In recent years, public diplomacy has acquired a prominent position in the foreign policy of states. Accordingly, contemporary diplomats are expected not only to engage with official governmental representatives but also to actively interact with the societies in which they are stationed. On a broader level, governments are now required to establish relations with other nations through non-governmental organizations or directly with foreign publics as part of their foreign affairs strategies. Some governments have formally adopted this approach as a core element of their agenda, turning it into a foundation for international competition. However, these practical imperatives must also be addressed at the theoretical level. It appears that a research gap concerning public diplomacy still persists.
The growing significance of public diplomacy underscores the increasing necessity of its evaluation. Neglecting this aspect can obscure the extent to which goals are achieved and may compromise the benefits sought through such efforts. Accordingly, this article, recognizing the importance of evaluating public diplomacy and its role in understanding the extent to which its intended objectives are met, seeks to answer the central question: How can the public diplomacy of one state in another country be evaluated? The hypothesis proposed in response to this question is based on a results-oriented evaluation framework, as articulated in strategic management and planning literature. Consequently, the study focuses on output, outcome, and impact, aiming to define indicators for efficiency, effectiveness, and utility—concepts tailored to the nature and literature of public diplomacy—to enable the assessment of this form of diplomacy. These indicators can be adjusted in accordance with the objectives pursued by each government’s public diplomacy activities in a given target country. The methodology employed in this article is descriptive-analytical, relying on qualitative data collected through documentary and library-based research.
This article, while noting that the essence and rationale of public diplomacy have thus far constituted the primary focus of related studies, shifts attention to its operational dimensions, particularly one of its final and most critical stages—evaluation. The assessment of public diplomacy strategies and programs is vital because it reveals the difference between effective and ineffective policies. Yet, when evaluation is attempted, many assessors fail to clearly distinguish between "outputs" and "impacts." They often merely tally activities and the investments made to implement public diplomacy programs, paying insufficient attention to real impacts aligned with stated objectives.
Furthermore, within the framework of strategic management and planning literature, evaluation is situated after the design and implementation phases and plays a crucial role in achieving set goals. The absence of evaluation risks the perpetuation of errors and deviations that may distance the public diplomacy practitioner from intended objectives. In such a scenario, human and financial resources may be squandered, and in some cases, the prestige of a country may suffer. The consequence of these disruptions is the failure to realize national interests, which can in turn weaken the commitment of officials and policymakers to public diplomacy and diminish its perceived value. Therefore, evaluating public diplomacy—which remains underdeveloped and lacks systematic academic literature—is essential.
In the context of strategic management and planning, various approaches to evaluation exist. This article, focusing on the centrality of objectives in public diplomacy, adopts a results-oriented evaluation framework. Within this framework, the concepts of output, outcome, and impact are paired with the corresponding evaluative dimensions of efficiency, effectiveness, and utility:
Efficiency assessment evaluates the outputs of public diplomacy, referring to the tangible products generated through the planning and execution of public diplomacy practitioners—such as television programs, newspapers, conferences, and similar initiatives designed and implemented for the targeted foreign audience. Evaluating outputs and measuring efficiency is an internal, system-focused process, assessing how well the public diplomacy apparatus produces goal-aligned outputs. Thus, indicators such as the number of films, books, conferences, news and analytical websites, and the issuance of academic scholarships for foreign audiences become significant.
Effectiveness assessment pertains to evaluating the outcomes, focusing on how impactful the outputs have been in engaging the environment or target society. Given the audience-centered nature of public diplomacy, this evaluation concentrates on the recipients and seeks to determine whether the intended messages were received and had any influence. Relevant indicators include the number of foreign applications for academic programs, tourist arrivals from the target country, purchases of books intended for foreign audiences, and the number of foreign followers of official social media accounts.
The third and most critical tier of public diplomacy evaluation—with strategic importance—is the assessment of utility, measuring the extent to which public diplomacy achieves its overarching objectives based on its effects on the target society. At this level, the goal becomes a fundamental focus, as evaluators seek to answer whether the intended outcomes have been realized. If the objective is to bring about political change in the target country, then public support for candidates aligned with the public diplomacy–conducting government becomes a key metric. Political demands and even protests may also serve as indicators under the goal of political transformation within a public diplomacy framework, though such assessments must be approached with considerable sensitivity. Alternatively, if the objective is to foster cultural relations, then metrics assessing the target public’s affinity for the cultural values and ideas promoted by the executing government become relevant.
In conclusion, considering the evident theoretical and operational shortcomings in evaluating public diplomacy on the one hand, and the expansion of public diplomacy due to widespread transformations in the field of communications on the other, there is a pressing need for more concentrated research in this domain. Such efforts could help move public diplomacy beyond a trial-and-error phase and toward a more systematic implementation that effectively serves national interests. Case studies evaluating the public diplomacy practices of various countries may significantly contribute to the development of relevant academic literature. While it is evident that evaluation can be complex—particularly due to the challenges of survey-based research—and may sometimes be questioned by certain observers, it appears unavoidable. Limited resources on one hand and the rapid pace of change and the necessity of influencing foreign audiences to secure national interests on the other, compel the adoption of robust evaluation measures for public diplomacy. Based on recent case studies, it is likely that in the coming years, both theoretical and practical advances in the evaluation of public diplomacy will emerge, thereby enabling this pathway to national interest to progress beyond trial and error.