HEPI Soft Power Index 2024

The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has published its 2024 soft power index which 'measures the number of senior serving world leaders - defined as monarchs, presidents and prime ministers - educated at a higher level in countries other than their own' (HEPI Soft Power Index 2024). The index provides interesting and useful data, but I would argue it is not a measure of soft power. Rather it is simply a tally of world leaders who studied abroad which is presented in the beauty contest framework so beloved of compilers of soft power indices. This then reveals which country's HEIs are up, and which are down. To be an indicator of soft power, more information is needed.

First, can higher education be an indicator of soft power? Yes, but not in the way such metrics have us believe. Just in the same way that data that reveals the number of tourists visiting a country, the size of audiences for foreign language movies, the number of viewers tuning into an international broadcasting station, or how many international students generally are in the UK, knowing which and how many world leaders studied abroad is simply counting and tell us nothing about impact or experience. It is only when we start to take seriously the need to consider how people are responding to their experience in HEIs that will we have a better understanding of impact and therefore their soft power value.  

The Higher Education sector reflects, rather than creates soft power. We could argue that the most successful HEIs are safe spaces for innovation and creativity, dialogue, debate, critical thinking, collaboration, and dissent, and they are open to students regardless of income, race, religion, or gender. But these are indicators of a broader understanding of soft power that shapes and is shaped by what is happening elsewhere and beyond campuses - in other words, the political culture, values, and the vibrancy and autonomy of civil society. 

The Egyptian Nobel Laureate, Ahmed Zewail, celebrated the open society, the free flow of ideas, and the levels of collaboration that he discovered as a student in the US, and which nurture the essential conditions for scientific progress. In an article published in The American Interest (2010), Zewail wrote:

What I as a young foreign student in the 1970s found most dynamic, exciting and impressive about the United States is what much of the world continues to value about America today: its open intellectual culture, its great universities, its capacity for discovery and innovation (The Soft Power of Science)

I think there needs to be a clearer understanding of the way HEIs connect with more extensive approaches to soft power and that HEIs reflect the soft power generated elsewhere (which is why I argue that it is not possible to develop soft power strategies - only strategies for governing better or, in this case, investing in/developing/protecting HE).

Second, knowing which world leaders studied where is interesting and a useful starting point, but to increase the value of this data and demonstrate soft power, the research needs to go deeper. One alternative approach to simply counting is to focus more on impact - to move away from the simplistic quantitative methods that reveal limited information and move towards a more qualitative measure: how did these leaders respond to the experience of studying in an overseas HEI? What did they take away? Did they engage with local communities? Did they have a good time? There are a multitude of reasons why anyone, including leaders, may decide to study in a particular country - can we find out why and how these leaders made their choices?  

Finally, for this research to connect to soft power (and especially the often neglected 'power' part of the concept) it is important to demonstrate long term impact. Have world leaders who studied in the UK continued their relationship with the country after they left? What policies or initiatives have they introduced to deepen their country's relationship with the UK? What is the level of trade and investment between the two countries, and is this the result of the leader studying abroad? Are their political cultures, behaviours, and values aligned with those they encountered when they were students? Again, measuring impact is essential. Without this we are not talking about 'power', but merely tallying the number of people who studied abroad. 

So, while the data presented by HEPI is useful and interesting, it is only a starting point. We should be mindful that, as it is presented, it is not an indicator of soft power, and that we need to push the research further to understand the broader and longer-term impact of world leaders - or any student - studying in a HEI overseas.