Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND
Content may be subject to copyright.
Summer 2018 | 68
Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia Vol. 17, No. 1: 68-93
DOI: 10.17477/jcea.2018.17.1.068
Multi-Stakeholders in Public and Cultural Diplomacies as Seen through the Lens of
Public-Private Partnerships: A Comparative Case Study of Germany and South Korea
1
Hwa Jung Kim
2
With the emergence of partnerships with private actors in public and cultural diplomacies,
complexity in the relations among the various stakeholders involved has arisen, and yet the
relevant research is insufficient to shed any beneficial light on such issues. By looking at public-
private partnerships, the present study determined that resource dependence, trust, and risk are
the main factors affecting the feasibility of partnerships, and inductively developed propositions
on their effects. In an explorative case study, Germany (decentralized mode of governance) and
South Korea (centralized mode of governance) were compared as exemplary contrasting system
designs. The results revealed that risk and trust are likely to affect the feasibility of partnerships,
whereas resource dependence is not. The following additional findings also were made: (1) there
are cultural actors in a ‘for profit, but with non-profit purposes’ sector; (2) an interpersonal level
of trust positively affects partnerships; (3) ‘taking risks’ brings about ‘innovation’; (4) the
existence of international commonalities between any two cases depending on the actors’ shared
role, whether public or private; (5) public actors’ emphasis on mutual trust, program budget and
execution, innovations coming from taking risks, commitment and ownership, and unexpected
situations; (6) private actors’ consideration of ‘publicness’ and grant-seeking or financial support
as important incentives, and their desire that public actors to show more trust, professionalism,
and ownership with less control over budget execution. With its qualitative approach and in-depth
analysis, the present study yielded new insights, notwithstanding the relatively small sample data.
Keywords: Public and Cultural Diplomacies, Multi-stakeholders, Public-Private Partnerships
Introduction
Non-governmental entities including independent agencies, private actors and non-profit
organizations have emerged as non-state Public Diplomacy (PD) actors. This has brought about
1
This paper reorganizes and rewrites the third and fourth chapters of her doctoral dissertation, “Effective Public-
Private Partnerships in Cultural Diplomacy: A Case Study of Germany and South Korea.”
2
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, supported by National Research Foundation, at Institute of International Affairs,
Seoul National University, E-mail: lisa1052@snu.ac.kr and lisa1052@gmail.com
69 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
various types of partnerships with individuals ranging from trained Public Relations (PR) experts
to political communications professionals
3
. The growing influence of global media, with the ever-
expanding Internet, allows for no secrets in the conduct of diplomacy, and thus, governments need
to interact with private actors (Pigman and Deos, 2008, Ordeix-Rigo and Duarte, 2009, Cohen,
2013).
Serious problems also arise in relation to the management and coordination of non-state actors,
and raise fundamental questions as to whether social actors can actually influence the formation
of national governments’ foreign policies (Batora, 2005). Different stakeholders might cause
fragmentation and conflict if delivering different messages to foreign publics (Widvey, 2003);
indeed, multi-stakeholder diplomacy explains the transition from hierarchies to networks, which
incurs boundary-, capacity- and legitimacy-related dilemmas (Hocking and Smith, 2011).
Meanwhile, there have been requests for PD privatization, mainly in the field of arts and culture,
as accompanied by criticism of government budget cuts, particularly following the global financial
crisis. In reality, culture-related businesses maintained by public funds or grants have been at risk,
but the substance that PD actors deal with in international relations is produced by cultural actors
in the private sector. What are known as Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), however, in
attempting to align the different directions and priorities of private actors’ long-term goals, public
officers’ internal goals, and a government’s short and mid-term goals, generate difficulties related
to transparency, accountability and legitimacy. This eventually causes conflict between and among
the various stakeholders in PPPs.
The present study determined that complexity comes from uncertainty, not accountability, arising
as it does from a lack of knowledge and information, and that it affects the behaviors of individuals.
When considering the complexity that occurs in PPPs, it is worthwhile to focus on institutional
uncertainty. By definition, PPPs participants, coming from different organizations, administrative
levels, and networks, have different perceptions, objectives, and interests; subsequently, it is
difficult for such actors to interact, as their behaviors are constrained by the “tasks, opinions, rules
and languages of their own organizations,” and thus, their interactions too often can be
characterized as “clashes between divergent institutional regimes” (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004, p.
7).
Regardless of the problematic complexity caused by the crossing of public and private sectors,
there has been little research on this topic. The current study, then, undertook to investigate
whether the partnerships of multi-stakeholders crossing public, private, and nonprofit sectors can
be applied to the field of arts and culture in the conduct of diplomacy. By way of an explorative
case study comparing Germany and South Korea, which countries were selected for their different
system designs, we sought to unveil pertinent and important themes and issues, asking the
following research questions: (1) How can the recent phenomenon of multi-stakeholders and
3
Pigman and Deos (2008) find that the success of PD activities in association with private actors depends on
whether the objectives of the activities are pursued from the public’s perspective, in an honest and sincere manner.
Summer 2018 | 70
partnerships be explained? (2) What are the factors affecting and determining the feasibility of
partnerships in public and cultural diplomacies? In attempting to answer those questions, we first
extended the trajectories of public and cultural diplomacies, as observed through the lens of PPPs;
then, we inductively developed and formulated three propositions. Finally, in these pages, we
analyze our results and discuss our study’s limitations.
Literature Review
Extending the Trajectories of Public and Cultural Diplomacies
Soft power conceptually supports the importance of culture in the conduct of PD (Melissen, 2005,
Batora, 2005, Lee, 2009, Potter, 2009, Snow, 2009, Fizpatrick, 2010, d’Hooghe, 2010, Nye, 2008,
Lee, 2011). It provides the formula for international cultural exchanges and programs, and enables
utilization of arts and culture in contemporary diplomatic activities. Attendant on the paradigm
shift that PD underwent as a result of the information and communication technology revolution
in the 1990s and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, New Public Diplomacy (NPD) has become an important
foreign policy tool throughout the world (Melissen, 2005, Cull, 2006, Roberts, 2006, Gilboa, 2008,
Gregory, 2008, Snow, 2009, Nye, 2010, Pamment, 2011, Kim, 2012, Sharp, 2013). In the course
of developing the concept of PD, not much of literature dealt with why Cultural Diplomacy (CD)
was considered as a subset of PD.
In a previous study, we discovered a conceptual gap between NPD and CD. In the context of U.S.
foreign policy, CD had been underestimated due to its pejorative connotations acquired during the
Cold War, and was loosely defined as a strand of NPD; Western European countries, by contrast,
widened the scope of CD and developed the concept of International Cultural Relations (ICR).
This broader conceptual perspective allowed CD’s origins to be traced all the way back to the 17th
and 18th centuries, an era in which private initiatives led governments’ engagements in cultural
exchanges among states. Thus cultural affairs from the late 19th Century, when Western European
countries began to actively institutionalize government-affiliated or arms-length organizations, to
the end of Cold War, can be distinguished from the Old Cultural Diplomacy (OCD) of those earlier
centuries. In this respect, we define New Cultural Diplomacy (NCD) as an intersectional concept
between NPD and ICR
4
. The arrow in Figure 1 indicates how the three phases of cultural affairs
developed over time and affected the next phase of the development of CD.
4
We applied our definitions of NPD, NCD, and ICR to the present study. First, NPD is defined as “a government’s
concerted efforts to achieve credibility, trust, and mutuality through two-way, symmetric communications to deal
with public opinion between that government and foreign and global publics by engaging non-state actors and
fostering partnerships as a means of embedding foreign policies with soft power.” Second, NCD means “a cultural
actor’s attempts to cultivate cultural understandings through international cultural relations in line with a
government’s concerted efforts to achieve credibility, trust, and mutuality with normative values and shared goals
beyond national interests.” Lastly, ICR is developed from private initiatives and affected by OCDs and NCDs. This
includes “such cultural exchange programs and activities as multicultural events, art exhibitions, performing arts
concerts, popular cultural arts, international festivals, and others.” (Kim, 2017, p. 317).
71 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
Figure 1 New Cultural Diplomacy as an Intersectional Concept
(adapted from Kim, 2017, p. 317)
One issue to consider is that NPD, NCD as well as ICR can be conceptualized as a state
government’s institutionalization of its cultural affairs. Another issue is that the starting point of
the institutionalization of CD comes from private initiatives for cultural exchanges. Various types
of actors from both the private and public sectors have inevitably played significant roles and
collaborated with each other in the field of arts. This is how PPPs have occurred, in the
development of CD, over the course of centuries, as discussed above. In parallel with the late-
twentieth-century erosion of high culture, and as a consequence of the latter’s market-driven
blending with popular culture in advertising, performing arts, dance, and music
5
, the arts have
expanded while the demand for the various forms of artwork has increased (Dimaggio, 2000).
Since then, nonprofits have emerged as important actors in the arts field. Institutional sponsorships
probably have been key to this change, as funding for nonprofits increased dramatically between
1950 and 1980 in response to large deficits within not-for-profit arts organizations. Despite their
often different motives, nonprofit and commercial art organizations have an extensive history of
cooperation with public and private actors, according to three logics: access (between grant funders
and the recipient organizations), accountability (reducing the viability of non-bureaucratic
organizations and concentrating power for management of conflicts with trustees), and
constituency formation (enabling appropriate funds from government to expand the number of art
agencies on the local level).
5
As consequences of this blending, there were three changes in the field of arts and culture: the first was is in
“social structure (transformation of elites and the rise of a massive, college educated, mobile upper middle class);”
the second was “the eclipse of private patronage and the rise of institutional patronage from private foundations,
corporations, and an expanding state;” the third was “a managerial revolution in the arts” (Dimaggio, 2000, p. 48).
Summer 2018 | 72
Accountability, the second logic of cooperation, is a factor key to the understanding of how multi-
stakeholders in PPPs are likely to cause complexity due to multi-directional modes of relationships
among the public, private, and non-private sectors. Within accountability structures, social sectors
overlap, each complemented or combined through accountability with one another. In turn, this
implies “sector blurring”, which, it is important to note, can result in negative impacts on
networking across the three sectors (Koliba et al., 2011, p. 251). Considering that a stakeholder,
any group or individual, can “affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s
objectives” (Michell, Agle, and Wood, 1997, p. 869), sector blurring makes multi-stakeholders’
interrelations even more complicated and difficult to define. On the basis of three attributes (power,
legitimacy, and urgency) of stakeholders, seven types of stakeholders
6
(dormant, discretionary,
demanding, dominant, dangerous, dependent, and definitive) can be characterized. This overall
conceptualization scheme allowed the present study to delve into the concept of multi-stakeholders
in PPPs as it applies to the field of arts and culture and the conduct of diplomacy.
This study first distinguishes Public Actors (the main actors in diplomacy) from Cultural Actors
(those taking on the role of boundary spanning both at home and abroad). Public Actors can be
defined as Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Culture, Governmental Agencies,
Arms-length Institutions, and others. Cultural Actors can be divided into three sectors: Public
Sector (publicly owned institutions such as national museums, public arts galleries, state orchestras,
performing arts public companies, etc.), the Private Sector (profit-making institutions like
commercial galleries), and the Nonprofit Sector (international festival organizations, civil
organizations, volunteers, etc) (Table 1). Specific organizations and institutions under the rubrics
of these typologies can differ, depending on the degree of institutionalization regarding the NPD,
NCD, and ICR of a state government.
6
The seven types are (1) Dormant Stakeholders, whose power to impose their will on a firm remains unused
because of not having legitimate relationships or an urgent claim; (2) Discretionary Stakeholders, who possess the
attribute of legitimacy, but have no power to influence the firm and no urgent claims; (3) Demanding Stakeholders,
those with urgent claims without having power or legitimacy; (4) Dominant Stakeholders, who possess both
powerful and legitimate influence, and as such are likely to form the dominant coalition; (5) Dangerous
Stakeholders, those with urgency and power, but no legitimacy, who used to be coercive and violent; (6) Dependent
Stakeholders, those having urgent legitimate claims without much power, depending on others for any power they
might have or acquire; (7) Definitive Stakeholders, those possessing both power and legitimacy, being part of the
firm’s dominant coalition and having a clear and immediate mandate to attend to and give priority to those
stakeholders’ claims (Michell et al., 1997. p. 872).
73 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
Table 1 Typologies of Multi-stakeholders in Cultural Diplomacy (CD)
Public Actors
Cultural Actors (Home and Foreign)
Public Sector
Nonprofit Sector
Private Sector
Government, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Ministry
of Culture,
Governmental Agencies,
Arms-length Institutions
National Museums,
Public Arts Galleries,
State Orchestras,
Performing Arts Public
Companies etc.
International Festival
Organizations, Civil
Organizations, Non-
Governmental
Organizations,
Volunteers etc.
Profit-Making
Institutions, Commercial
Galleries, Commercial
Theaters, Agencies of
Classical Music
Orchestras etc.
The present study looked at NPD through the lens of PPPs to search for a new approach to CD, as
there are several documents regarding partnership PD activities, whereas scholars in the field of
CD have yet to deal with partnership discourse in their theory-building. Assuming that NPD is an
umbrella concept for NCD, it is expected that a comprehensive theoretical perspective on PPPs in
NPD will enable the development of conceptual frameworks for PPPs in NCD and thus provide
valuable insights to multi-stakeholders in the field of arts and culture.
Increasingly, PD
7
focuses on PPPs and collaborations as globalization spurs multidimensional
network environments, power shifts in the world order, and heteropolarity. PD needs to consider
the missing dimensions of the politics of PD, namely ‘vision and mission’ and ‘ways of work’
(Brown, 2013). In this context, the role of relationships within PD recently has been explored by
some scholars (Arsenault and Cowan, 2008, Hocking, 2008, Zaharna, 2010, Fisher, 2013), while
others have posited that the nature of PD is its ability to span boundaries, building networks among
ideals, customs, and political communities (Cohen, 1969, Tushman, 1977). Hocking and Zaharna
particularly apply, to PD, the concepts of ‘boundary spanners’ and ‘network weavers’ as borrowed
from the field of network analysis (Krebs, 2002, Rogers, 1995, Valente, 2010); these concepts,
which offer the potential for any actors in a network to influence outcomes (Fisher, 2013), have
become focal points of network approaches to PD.
PPPs, meanwhile, have spread widely in industrialized, emerging, and developing economies since
the early 1990s. The recent PPP trends show diverse fields of application in practice, and
multidisciplinary approaches to PPP definitions in theory. From Welfare State theory to New
Public Management theory and Governance, the definition of PPPs is still hotly contested by a
number of scholars (Bovaird, 2010), and thus, there is no consensus on how to define PPPs or how
to catch up with the relevant recent trends. Nevertheless, PPPs serve to signify the importance of
governance (Rhodes, 1997, Kooiman, 1993, Kickert, Klijin, and Koppenjan, 1997). In line with
the recent trends, the aforementioned PPPs and collaborations in the conduct of NPD have
occurred in the context of the privatization of PD activities, which is exemplified by the creation
7
In this section, both terms, PN and NPD, will be used interchangeably, though without any intention of skewing
scholars’ original meanings or intentions with respect to their own arguments.
Summer 2018 | 74
of the Salzburg Seminar, the Amerika Institute in Munich, the German Association for American
Studies (GAAS), and so on (Fisher, 2013).
This paper argues that there are commonalities between NPD and PPPs, as follows. First, both
arose and became widespread in multidimensional networked environments as means of coping,
policy- and policy-performance-wise, with the complexity of an increasingly multidirectional
world. Second, in both cases, actors have morphed into multi-stakeholders who are increasingly
interdependent, which fact has resulted in multi-hubs and multi-direction policy performance.
Additionally, in the course of conducting either NPD or PPPs, mutual benefits should be pursued;
that is, both NPD and PPPs can be seen as the policy fruits of multi-stakeholders’ performances in
seeking mutual benefits through interdependencies in multidimensional network environments.
A New Approach to Public-Private Partnerships
Huxham (1993) asserts that collaborative advantage is associated with ‘the creation of synergy
created between collaborating organizations’ and signifies the importance of achieving ‘higher-
level meta-objectives; objectives for society as a whole rather than just for the participating
organizations’ (p. 603). In the development of the idea of collaborative advantage, Huxham insists
that successful collaboration is achieved when each participating organization has reached their
individual goals that could not have been achievable without the help of other, collaborating
organizations. There is also the possibility that overall, higher-level objectives can be fulfilled.
Thus, voluntary collaboration requires that each organization consider, in order to justify their
collaborative efforts, the individual benefits that can be gained by such participation. Relationship-
oriented approaches to collaboration can be explained in this way also if we consider the
perspectives of empowerment or conflict resolution. Rather than to secure a competitive advantage,
collaboration often is done to legitimize activities and resource investments as well as to attain the
individual goals of the participating organization and promote the possibility of reaching higher-
level objectives. Huxham defines ‘collaboration as a means of tackling social issues’ by presenting
such key themes as ‘community development, community empowerment, coordinated service
provision, environmental issues, conflict resolution, health and social policy development’
(Huxham, 1996, p. 16).
It is notable that collaborative advantage, an idea that emerged in the late twentieth century,
provides market, quasi-market and contractualized relationships with an alternative to public
management reform; also, it emphasizes the significance of delivering programs for the welfare
state by having public service organizations at arm’s length from the existing bureaucratic and
hierarchical attributes (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998). Further, Huxham and Vangen (2013)
provide overviews of a selection of conceptualizations and frameworks pertaining to the
management of goals, trust, culture, and leadership on the basis of the theory of collaboration
advantage, a practice-based theory about management collaboration that was derived from
practitioners’ concerns over partnerships. They argue that collaboration is paradoxical in that the
potential for collaborative advantage exists because inherent contradictions and mutually exclusive
75 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
elements also exist, and thus, that there is a tension between ‘Collaborative Advantage—the
synergy that can be created through joint working—and Collaborative Inertia—the tendency for
collaborative activities to be frustratingly slow to produce output or uncomfortably conflict ridden’
(p. 52).
In particular, power sharing is an important factor that affects behaviors, and so careful
intervention and management are necessary for collaborative advantage. Managing collaboration
is “a highly complex endeavor” (Huxham and Vangen, 2013, p. 66). In a similar vein, Kamensky
and Burlin (2004) emphasize that collaboration between public and private actors can become
more effective through networks and partnerships. Whereas these new approaches are difficult for
many governments and leaders, due to their differences from past approaches, they can achieve
positive results that citizens care about. The bureaucratic model, focusing on individual, result-
based agencies, has changed to a more customer-centered approach. Certainly, networks and
partnerships are becoming more efficient tools for the achievement of national objectives.
Through this approach, the present study defined PPPs as collaborative networks of
interdependences based on structures of governance and processes with multiple, public sector (the
State and bureaucrats) and private sector (private institutions, individuals, or civilians)
stakeholders all in pursuit of higher-level, public and mutual objectives. This affords the ability to
cope with the complexity of an increasingly multidirectional world, to increase mutual benefits
within the given context or institutional settings, and to achieve good governance and
accountability for civil society.
It is imperative that interdependence between public and private actors maximizes effectiveness,
because combining resources and sharing across sectors can increase problem-solving capacities.
The notion behind ‘interdependence’ is ‘resource dependence’. Resource dependence in fact was
an important driver of the development of PPPs since the mid-1970s, given especially the
increasing constraints on public resources. This caused governmental organizations to consider
whether multi-agency partnerships including public and private sectors could offer more resource
efficiency. Therefore, the present study began with resource dependency as a unit of analysis to
inductively draw propositions as to what affects the feasibility of partnerships in public and
cultural diplomacies.
According to Börzel and Risse (2005), resource dependency issues have emerged since the mid-
1970s, when dependency on resources from external sources began to play a huge role in UK
public service agencies’ ability to form partnerships. The past 40 years have seen increased
constraints on public resources, causing those agencies to reach out to new financial sources and
work together with public, private, voluntary, and community organizations. The use of existing
resources better spurs innovation and synergy. These interdependent relationships also allow for
the securing of new resources in the forms of grants or market access. This phenomenon has led
to the emergence of partnerships between public and private actors, which have offered more
resource efficiency. The types of multi-agency partnerships can reduce duplication of resources
and allow for sharing of overheads, which fosters innovation and the ability to overcome public
resource constraints.
Summer 2018 | 76
To obtain more insights, this study delved into the theoretical roots, namely Resource Dependence
Theory, which was initiated and developed by Pfeffer and Salancik ([1978] 2003). This theory is
based around three themes. The first is that organizations are parts of networks and interdependent
with others. External sources are looked to for the appropriation of financial, physical, and
informational resources, giving the name to this Resource Dependence Theory. Secondly,
organizations are able to maneuver themselves in some respects, so as to relieve the obvious
constraints that come from this dependence. Lastly, intra- and inter-organizational behavior can
be better understood by looking at the constructs of power. Stemming from the ideas of dependence,
interdependence, constraints, and mitigation of those constraints, is the importance of social power.
Additionally, Pfeffer (1987) succinctly explains that internal power dynamics also have an effect
on external resource dependencies in that the individuals or groups within organizations that are
able to minimize uncertainties and assist with securing resources hold more power because of their
critical roles in helping the organization prosper. This point of view enables this study to determine
the second and the third units of analysis—trust and risk.
Trust also can be associated with an accountability structure overlapping the three sectors (Public,
Private and Nonprofit), within which structure, initiatives in the forms of partnerships and
networks among multi-stakeholders have arisen. In the PPPs literature, trust plays an important
role in the interdependence of various actors. Tsasis (2009) argues that one organization can
benefit from another, that several organizations can all be interdependent, and that there are other,
non-economic variables such as trust, relationship building, goals, and consensus, that create
interdependence among competitive organizations. Also, he found that inter-organizational
relationships require both dependence and autonomy. Positive attributes including attitudes and
trust at the personal level between and among respective organizations’ personnel build positive
relationships. This study found that interdependencies among organizations can be associated with
collaborative relations, international trust, and the mitigation of uncertainties, because they require
social interactions among actors beyond boundaries.
The relationships among trust, uncertainty, and risk were delineated by Yamagishi, Cook, and
Watabe (1998). Their argument underlines that social interactions with others face the problem of
social uncertainty. While people interact with others to benefit themselves, interactions also create
vulnerabilities, because people are constantly seeking to improve themselves while taking the risk
of incurring costs. Establishing trust is a solution to this problem of social uncertainty, defined as
‘existing for an actor when (1) his or her interaction partner has an incentive to act in a way that
imposes costs (or harm) on the actor and (2) the actor does not have enough information to predict
if the partner will in fact act in such a way’ (p. 170). Therefore, it is imperative to have an
interpersonal level of trust trough collaboration in interdependencies.
As abovementioned, risk is closely associated with trust when interdependencies occur in the form
of partnerships. Risk, in relation to trust, is the flip side of the coin, and inevitably affects whether
partnerships among multi-stakeholders are initiated, implemented and executed. Thus, the present
study regarded risk as the third unit of analysis.
77 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
In a similar vein to Yamagishi et al. (1998), Adobor (2006) stresses the role of personal
relationships in inter-firm alliances. Whereas strategic alliances can be beneficial for organizations
and increase competitiveness, there are risks entailed. These risks can be reduced by relying on
personal relationships, which provide the foundation for trust building and long-term commitment,
rather than relying on entire organizations to form relationships. Key individuals within the
organization can provide representation and build trust, but there must be a balance between using
these ties for advancement and understanding their limitations (p. 477-85). Therefore, Lowndes
and Skelcher (1998) argue that partnerships must consider more than simply resource
interdependence. This includes integration in an ever increasingly fragmented environment.
Organizations are becoming more decentralized, power coming to be distributed to several
different units. There are also an increasing number of organizations involved, which may cause
difficulties in dealing with all stakeholders and incur risks in not proceeding with collaboration.
Nevertheless, partnerships create a web of connections among multiple organizations, thereby
increasing interdependency and spurring collaborative efforts to achieve common goals (p. 315).
This study defined Resource Dependence as inter-organizational collaborative relations caused by
the flow of financial resources in competitive interdependent situations. Trust means that an
interpersonal level of trust brings about international trust by mitigating uncertainty; Risk is the
difficulty in dealing with all stakeholders involved in proceeding with collaboration. We
considered both trust and risk as factors affecting the feasibility of partnerships in public and
cultural diplomacies. Based on this, we formulated three propositions (Yin, 2009) for our case
study, as follows:
P1
8
: The greater the degree of resource dependence, the higher the likelihood of partnership across
the public, private, and nonprofit sectors.
P2: A high degree of trust will be associated with positive partnerships among multi-stakeholders
in the three sectors.
P3: A high degree of risk will be associated with negative partnerships among multi-stakeholders
in the three sectors.
These three propositions, drawn from an inductive approach to PPPs, lay the theoretical
foundations for the explanation of the recent phenomenon of multi-stakeholders and partnerships
and what affects the feasibility of partnerships in public and cultural diplomacies. The present
study, following the difference systems design (Ragin, 1994), selected Germany and South Korea
as the case study subjects, since they represent contrasting instances of state governance and the
institutionalization of public and cultural diplomacies.
Case Study
8
P=Propositions of the study
Summer 2018 | 78
Germany and South Korea
Not only with regard to the obvious issue of reunification, but also for a wider range of research
areas, analogies between South and North Korea and West and East Germany have been widely
drawn (Habermas, 1996, Paik, 1996, Metzler, [1996] 2014, Inglehart, 2000, Merkel 2009,
Brubaker and Kim, 2011).
More pertinently to present purposes, governance and institutionalization of NPD, NCD, and ICR
in those countries have had, according to our literature review, significant impacts on how multi-
stakeholders in cultural affairs are associated with partnerships. We found, as already alluded to
above, that the embedded governance systems of Germany (federalism) and South Korea
(presidential system) differ from each other. Additionally, the two cases show opposite directions
with respect to the paths followed to institutionalize NPD, NCD, and ICR in recent years. Germany
broadened the concept of CD into ICR, and recently adopted NPD. By contrast, South Korea
rigorously initiated and implemented NPD with a focus on CD, and then institutionalized ICR.
These divergent approaches of Germany and South Korea to NPD, NCD, and ICR provide
rationales as to why and how different modes of governance and institutionalization affect multi-
stakeholders of PPPs in public and cultural diplomacies. In its comparison of the two nations, our
case study focused on three themes: 1) the historical perspective; 2) the institutional arrangements,
and 3) the legal grounds for cultural policy and CD.
From the historical perspective, there is a significant similarity for West Germany and South Korea
in having had an ideological opponent within a divided nation (1949–1990 and 1950–present,
respectively). There are also some similarities between the two countries in terms of each nation’s
goals and objectives over time. Government-led CD was conducted in early West Germany
(Adenaur era) and South Korea (from dictator President Park Jung-hee to democratically elected
President Roh Tae-woo) in order to compensate for the negative image perceived by the rest of the
world and to cope with ideological opponents—East Germany and North Korea, respectively. The
role of the German Directorate Culture of the Federal Foreign Office can be compared with that
of the Ministry of Culture of the South Korean government at the times of Adenaur era of Germany
and South Korea’s authoritarian Park regime.
The different cultures and systems of governance of Germany and Korea have led to very different
impacts on the development of cultural and public diplomacies. Germany never uses the term
‘public diplomacy’ officially, instead preferring ‘cultural diplomacy’; and yet, Germany has been
ranked number one in PD in a couple of polls (Nation Brand Index, BBC Country Rating Polls).
Germany’s PD is regarded as a good example of what Nye (2011) highlights when saying that the
best propaganda is conducted when there is no propaganda (Nye, 2011, p. 101). Nevertheless, the
prelude of PD was seen in Kozeption 2000 (Auer and Srugies, 2013), and more recently, PD was
installed within the central government. After conducting an extensive review on foreign policy in
2014 under Foreign Minister Frank-Watler Steinmeier’s leadership in his second term, the Federal
Foreign Office created, in the second half of 2017, the following PD subdivisions: (1) Public
Diplomacy on European Policy under European Directorate-General, (2) Public Diplomacy, Civil
Society, Academia under Directorate-General for International Order, the United Nations and
79 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
Arms Control, and (3) Public Diplomacy under Directorate-General for culture and
Communication.
By contrast, South Korea has shown rapid development in actively incorporating PD into foreign
policy objectives since the Cultural Affairs Bureau and the Public Diplomacy Division were
established in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) in 2010 after the Presidential Council on
Nation Branding in 2009. Although criticisms of the redundancy of cultural programs of the
Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism were prevalent, MOFA created new activities and
programs, identified PD-related activities in existing programs, and sought for a concerted effort,
through partnerships with other ministries, to embrace PD-related programs; consequently, in 2016,
South Korea enacted the new Public Diplomacy Act (Ayhan, 2016a). This Act enables MOFA to
coordinate and cooperate with other ministries more effectively; consequently, MOFA recently
released a five year plan (2017-2021) to clarify the country’s objectives and strategies for PD
policy with three pillars of PD—Cultural Diplomacy, Knowledge Diplomacy, and Policy
Advocacy Diplomacy.
In terms of the legal grounds for cultural policy and CD, in Germany, Article 30 of the
Fundamental Law stipulates that culture and arts are matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the
Länder. This is deeply rooted in the Cultural Federalism of West Germany. As such, each state has
a cultural policy bureau that implements its own cultural policies according to its peculiar regional
characteristics. Länder governments routinely organize cultural-minister conferences to consult on
cultural policies and discuss matters of common interest. The federal government does not have a
department in charge of culture; rather, the federal government is only indirectly involved in
cultural policies, in ways that include the protection of cultural assets, the prevention of the
smuggling of those assets overseas, and the application of international laws related to culture,
copyright, and publications (Cho, 2007, Lee, 2015, Jung, 2015).
On the other hand, South Korea’s Fundamental Law of Culture law, Article 5, signifies the
importance of maintaining a balance between central and local governments to reduce the cultural
gap between people in metropolitan cities and people in outlying regions. Under this law, a cultural
impact assessment system to enhance the quality of people’s lives is run by presidential executive
order. More recently, the International Cultural Relations Act gave authority to the Ministry of
Culture, Sports, and Tourism to conduct cultural affairs abroad. This might conflict with the Public
Diplomacy Act, which enables the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to coordinate and conduct PD
activities across central governments, government affiliated agencies as well as local governments
(The National Law Information Center).
The contrasting systems of governance of Germany and South Korea lead to a significant
difference in institutionalization. Cultural federalism in West Germany, which is considered a
decentralized mode of governance, mitigates the role of the central government, enhances the role
of the Länder and municipalities, and gives autonomy to arms-length institutions such as the
Goethe Institute and the World Culture House. On the contrary, South Korea’s CD tends to be
influenced by the Presidential Office and thus, its development depends on how a president’s
administration leads the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture. Within this
Summer 2018 | 80
centralized mode of governance, the two main public actors, the Korea Foundation and the Korea
Culture Center, are in parallel, because they are subordinate to different ministries—the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture. This shows how these two nations’ cultural
diplomacies have been profoundly shaped by sharply differing governance structures.
Methodology and Research Procedure
Based on the formulation of our propositions, we conducted an exploratory case study. This
methodology, chosen due to the lack of research on PPPs of multi-stakeholders in public and
cultural diplomacies and the need for a qualitative analysis, yielded new insights for better
understanding of the phenomenon (Yin, 2009, Ayhan, 2016b).
Unstructured interviews were conducted with cultural officials in both Germany and South Korea
from March to June, 2015, based on ‘focus groups’ for the purpose of our comparative case study
of the different systems’ designs. The cultural officials included public actors who had had more
than 10 years of experience in the field of international cultural relations along with private actors
who had been recommended by the public actors as effective partners. These interviewees acted
as informants, providing their opinions on the feasibility and success of CD partnerships within
their respective organizations. A content analysis of their responses provided qualitative data that
could be applied to a descriptive analysis. The object was to determine whether the predicted
partnerships were actually affected by resource dependence, trust, and risk when multi-
stakeholders were involved in a project. Through a snowball sampling procedure, this study also
scrutinized how the role of public actors of CD affects the multi-layered stakeholders, entities, and
actors in the network. The unstructured interviews were conducted face-to-face and took place at
each interviewee’s office or work site.
Unstructured Interviews
The unstructured interviews, consisting of each with twenty-four questions (divided into four
sections) drawn from applied PPPs theory, were designed. The questionnaires, developed based
on a literature review of multi-stakeholders and PPPs, provided the criteria for interpretation of
the findings without any validity or replication concerns. Therefore, the interviewees and we went
through all of the questions together, which took approximately one hour and a half. During the
survey, each interviewee added comments to his or her answers as necessary, and we asked at the
end of the interview for further descriptions or explications of specific programs mentioned during
the survey and for the interviewee’s personal opinions on the current system of international
cultural activities facilitated by state actors or private initiatives, as well as desirable institutional
arrangements for CD (Table 3).
Six unstructured interviews were conducted with cultural actors: two German public actors (a
Goethe Institute executive and a diplomatic official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
81 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
German Federal Government)
9
; two South Korean public actors (an executive from the Korea
Foundation and a manager from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Korean Government)
10
;
one German private actor (chosen by German public actors as one of the most successful cases of
German cultural activities in partnership with the Korean private sector), and one Korean private
actor (indicated by Korean public actors as one of the most successful cases of South Korean
cultural partnership programs held abroad).
Table 2 Research Design
Purpose
Applied Method
Interviewees’ Demographics
To determine whether the
predicted partnerships are
actually affected by
resource dependence, trust,
and risk when multi-
stakeholders are involved in
a project
Unstructured, face-to-face
interview
German public actors (2)
1 executive at the Goethe Institute
1 diplomatic official at MFA
German private actor (1)
successful case selected by one of the public
interviewees
South Korean public actors (2)
1 executive at KF
1 manager at MFA
Korean private actor (1)
successful case selected by one of the public
interviewees
Total number of interviewees: 6
Questionnaire for Explorative Case Study
As an important case study tool, the questionnaire is carefully designed on the basis of the relevant
theoretical background. It is composed of four sections: (1) the respondent’s information; (2) the
respondent’s subjective perception of better partnership between public and private actors; (3) the
9
The German public cultural actors were identified through archival research as follows: Foreign Office, Federal
Commissioner for Cultural and Media Affairs (BKM), other ministries (Federal Ministry of Education and
Research, Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development), and intermediary organizations funded by the
Federal Foreign Office (Goethe Institute (GI), German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Institute for Foreign
Cultural Relations (ifa), Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH), and the German UNESCO Commission
(DUK)).
10
The Korean public cultural actors were identified through archival research as follows: Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Ministry of Culture, Sports, Tourism, Korean Culture, other ministries, and intermediary organizations
(Korea Foundation, and Information Service, Arts Council Korea (ARKO), Korea Arts Management Service
(KAMS), King Sejong Institute).
Summer 2018 | 82
respondent’s subjective perception of successful partnership; and (4) the respondent’s subjective
perception of unsuccessful partnership.
The first section asks about the extent of work experience in the field of international cultural
relations, the interviewee’s position in his/her work place, and gender. The second section asks the
interviewee to choose which statement(s) best describes cultural actors in the public domain or
cultural actors in the private domain. The interviewees were allowed multiple choices among
Public, Not-for-profit, For-profit, and None in cases where more than one category was relevant.
Table 3 shows the factors related to the statements, and indicates the further statements that were
developed on the basis of practice in cultural affairs. The domain is divided into three categories,
the public sector, the private sector, and nonprofit sector. In consideration of possible cases in
which the given statement fits none of the categories, the questionnaire provides a ‘None’ column.
Table 3 The Second Section of the Questionnaire
Literature Domain
Variables
Statements
Indicators
Resource
Dependence
(Pfeffer and
Salancik, 1978)
Resource
dependence (P1)
It is easy to share financial burdens
with partners if necessary.
Domain of three
categories: public, private,
nonprofit sectors
‘Public’ to indicate cultural
actors in the public sector
such as national museums,
public art galleries, state
orchestras, performing arts
public companies, etc.
‘Not-for-profit,’ nonprofit
sector, with examples
being international festival
organizations, civic
organizations, volunteers,
etc.
‘For profit’ to identify
profit-making institutions
in private sector such as
commercial galleries.
‘None,’ in the case that the
given statement fits none
of Public, Not-for-profit,
For profit.
It is easy to receive financial
support from other sources if
necessary.
Social Uncertainty
(Yamagishi et al,
1998)
Trust (P2)
I trust the identity of partners.
I trust the competence of partners in
the field of arts and culture.
It is expected that partners will
contribute to the development of
domestic arts and culture.
It is expected that partners will
contribute to raising awareness of
our national image abroad.
Social Uncertainty
(Adobor, 2006)
Risk (P3)
In the preparation stage, difficulties
caused by partners are likely to
happen.
In the process stage, difficulties
caused by partners are likely to
happen.
Risk management is relatively easy.
Risk sharing with partners is
feasible.
83 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
Risk transfer to partners is possible.
Risk assessment can be conducted.
The third section, asking about a respondent’s most successful case, consists of 11 questions (for
which the best answers are chosen from among 5-7 options) and evaluation of partnership in
successful cases (checking the best answer, “Yes”, “No”, and “Don’t Know”, for 27 statements).
The fourth section provides the same questions and evaluation as the third section, and additionally
asks about the respondent’s least successful case in order to derive success determinants from a
comparison of failure with success. Table 4 summarizes main variables, questionnaires and
indicators/values.
Table 4 The Third/ Fourth Section of Questionnaires
Literature
Domain
Variables
Questionnaires
Indicators/Values
Social Sector
Model (Koliba
et al., 2011)
Multi-stakeholders
-When you think about the case
of international cultural
relations, which one was your
partner? (5.1. successful case,
6.2. unsuccessful case)
Public, Not-for-Profit, Profit
Resource
Dependence
(Pfeffer and
Salancik,
1978)
Resource
Dependence (P1)
- What was the financial
structure? (5.8. successful case,
6.8. unsuccessful case)
Direct state sponsorship,
Indirect state sponsorship,
Direct non-state sponsorship,
Indirect non-state sponsorship,
Shared with partners’
sponsorship
Collaborative
Advantage
Theory
( Huxham,199
3, Lowndes
and Skelcher,
1998, Huxham
and Vangen,
2013)
Multi-stakeholders in
partnerships
-What was your role? (multiple
answers are acceptable) (5.10.
successful case, 6.10. un
successful case)
-What was your partner's role?
(multiple answers are
acceptable) (5.11. successful
case, 6.11. unsuccessful case)
<your role>
Supervising the activity,
Managing the activity, Liaison
with host country/organization,
Facilitating ideas, Providing
financial support, Providing
manpower, Providing technical
support
<partner’s role>
Participation/performance at the
event/program/activity,
Contribution to program
development, Contribution to
Summer 2018 | 84
taking initiatives on a program
in an early stage of ideation,
Providing professional
knowledge, Sharing financial
burdens, Building new networks
with foreign publics, Sustaining
current relationships with
foreign publics
Findings of the Case Study
Analysis of Proposition 1
Proposition 1 theorized a positive association with resource dependence such that a greater degree
of resource dependency among sectors would tend to bring more partnerships between public and
private actors. The survey revealed that the likelihood of partnership is not necessarily affected by
the degree of resource dependency. Only the South Korean private actor agreed with the statement,
while three interviewees (two German public actors and one Korean public actor) disagreed. The
remaining interviewees (one German private actor and one Korean public actor) checked the
“don’t know” option in response.
Both German public actors and the South Korean public actor who disagreed with this proposition
emphasized that the primary concern for entering into partnerships with private sector actors was
“public purpose” rather than resource dependence. For public actors, resources can be considered
in relation to two concepts: “expertise on arts and culture” and “financial resources.” According
to the responses from public actors, they generally take the role of providing grants or funding for
international projects, and those who receive the grants or funds, usually individual artists or
nonprofit organizations, are likely to provide “expertise on arts and culture” such as visual arts,
performing arts, or platforms for artists instead of “sharing financial burdens.” Additionally, public
actors tend to put more emphasis on whether their decisions on grants and funds for international
projects can, in turn, contribute to the development of domestic arts and culture, which refers to
“public responsibility and support” for arts and culture. Therefore, although cultural actors in the
public sector, such as national galleries, public museums, and city orchestras, previously had a
large enough budget to share financial burdens, public actors try to involve more private actors
(individual artists) in the hopes that public grants will turn into “seed money” for developing the
domestic arts industry. Even the one Korean public actor who replied “don’t know” emphasized
that “public responsibility and public purpose are the most important when considering
partnership.” Further, not only individual artists but also for-profit companies are likely to enter
into partnerships with public actors only when they have a “not-for-profit purpose.”
One German public actor gave an example of partnering with a Korean private company as a
successful case and highlighted “innovation” coming from partnerships across sectors; thus, the
actor asserted, public actors’ partnerships with private companies should be encouraged under the
85 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
condition of not-for-profit purposes. Likewise, the Korean public actor who disagreed with this
proposition signified that “innovation” can be created by the synergy of partnerships with private
sectors, particularly small and medium-sized art companies who fear criticism of their artistry,
creativity, or experimental performances. Another German public actor and a Korean public actor
also stressed that grants should be given to benefit the public because the funds consist of taxpayers’
money.
The individual who agreed with this proposition was the South Korean private actor, who said that
a grant or funds from the public sector is mandatory for him to proceed with collaborative arts
projects with foreign artists, because his projects are not likely to be funded by the private sector
due to a lack of commercial interest. He also expressed that a partnership with the private sector
is sometimes more desirable than a partnership with the public sector, because of increased work
efficiency (“quick decision making processes and less complicated administrative work”).
However, what hinders partnerships with the private sector, in his opinion, is the fact that the
results of projects carry higher expectations of commercial success in the private sector. Therefore,
he has to depend on public grants or funds instead.
This response is similar to that of the German private actor who chose “don’t know” in regard to
this proposition. He emphasized that although it is preferable to work with private foundations for
efficiency, public funds and grants are the most important source for artists to create new projects.
He was unsure whether resource dependency affects PPPs and signified that the reason behind
partnerships with the public sector is to raise their reputation by “publicness,” not because of
resource dependency. As to partnerships with the private sector, he said that difficulties come from
the necessity of commercial success, because an artist’s artistry does not always meet private
companies’ demands; thus, the commercial standards of the private sector discourage creativity,
experimental spirit, and innovation. In short, private actors in both nations tend to forge
partnerships with public actors in order to express their artistry without profit-making purposes. In
this respect, we conclude that “interdependence of resources” can provide a strong incentive for
private actors to have partnerships with the public sector.
Analysis of Proposition 2
Proposition 2 predicted that the dimension of trust would have a positive association with
partnerships among multi-stakeholders in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Our
unstructured interviews showed that trust had a positive impact on partnerships, since five of the
six interviewees responded “yes.” One German public actor chose “don’t know” because trust is
an important factor to “maintain existing partnerships,” but in the beginning stages there are other
things to consider such as “artistry,” “reputation,” and “creativity” of partners. Excluding this, all
of the other interviewees agreed with Proposition 2 by emphasizing that trust had positive impacts
on every stage of partnering (initiation, implementation, execution, and evaluation) and
determined whether the partnership would continue for future projects.
Summer 2018 | 86
In particular, one Korean public actor emphasized the significance of the role of the contact person,
particularly in the cases of small and medium-sized organizations in the private sector, stating that
“we [Korean public actors] know that high-quality artistic performance is created by small and
medium-sized organizations because they are not afraid of anything and they are pretty much
artistry-driven rather than commercially-driven like large organizations in the private sector, but
what makes us hesitant is that they are not well-systemized and organized. Here comes the risk.”
This statement implies that trust is closely related to risk and that trust can be inspired by the
contact person of a small or medium-sized organization.
Both German and Korean private actors similarly responded that there is no doubt of the
importance of trust when working with public actors, because public organizations already have
“publicness” and “reputation.” However, favorability toward public actors determines whether
partnerships are developed, and this depends on the public actor’s degree of expertise in arts and
culture. The German private actor expressed that “it is much more favorable to work with public
actors who have a professional perspective, which makes me trust their organizations in terms of
artistry.” A Korean private actor also puts more value on a public sector person in charge. This
person said: “Once I trust the official, the partnership tends to be successful and it is more likely
to yield projects in the future.” Therefore, trust that is formed at the individual level positively
affects the institutional levels of partnerships.
Analysis of Proposition 3
Proposition 3 predicted that high degrees of risk will be associated with negative partnerships
among multi-stakeholders in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. The unstructured interviews
proved this proposition to be correct. Risk has a negative association with partnerships, as all of
the interviewees answered “yes” to this proposition. However, it is important to note that in the
pre-partnership stage, taking risks can lower the possibility of actualizing partnerships, but can
also bring about innovation. When it comes to “risk taking bringing innovation,” one Korean
public actor mentioned that risk comes from small or less reputable organizations, but that it is
hard to deny that innovative works of art come from small and medium-sized organizations or
individual artists. He explained that “incubating innovative organizations and artists is essential
work for public actors because we [Korean public actors] are injecting public money for the
purpose of publicness. Absolutely, they are the driving force of our domestic arts industry and, in
turn, the domestic arts industry contributes to national culture and identity, and finally we have
substance to promote abroad.” Therefore, risks not only have negative impacts on partnerships at
every stage, but also have the potential to generate innovation.
Additional Findings of the Unstructured Interviews
In addition to the three propositions drawn from the analytical frameworks of the multi-
stakeholders, this study closely examined subjective perceptions of partnerships with both public
87 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
and private actors and differences between Germany’s and Korea’s CD. The role of government
or the public sector could be differentiated from the role of the private sector regardless of the
differences between the two nations. First, this study outlined how public actors in CD view
partnerships with private actors. Second, this study inferred how private actors subjectively
evaluate partnerships with public actors.
There were six characteristics drawn from public actors’ subjective perceptions of partnerships
with the private sector. First, “mutual trust” is the most significant factor in every stage of the
project because it affects the effectiveness of CD activities and the long-term relations with the
partner. Second, “program budgets and execution” make PD activities realistic. Thus, public actors
tend to choose cultural actors in the public sector to reduce financial concerns, because they
generally have sufficient financial resources compared with cultural actors in the private sector.
The sharing of financial burdens often drives partnerships with cultural actors in the public domain
as opposed to the other sectors. Third, “innovations” come from taking risks. This is because
cultural actors in the public sector tend to have stable performances, standardized performing
formats, and relatively high reputations with sufficient financial and human resources. In turn,
national cultural actors tend to be rigid and to sustain existing frameworks (in terms of institutional
structure and the process of performing practice). In contrast, cultural actors in private and
nonprofit sectors are flexible in seeking creativity and innovation to compete with others, which
often results in greater competency in artistry compared with cultural actors in the public sector.
At the same time, cultural actors in the private and nonprofit sectors are more likely to pursue
changes and be innovative in their artistic performance. This can be a strong incentive for both
public and private actors to enter into partnerships with each other. In this analysis, three public
actors intuitively chose domestic private actors for partnerships. Only one German public actor
preferred partnerships with foreign private actors. Fourth, it is important to ensure the
“commitment/ownership” of private actors throughout a project. Public actors from both nations
blamed the lack of commitment/ownership of private actors in the least successful cases. Fifth,
“unexpected situations” occur not only because of unreliable partners, but because of changes in
government policy, top management, heads of governmental agencies, and other contingencies.
Lastly, public actors define the success of projects as completion of the process of governance
including initiation, implementation, execution, evaluation, and consideration of future
partnerships.
Meanwhile, four characteristics were identified through private actors’ subjective perceptions of
partnerships with the public sector. First, “publicness” is a strong incentive to develop partnerships
with public institutions as noted in Propositions 1 and 2. Second, “grant-seeking/financial support”
is another incentive, which depends on the size of private actors. For private actors, incentives
include not only motivations, but also role capabilities and contributions. Third, it is requested that
public actors have more trust in their partners’ performance and less control over budget execution.
Too much administrative process within the public sector hinders the quality of projects. Fourth,
successful partnership depends on whether the public manager in charge of the project is capable
of offering expertise; hence, unsuccessful partnerships come from a lack of ownership of the public
Summer 2018 | 88
manager in charge. All of the German and Korean private actors tended to choose domestic public
actors when comparing successful partnerships and unsuccessful partnerships.
Furthermore, this study determines that there is an additional category of “for-profit, but non-profit
purpose” actors in the private sector, which makes for an additional category of stakeholders in
CD, as indicated in Table 5 (see the shaded column on the right side).
Table 5 Revised Category of Stakeholders in Cultural Diplomacy (CD)
Public Actors
Cultural Actors (Home and Foreign)
Public Sector
Nonprofit Sector
Private Sector
For-profit
For-profit, but non-
profit purpose
Government,
Ministry of
Foreign Affairs,
Ministry of
Culture,
Governmental
Agencies,
Arms-length
Institutions
National
Museums, Public
Arts Galleries,
State Orchestras,
Performing Arts
Public
Companies etc.
International
Festival
Organizations,
Civil
Organizations,
Non-Governmental
Organizations,
Volunteers etc.
Profit Making
Institutions,
Commercial
Galleries,
Commercial
Theaters, Agencies
of Classical Music
Orchestra etc.
Profit-Making
Companies
Exceptionally
Collaborate without
Any Commercial
Purposes
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Although the present study contributes to the refinement of the definitions of multi-stakeholders
and PPPs in public and cultural diplomacies in attempting an empirical study, it has a limitation in
having examined only two cases and interviewed only a small number of interviewees. These facts
incur potential further limitations in the interpretation of the unstructured interview findings, which
could lead to generalization of propositions. Since the research questions were designed to avoid
validity and replication concerns, it was impossible for us to modify the questionnaires in the
course of the study. It is up to readers to have an open mind in further exploring and investigating
new insights into the topic. Also, the fact that we relied on a series of subjective responses to
describe ostensibly objective partnerships (which necessitated a brief word on our standards of
interpretation), might limit the generalizability of our findings.
Our aim was to uncover differences in the responses given by Germans and Koreans to questions
related to resource dependence, trust, and risk that characterize their multi-stakeholders in
partnerships based on different modes of governance. Nonetheless, there was not much to report
in terms of national differences; rather, the distinction between public and private actors was much
more salient. Thus, the study of Germany and Korea raises future research questions as to how
different modes of governance affect institutionalization of NPD, NCD, and ICR: What is the
optimal level of resources needed to conduct public and cultural diplomacies in partnerships? What
89 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
constitutes incentives for public and private actors in partnerships? Which benefits and risks do
public and private actors take, and how do they affect the result of public and cultural diplomacy
activities?
Conclusion
By conducting unstructured interviews, this study examined partnerships in public and cultural
diplomacies according to three units of analysis (resource dependence, trust, and risk) in a survey
comprising 6 unstructured interviews with 2 German public actors, 2 South Korean public actors,
1 German private actor, and 1 South Korean private actor. Proposition 1, that a greater degree of
resource dependency tends to bring more partnerships across the public, private, and nonprofit
sectors, turns out to be false, because both public and private actors are driven by public purposes
or ‘publicness,’ and therefore, the flow of resources does not affect the likelihood of partnerships.
Proposition 2, that trust has a positive association with partnerships among multi-stakeholders in
the three sectors, as well as Proposition 3, that high degrees of risk are associated with negative
partnerships among multi-stakeholders, appear to be true.
Additionally, the survey finds that cultural actors in the for-profit sector actually participate in CD
activities with non-profit purposes (the category “for-profit, but with non-profit purposes” was
added to the private sector), that an interpersonal level of trust positively affects partnerships, and
that ‘taking risks’ can bring ‘innovation’ to CD. There was no significant difference between
German and South Korean cultural diplomacies; however, there were many commonalities,
depending on actors’ roles, whether public or private. Public actors emphasize mutual trust,
program budgeting and execution, as well as innovations coming from risk taking, commitment
and ownership, and from unexpected situations caused by external factors. Private actors consider
publicness and grant-seeking or financial support as important incentives, and want public actors
to exercise more trust, professionalism, and ownership, with less control over budget execution. .
Despite ongoing cooperation between public and private actors in the field of public diplomacy,
private actors are still associated mostly with CD programs and activities, because CD is rooted in
private initiatives, and it is likely to remain so. However, the contexts of diplomatic functions, as
altered and shaped by globalization and the information age, dictate that attention must be given
to a range of new aspects of partnerships in CD. This is where the lens of PPPs enables the
possibility of effective public and cultural diplomacies; in fact, the present study proves the
applicability of PPP theory to public and cultural diplomacies, having obtained meaning results
through a case study.
Summer 2018 | 90
References
Adobor, H. (2006). The role of personal relationships in inter-firm alliances: Benefits,
dysfunctions, and some suggestions. Business Horizons, 49(6), 473-486.
Arsenault, A., & Cowan, G. (2008). Moving from monologue to dialogue to collaboration: The
three layers of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 616(1), 10-30.
Auer, C., & Srugies, A. (2013). Public diplomacy in Germany. CPD Perspectives on Public
Diplomacy, Paper, 5.
Ayhan, K. (2016a). Introduction. In K. Ayhan (Ed.), Korea’s Public Diplomacy. Hangang Network.
Ayhan, K. (2016b). Collaborative public diplomacy between the government and NGOs in Korea,
Japan and Turkey (Doctoral dissertation). The Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul
National University, Republic of Korea.
Bátora, J. (2005). Multistakeholder public diplomacy of small and medium-sized states: Norway
and Canada compared. Paper Presented to the International Conference on Multistakeholder
Diplomacy, Mediterranean Diplomatic Academy, Malta, 2005, February 11-13.
Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2005). Public-private partnerships: Effective and legitimate tools of
international governance. In Grande, E., & Pauly, L.W. (Eds.), Complex Sovereignty:
Reconstructing Political Authority in the Twenty First Century, 195-216. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Bovaird, T. (2010). A brief intellectual history of the public-private partnership movement. In
Hodge, Graeme, A., Greve, C., & Boardman, A. E. (Eds.), International Handbook in Public-
Private Partnerships, 43-67. UK: Edward Elgar.
Brown, R. (2013). The Politics of Relational Public Diplomacy. In Zaharna, R.S., Arsenault, A.,
& Fisher, A. (Eds.), Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy:
The Connective Mindshift, 44-55. New York, NY: Routledge .
Brubaker, R., & Kim, J. (2011). Transborder membership politics in Germany and Korea.
European Journal of Sociology, 52, 21-75.
Cho, B. G. (2007). Cultural Policy, Cultural Diplomacy of Advanced Nations: Nation Interests
and Cultural Diplomacy. Seoul: Minsokwon.
Cohen, L.B. (1969). Alternative Measures of Infant Attention, Paper Presented at the Meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, Santa Monica, California.
Cohen, R. (2013). Diplomacy through the ages. In Kerr, P. & Wiseman, G. (Eds.), Diplomacy in
a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices,15-30. Oxford University Press.
Cull, N. J. (2006). Public diplomacy before Gullion: The evolution of a phrase. USC Center on
Public Diplomacy, April 18.
d’Hooghe, I. (2010). The limits of China’s soft power in Europe: Beijing’s public diplomacy
puzzle, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Hague.
Dimaggio, P. (2000). Social structure, institutions, and cultural goods. In B. Gigi, M. Gary, & G.
Wallach. (Eds.), The Politics of Culture: Policy Perspectives for Individuals, Institutions, and
Communities, The Center for Arts and Culture. New York, NY: The New Press.
91 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
Fisher, A. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Building blocks for a collaborative approach
to public diplomacy. In Zaharna, R.S., Arsenault, A. & Fisher, A. (Eds.), Relational, Networked
and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomatic, 209-226. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2010). The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy: An Uncertain Fate. Leiden: Brill.
Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science,616(1), 55-77.
Gregory, B. (2008). Public diplomacy: Sunrise of an academic field. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 274-290.
Guardian Editorial. (2013, April 07). Arts funding: the national theatre is the very model of public-
private partnership. The Guardian.
Habermas, J. (1996). National unification and popular sovereignty. New Left Review 219.
Hocking, B. (2005). Rethinking the “new” public diplomacy, In Melissen, J., & Sharp, P. The New
Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, 28-46. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Hocking, B. (2008). Reconfiguration public diplomacy: From competition to collaboration. In
Welsh, J. & Fearn. D. (Eds.), Engagement: Public Diplomacy in a Globalized World, London:
Foreign Commonwealth Office.
Hocking, B., & Smith, M. (2011). An emerging diplomatic system for the EU? Frameworks and
Issues. Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto 44.
Huxham, C. (1993). Pursuing collaborative advantage. Journal of the Operational Research
Society.
Huxham, C. (1996). Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of
Collaborative Advantage. Routledge.
Inglehart, R. (2000). Culture and cemocracy. In Harrison L.E., & Huntington, S. P. (Eds.), Culture
Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, 80-97. Basic books.
Jung, C. H. (2015). Cultural Policy. Seoul Economic Management.
Kamarck, E.C. (2004). “Applying 21st-Century Government to the Challenge of Homeland
Security.” In Kamensky, J. M., John M., & Burlin, T. J. (Eds.), Collaboration Using Networks and
Partnerships, 103-146. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kamensky, J. M., & Burlin, T. J. (Eds.). (2004). Collaboration: Using networks and partnerships.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kickert, W., Klijn. E., & Koppenjan, J. F. (Eds.). (1997). Managing Complex Networks: Strategies
for the Public Sector. London: Sage Publications.
Kim, H. J. (2017). Bridging the theoretical gap between public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy.
The Korean Journal of International Studies, 15(2), 293-326.
Kim, T. H. (2012). Paradigm shift in diplomacy: A conceptual model for Korea’s “new public
diplomacy”. Korea Observer,43(4), 527.
Koliba, C. J., Mills, R. M., & Zia, A. (2011). Accountability in governance networks: An
assessment of public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following hurricane
Katrina. Public Administration Review, 71(2), 210-220.
Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. Sage.
Koppenjan, J. F., & Klijn, E. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks: a Network Approach
to Problem Solving and Decision Making. Psychology Press.
Summer 2018 | 92
Krebs, V. (2002). Uncloaking terrorist networks. First Monday,7(4).
Lee, G. (2009). A soft power approach to the “Korean wave”. The Review of Korean Studies,
12(2), 123-137.
Lee, G. W. (2015). Understanding Germany. Seoul: Sunest.
Lee, S. W. (2011). The theory and reality of soft power: Practical approaches in East Asia. In in
Lee, S. & Melissen, J. (eds.), Public Diplomacy and Soft Power in East Asia, 11-32. Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi‐organizational partnerships: an
analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313-333.
Melissen, J. (Ed.). (2005). The New Public diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations.
Springer.
Merkel, U. (2009). Sport, politics and reunification–a comparative analysis of Korea and Germany.
The International Journal of the History of Sport, 26(3), 406-428.
Metzler, J. J. ([1996] 2014). Divided Dynamism: The Diplomacy of Separated Nations: Germany,
Korea, China. University Press of America.
Mitchell, J. M. 1986. International Cultural Relations. London: Allen&Unwin.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management
Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Nye, J. S. (2008). Public diplomacy and soft power. The Aannals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94-109.
Nye, J. S. (2010). The new public diplomacy. Project syndicate, 10.
Ordeix-Rigo, E., & Duarte, J. (2009). From public diplomacy to corporate diplomacy: Increasing
corporation’s legitimacy and influence. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(4), 549-564.
Paik. N. (1996). Habermas on national unification in Germany and Korea. New Left Review, (219),
14.
Pamment, J. (2011). The limits of the new public diplomacy: Strategic communication and
evaluation at the US State Department, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, British Council,
Swedish Foreign Ministry and Swedish Institute. Department of Journalism, Media and
Communication (JMK), Stockholm University,.
Pfeffer, J. (1987). A resource dependence perspective on intercorporate relations. Intercorporate
relations: The structural analysis of business, 25-55.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. ([1978] 2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective. Stanford University Press.
Pigman, G. A., & Deos, A. (2008). Consuls for hire: Private actors, public diplomacy. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 85-96.
Potter, E. H. (2009). Branding Canada: Projecting Canada's soft power through public diplomacy.
McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Ragin, C. (1994). A qualitative comparative analysis of pension systems. The Comparative
Political Economy of the Welfare State, 320-345.
Rhodes, R. A. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and
Accountability. Open University Press.
Roberts, W. R. (2006). The evolution of diplomacy. Mediterranean Quarterly, 17(3), 55-64.
93 | Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, Vol. 17, No.1
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations: Modifications of a model for telecommunications.
In Die Diffusion von Innovationen in der Telekommunikation, Berlin, Heidelberg, 25-38. Springer.
Sharp, P. (2013). Diplomacy in international relations theory and other disciplinary perspectives.
In Kerr. P, & Wiseman, G. (Eds.), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, 51-
67. Oxford University Press.
Snow, N. (2009). Rethinking Public Diplomacy. In Snow. N, & Taylor, P. M.(Eds.), Handbook of
Public Diplomacy, 3-11. New York. NY: Routledge.
Tsasis, P. (2009). The social processes of interorganizational collaboration and conflict in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 5-21.
Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 587-605.
Valente, T. W. (2010). Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications (Vol. 1).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Widvey, T. (2003). Public diplomacy. speech at the Norwegian–American Chamber of Commerce,
Ottawa, November, 3, 2003.
Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S., & Watabe, M. (1998). Uncertainty, trust, and commitment formation
in the United States and Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 165-194.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. The
Information Systems Research Challenge (Harvard Business School Research Colloquium).
London: Sage.
Zaharna R.S. (2010). Communication, culture, and identity in public diplomacy. Battles to Bridges:
Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
