical they are usually the dominant “big stick” in negotiations.
- The UK does have “provisional application” trade deals with Dominica and St Vincent and the Grenadines through an overarching deal with the CARIFORUM trade bloc of 14 countries. Most recent figures show UK trade with St Vincent and the Grenadines was worth £42m and Dominica trade was worth £424m.
- UK trade with South Africa is under the SACUM trade bloc of six countries. Most recent figures show UK trade with South Africa was worth £10.3bn.
- I recognize that GDP is only one measure of a country’s relative importance and it is used as an example. In The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters, Michael Beckley notes “GDP has been described as the leading indicator” and “the Zeus of the statistical pantheon,” because governments, organizations, and scholars around the world use it to gauge states’ raw capabilities.”
- Han Duck-soo is the Prime Minister of South Korea and attended Harvard University. The role of Prime Minister is subordinate to and appointed by the President.
- The BRICS membership is not unproblematic and some have suggested it is a “China club”. Nonetheless, there are clear attempts to engage more actively with the Global South in a more inclusive way.
