BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Chugaiev Oleksii A (Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine)
Ocena miękkiej siły gospodarczej Unii Europejskiej. Analiza porównawcza
The European Union's Soft Economic Power Assessment: A Comparative Analysis
Studia Politicae Universitatis Silesiensis, 2022, T. 34, s. 47-66, bibliogr. 45 poz.
Miękka siła, Marka, Wizerunek marki
Soft power, Brand, Brand image
streszcz., summ.
Unia Europejska (UE)
European Union (EU)
Miękka siła gospodarcza wiąże się z subiektywnie postrzeganą atrakcyjnością podobnie jak sukces systemu gospodarczego i polityki gospodarczej. Obecny stan miękkiej siły Unii Europejskiej w stosunku do innych światowych potęg gospodarczych analizowany jest w niniejszym artykule za pomocą kilku metod: sondaży, wskaźników obiektywnych, szacunków wartości oraz metody infometrycznej. Potwierdzają one dominację UE lub jej drugą po USA pozycję. Na miękką siłę UE składają się między innymi: poziom rozwoju, jakość życia, marki krajowe i korporacyjne, regulacje biznesowe, priorytetowo traktowana ochrona środowiska, swoboda prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej, inicjatywy integracyjne, pomoc rozwojowa udzielana przez UE, turystyka, branże kreatywne, edukacja, nauka, kultura i poziom opieki zdrowotnej. Główne wyzwania dla wizerunku UE to spadające tempo rozwoju gospodarczego oraz dominacja amerykańskich i chińskich marek korporacyjnych w sektorach medialnym, technologicznym i bankowym.(abstrakt oryginalny)

Soft economic power is related to subjective perceptions of attractiveness, justice, and success of an economic system and economic policy. The current state of the Euro****pean Union soft power relatively to other global economic powers is analyzed with several approaches: opinion polls, objective indicators, value estimates, and infometric method. They prove either the supremacy of the EU or second best result after the US. Positive contribution to the EU soft power is provided by its development level, quality of life, national and corporate brands, business regulation, environmental protection priorities, economic freedoms, integration initiatives, development assistance, tourism, creative industries, education, science, culture, and healthcare. The main challenges for the EU image is slower econom growth and a domination of American and Chinese corporate brands in media, technological, and banking sectors (original abstract)
Full text
  1. Abels, Ch. M., Anheier, H. K., Begg, I., & Featherstone, K. (2020). Enhancing Europe's global power: a scenario exercise with eight proposals. Global Policy, 11(1), 128-142.
  2. Anholt, S. (2020). The Good Country Index. Version 1.4.
  3. Bhardawaj, B., Kaur, K., & Jain, A. (2019). Competitive survivability: a study of impact of global crisis on Indonesia and India. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 5(3), 22-27.
  4. Bilal, S., & Hoekman, B. (2019, July 31). Perspectives on the soft power of EU trade policy: A new eBook. - CEPR's policy portal.
  5. Bloom Consulting (2017). The digital country index'17.
  6. Bloom Consulting (2017/2018). Country brand ranking. Tourism edition 2017-2018.
  7. Brand Finance (2021). Nation brands 2021 ranking.
  8. Brand Finance (2022). Global rankings. Brand rankings by sector and country.
  9. Carminati, D. (2022). The economics of soft power: Reliance on economic resources and instrumentality in economic gains. Economic and Political Studies, 10(1), 19-43.
  10. Chernega, E. (2013). The European Union's leadership potential. EURINT Conference Proceedings "The EU as a model of soft power in the Eastern neighbourhood", Romania, 27-32.
  11. Chugaiev O. A. (2018). National Economic Power in the Global Economy. [Doctoral dissertation]. Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. [Чугаєв, О.А. (2018). Економічна сила країни у глобальному господарстві [дис. ... д-ра екон. наук]. Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка]. O. A..pdf
  12. Devlin, K. (2019, May 20). Нow Europeans see key institutions and issues ahead of European Parliament elections. Pew Research Center.
  13. Devlin, K., Fagan M., & Connaughton, A. (2021, June 23). People in advanced economies say their society is more divided than before pandemic. Publics disagree about whether restrictions on public activity have gone far enough to combat COVID-19. Pew Research Center.
  14. Dimitrova, A., Mazepus, H., Boroda, M., Chulitskaya, T., Berbeca, V., & Parvan, T. (2016). Soft, normative or transformative power: What do the EU's communications with Eastern partners reveal about its influence?. EU-STRAT.
  15. European Commission (2021a). Europeans' opinions about the European Union's priorities (Standard Eurobarometer report No. 95).
  16. European Commission (2021b). The Euro Area (Flash Eurobarometer report No. 501).
  17. Eurostat (2020). The EU in the world. 2020 edition.
  18. FutureBrand (2015). Made in. The value of country of origin for future brands.
  19. Goldthau, A., & Sitter, N. (2015). Soft power with a hard edge: EU policy tools and energy security. Review of International Political Economy, 22(5), 941-965.
  20. Höhn, K. H. (2011). Geopolitics and the measurement of national power [Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der Fakultät Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Fachbereich Sozialwissenschaften der Universität Hamburg]. SUB Hamburg.
  21. International Monetary Fund (2021, October). World Economic Outlook.
  22. Julius, D. (2005). US economic power: waxing or waning? Harvard International Review, 26(4), 14-19. 7453ff29ea9fca253109bcac952874
  23. Kudryavtsev, A. A. (2014). A systemic view of the soft power (EUI Working Paper No. RSCAS 2014/16). European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, Global Governance Programme.
  24. Kunst, A. (2019). Made-in country index: country ranking 2017. Statista.
  25. Lisbonne de Vergeron, K. (2015). China-EU relations and the future of European soft power: a strategy for a European cultural diploma. Strategic Update (15.4). LSE IDEAS, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
  26. Malanciuc, B. (2014). The future of economic power. Ovidius University Annals. Economic Sciences Series, 14(1), 34-37. _Annals_Economic_Sciences_Series/links/5458f1c60cf2cf516483c3f7/Issues-and-Objectives-of-Green-Tax-Reform-Ovidius-University-Annals-Economic-Sciences-Series.pdf
  27. Mihalcea, A.-D., & Vitelar, A. (2015). The European Union brand and its appeal to young Europeans - an in-depth perspective from Romanian student. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 22(3), 101-110.
  28. Nielsen, K. L. (2013). EU soft power and the capability-expectations gap. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(5), 723-739.
  29. Nye, J. S. (2004). "Soft power" and American-European relations. Free Thought - ХХI, 10, 20-24 [Най, Дж. С. (2004) «Мягкая» сила и американо-европейские отношения. Свободная мысль - ХХI, 10, 20-24].
  30. Nye, J. S. (2014). The information revolution and soft power. Current History, 113(759), 19-22.
  31. Pew Research Center (2020, March). Global indicators database.
  32. Popovska, B., & Darcq J. (2019). European Union nation branding through humanitarian and developmental initiatives - focus on EU aid volunteers. Academicus International Scientific Journal, 20, 142-153.
  33. Sajjad, M. W. (2011, May 4). Soft power: a mechanism for constructing a new political reality. Center for Political Studies Roundtable.
  34. Sasu, D. V., & Băgăian, N. Iu.. A. (2010). Aspects regarding the difficult process of building a Romanian tourism brand. Annals of Faculty of Economics, 1(2), 1141-1146.
  35. Smith K. E. (2014). Is the European Union's soft power in decline? Current history, 108, 104-109.
  36. Smith, M. (2009). Between 'soft power' and a hard place: European Union Foreign and Security Policy between the Islamic world and the United States. International Politics, 46 (5), 596-615.
  37. Thomson, S. (2020, February 25). Soft power: why it matters to governments, people, and brands. Brand finance.
  38. Trading economies (2022, January 24). Forecast GDP growth rate.
  39. Treverton, G. F., & Jones, S. G. (2005). Measuring national power: conference proceedings. RAND National Security Research Division.
  40. UNCTADStat (2022). Data Center. /ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx
  41. United Nations Development Programme (2020). 2020 Human Development Index Ranking.
  42. Wike, R., Poushter, J., Silver, L., Devlin, K., Fetterolf, J., Castillo, A., & Huang, Ch. (2019, October 14). European public opinion three decades after the fall of communism. Pew Research Center.
  43. World Bank (2020). Doing business.
  44. World Bank (2021a, October 27). Wealth Accounts.
  45. World Bank (2021b, December 16). World Development Indicators.
Cited by
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu