Comparative Analyst of SDGs and Soft Power Diplomacy

By Marcella Meidhiana
ABSTRACT
Political comparison is a way to judge countries against each other based on certain indicators or
political units. In this paper, SDGs and Soft Power Diplomacy are indicators of existing
comparisons. In comparing these two indicators, there are six countries that are analyzed, namely
Denmark, Australia, Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Switzerland. In comparing the six
countries, methods are used, namely looking for valid data, determining the differences and
similarities in the data, and providing supporting tables and charts. The data taken is data from
government institutions and international organizations. This paper produces rankings for both
indicators, where Switzerland is the country with the best SDGs fulfillment and Australia is the
country with the best Soft Power Diplomacy.
Key Words: Comparative Politics, Sustainable Development Goals, Soft Power, Diplomacy,
Countries Rangkings

Introduction
In analyzing the performance of countries around the world, we can compare them using
the SDGs index and Soft power diplomacy. All the state members of the United Nations in 2015
adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There are 17 of them that basically
translated into The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is an urgent declaration that
turned into a mission to take action by all countries in global partnership. The SDGs is a map to
achieve a better living condition, which is a more sustainable environment to live for all in the
future.1 All the 17 goals are essential and important to ensure this mission. It is a framework for
governments, organizations, and individuals on how to act and achieve a better and more
sustainable living condition. In this paper, there will be five different points of SDGs that will be
analyze. There are Target 1.1, Target 2.1, Target 6.1, Target 7.1, and Target 13.1 that will be
further discussed in this paper.
Comparing Soft Power diplomacy between states is to measure the extent to which
particular countries have diplomatic networks. Not only that, but also the use of soft power assets

1 "Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals," United Nations, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/#:~:text=The%20Sustainable
%20Development%20Goals%20are,Learn%20more%20and%20take%20action.

1
by certain countries in their diplomatic attempts. The capacity to persuade others to accomplish
goals by appeal and persuasion rather than threat or reward is known as soft power. 2 The
interests and needs of the various members of the international system are addressed through
diplomacy. Through diplomacy, global representation is produced, political and cultural diversity
is encouraged, relevant data from member states of the international system is gathered, crises
are managed, consular and other services are provided, and international law is more easily
observed.3 Soft power diplomacy is a valuable thing to compare between states, remembering
that the international system itself projects a more interdependent and democratic system. In this
paper, there will be five indicators of soft power diplomacy that will be analyze. There are
Global Diplomacy Index (GDI), Cultural heritage, Education, Economy/Business, and Politics
through level of democracy.

Conceptual Perspective and Comparative Method

Comparative politics is the study of different nations, populations, and political entities in
whole or in part, as well as the comparison and contrast of such political entities. 4 It can be
diverse to the comparison of some of the selected countries or a large sum of them. By
comparing different states, we can have a better understanding about our own country. We can
also get more knowledge about the background, institutions, and history of other countries. By
comparing the politics unit between states, we can make generalizations about government and
politics that are valid. Comparative politics analyzes how a country works differently than the
other and also analyzes the outcome of each political action/decision.5
In this paper, the method of comparing SDGs and Soft Power Diplomacy between states
went through three steps. First by finding the valid data regarding the countries and its
comparative indicators. Second by finding similarities and differences between those indicators
and countries, And third by making complete generalizations about the analysis. It will be
presented through essays, tables, and radar scales. The comparative methods used in this paper

2 Joseph S. Nye, "Soft Power and Public Diplomacy Revisited," The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14, no. 1-2
(2019): 1-14, doi:10.1163/1871191x-14101013.
3 Gabriel Antwi, "Importance of Diplomacy," ResearchGate, last modified March 10, 2019,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331642976_Importance_of_Diplomacy.
4 "Research Guides: Political Science: Comparative Politics," Research Guides at New York University, last
modified December 23, 2020, https://guides.nyu.edu/polisci/comparative-politics.
5 Kenneth Newton and Jan W. Van Deth, Foundations of Comparative Politics, (Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, 2010), pg. 1.

2
also included specific calculations. On how to count the SDGs, there are scoring methods: -1
which means there is no initiative at all to complete the target, 0 which means there is initiative
on making policy such as agenda, road map, or programmes, 0.25 which means the road map and
action began to be implemented, 0.5 which means there is implementation of initiative but the
problems remain, 0.75 which means there is implementation of initiative and there is evidence of
progress (outcome is evident), and lastly +1 which means the agenda fully implemented and the
impacts are evident.
How we make the comparison on Soft Power Diplomacy is using certain indicators and
numbers. In this paper, it will be analyzed that Global Diplomacy Index (GDI) through number
of posts, Cultural heritage through the number of tourists, Education through number of foreign
students, Economy/Business through the number of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows,
and lastly Politics through the level of democracy. In making a comprehensive analysis and
conclusion, in this paper will be presented a radar scale of comparison between states
compliance on designated SDGs and Soft Power Diplomacy indicators. It is determined on a
scale of 0-10 in the radar. The way to calculate it is by dividing the points of the country we are
analyzing by the country that ranks first in the comparison indicator. Then the number obtained
from the division will be multiplied by 100.

Findings and Analysis

SDGs
Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured
as people living on less than $1.25 a day
In Denmark, the poverty headcount ratio is at $1.90/day. The extreme poverty rate in
Denmark is less than 3%. 2018 saw an increase in Denmark's poverty rate from 0.1 percent to
6
0.2 percent. In other instances, Australia's poverty headcount ratio is $1.90/day, and the
estimated proportion of the population lives below the poverty line of $1.90/day. Extreme
poverty affects less than 3% of the population. In 2018, Australia's poverty rate remained
constant at 0.5 percent, at $1.9 per day.7

6"Denmark," Sustainable Development Report 2022, accessed June 28, 2022,

https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/denmark.
7 "Australia," Sustainable Development Report 2021, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/australia.

3
 Around 615,000 permanent residents of Switzerland, or 7.5% of the total population,
experienced income poverty in 2016, with 140,000 of them holding a job. Switzerland's
international cooperation is based on a multifaceted understanding of poverty that takes into
account sociocultural, political, economic, social, and environmental factors in addition to
fundamental human needs.8 The daily poverty headcount is $1.90. The extreme poverty rate in
Denmark is less than 3%. 2018 saw an increase in Denmark's poverty rate from 0.1 percent to
0.2 percent. In other instances, Australia's poverty headcount ratio is $1.90/day.9
In Bulgaria, by 2021, it is estimated that the percentage of the population that is living
under the poverty threshold of US$1.90 a day is 1.64%. In 2020, Bulgaria implemented The Poverty
Watch that aims to review, analyze and assess the overall situation in the country in relation to
poverty and social inclusion. 10 On the other side, it is anticipated that 0.16 percent of Albania's
population will be below the poverty line of US$1.90 per day in 2021. In the past 20 years, poverty
in Albania has considerably decreased. However, it is still estimated that one in seven Albanians live
in poverty. Minority group members and older adults are particularly impacted. Lastly, In Czech
Republic, there is no extreme poverty. It is already one of the lowest in the EU countries which has
10% of the population relatively living in poverty. There are already a protection system, equal
rights to economic resources, and official development assistance to address this issue. 11

Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and
people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year
round.
Food insecurity is not common in Denmark. 12 Denmark has a long history of producing
food, and sustainability is one of its most important values. 13 A key component of continued

8 Switzerland implements the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Switzerland’s Country Report 2018,
(Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, n.d),
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/agenda2030/en/documents/laenderbericht-der-schweiz-2018_EN.pdf.
9 "Sustainable Development Report 2022," Sustainable Development Report 2022, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/switzerland.
10 Bulgaria: Voluntary National Review SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS, (United Nations, 2020), pg. 57,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26289VNR_2020_Bulgaria_Report.pdf.
11 Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, "Second Voluntary National Review of the 2030 Agenda in
the Czech Republic," last modified 2021, pg. 37,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279492021_VNR_Report_Czech_Republic.pdf
12 "Prevalence of food insecurity (FIES)," Statistics Denmark, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/temaer/SDG/globale-verdensmaal/02-stop-sult/delmaal-01/indikator-
2#:~:text=Target%202.1,sufficient%20food%20all%20year%20round.
13 Ministry of Finance, "Voluntary National Review 2021," last modified 2021, pg. 47,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279532021_VNR_Report_Denmark.pdf

4
development and innovation in Danish agriculture is the independent advising system, which is
founded on the demands of farmers. Generally speaking, it has been discovered that partnerships
along the entire value chain greatly contribute to a more sustainable food system by bringing
about new and more sustainable solutions and food products. 14 In Australia, more than one in
five (22 percent) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons lived in households that had run
15
out of food and were unable to afford to buy more during the 2011–2013 period. Up until now,
Australia only have regulations to provide the nutrition needs for their people but we can’t see a
progressive results on it.16
Switzerland is in favor of shifting the focus away from emergency food assistance and
toward long-term food security, as well as making smallholder farmers and agricultural systems
more adaptable. It is especially committed to setting up the ideal agrarian and food system
framework circumstances. One of them is addressing malnutrition, which is increasingly
responsible for non-communicable diseases, particularly in developing countries. 17 In contrast, a
new Food Law has been introduced for Bulgaria's National Assembly to read in 2019. In 2018
saw the implementation of a regulation on population physiological nutrition norms. In addition
to the regulations, collections of recipes for healthful diets suitable for the three age groups have
also been made available. These collections ensure that the laws are upheld and that the result is
evident.18
On the other hand, it can be seen that the alignment of SDG 2.1 with Albania’s national
priorities only reaches about 65%. There are several indications that Albania’s trying to reach
this target. One of them being the Albanian National Land Consolidation Strategy, the
construction of family farms that are economically viable, competitive, and sustainable was
adopted by the government in 2016 and will be put into effect until the year 2028. 19 Lastly, in
Czech Republic, hunger no longer exists as a social issue. In the long run, food shortages and

14 Ibid, pg. 60.

15 "Indicator 2.1.2," Australia Government, accessed June 28, 2022, https://www.sdgdata.gov.au/goals/zero-
hunger/2.1.2.
16 "Australia," Sustainable Development Report 2022, accessed June 27, 2022,
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/static/profiles/pdfs/SDR-2022-australia.pdf
17 Switzerland implements the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Switzerland’s Country Report 2018,
(Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, n.d),
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/agenda2030/en/documents/laenderbericht-der-schweiz-2018_EN.pdf.
18 Bulgaria: Voluntary National Review SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS, (United Nations, 2020), pg. 46,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26289VNR_2020_Bulgaria_Report.pdf.
19 Albania - Voluntary National Review on Sustainable Development Goals, (United Nations, 2018), pg. 55,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20257ALBANIA_VNR_2018_FINAL2.pdf

5
malnutrition are extremely minor issues that may be resolved with the help of local non-profit
groups, food aid, material aid, social support, and school meals. Food banks have shown a
tremendous effort by assisting 100,000 requests in 2019.20

Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking
water for all
In Denmark, groundwater is used to produce all potable drinking water. All households
in Denmark, according to the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, have access to portable,
safe drinking water inside or outside of their homes, whether it comes from a private water well
or a shared water supply. The Water Supply Act specifies the obligation of supply on the part of
water suppliers.21 In 2020, 97% of Denmark's population already have access to safely managed
drinking water services.22 Just as good as the condition in Denmark, In Australia 100% of their
population already have access to safely managed drinking water services. 23 In Urban locations
in Australia, they already use safely managed services to clean water but overall in national and
rural areas, they still use a basic service to accomplish the water needs.
100% of the population of Switzerland have access to the basic drinking water service,
following that 99.9% Switzerland population using at least basic sanitation services, while
having 6.5% freshwater withdrawal rates. 24 In Bulgaria there is also good news that 99.54% of
the population is already connected to public water supply. They have a water management
policy to ensure this. It also can be seen that 96-98% water supply has a good quality of drinking
water according to microbiology indicators.25
In Albania on the other hand, the implementation of water regulations are not as good as
the other countries. It can be seen that the alignment of SDG 6.1 with Albania’s national
20 Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, "Second Voluntary National Review of the 2030 Agenda in
the Czech Republic," last modified 2021, pg. 38,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279492021_VNR_Report_Czech_Republic.pdf
21 Ministry of Finance, "Voluntary National Review 2021," last modified 2021,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279532021_VNR_Report_Denmark.pdf.
22UN Water, "Denmark," SDG 6 Data, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://www.sdg6data.org/country-or-area/Denmark#anchor_6.2.1b.
23UN Water, "Switzerland," SDG 6 Data, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://www.sdg6data.org/country-or-area/Switzerland.
24 Switzerland implements the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Switzerland’s Country Report 2018,
(Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, n.d),
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/agenda2030/en/documents/laenderbericht-der-schweiz
25 Bulgaria: Voluntary National Review SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS, (United Nations, 2020), pg. 57,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26289VNR_2020_Bulgaria_Report.pdf.

6
priorities only reaches about 55%. In the majority of Albania, the cost of providing drinking
water and sanitation services is less than the cost of manufacturing. Despite being more
affordable as a result, they are neither technically nor financially sustainable. In 57
municipalities, about 81 percent of homes have access to drinking water and sewage services,
compared to barely 50 percent of families in rural areas. 26 Lastly, in Czech Republic 94.6% of
their population have water supply through their water-supply system. Given that drinking water is
still predominantly used in homes in the Czech Republic, there is a sizable window of opportunity
for the use of grey water in this sector.27

Target 7.1: By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services
Denmark has been actively working on energy efficiency since the 1970s. Because of
these efforts, Denmark's gross energy consumption has remained relatively steady since the mid-
1970s, when the GDP has more than doubled. Denmark has made significant progress in
integrating renewable energy into energy networks while maintaining a very steady electricity
supply. Technology has enormous potential to cut global carbon emissions and assist society in
adapting to climate change. Increasing Danish green technology exports offers the twin benefit
of creating Danish jobs while also lowering global carbon emissions.
The percentage of Australians who have access to energy has already surpassed 100% as
of 2018. The Australian population has already reached 100 percent primary reliance on clean
fuels and technology since 2016. This is similar to access to power. According to a compilation
of development indicators from officially recognized sources by the World Bank, the population
of Switzerland was reported to have 100 percent access to electricity in 2020. Switzerland Data
on the percentage of the population with access to clean cooking fuels and technologies was
reported at 100,000% in 2016.28
On the other hand, Bulgaria's whole population will have access to power by 2018. In 2016,
88.65 out of 100 people had access to clean fuels and technology for cooking, while 0.90 out of 100
persons had CO2 emissions from burning fuel for electricity and heating. In contrast to Albania,

26 Albania - Voluntary National Review on Sustainable Development Goals, (United Nations, 2018), pg. 49,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20257ALBANIA_VNR_2018_FINAL2.pdf
27 Ministry of the Enviroment of the Czech Republic, "Second Voluntary National Review of the 2030 Agenda in
the Czech Republic," last modified 2021, pg. 46,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279492021_VNR_Report_Czech_Republic.pdf
28UN Water, "Switzerland," SDG 6 Data, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://www.sdg6data.org/country-or-area/Switzerland.

7
their population will have complete access to electricity by 2018. By 2016, 77.46 out of 100 people
will have access to clean fuels and technology for cooking, and 0.51 out of 100 people will have CO2
emissions from fuel combustion for power and heating. 29 Lastly, in Czech Republic every resident
of the Czech Republic has access to electricity at their place of residence. Over 97 percent of people
in the population cook with clean fuels. To reach this target they have a plan called The National
Recovery Plan.30

Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural
disasters in all countries
Denmark has policies and mechanisms in place to mitigate the effects of climate change,
albeit these are not fully understood. However, Denmark still has a long way to go to fulfill the
2030 deadline, and more action, notably from the private sector, is required to meet Goal 13.
Many Danish corporations are heavily involved in the climate change issue. Only 13% of Danish
enterprises have established climate targets and measured their own emissions.
Climate change is given very minimal attention in Australia, appearing principally as an
area of investment focused on building resilience in the face of humanitarian disasters.
Furthermore, despite the fact that climate change is a major concern for development,
particularly in Australia's region, the aid program lacks a clear strategy. According to the
country's Second Biennial Report on its progress toward meeting UNFCCC commitments,
Australia has provided an average of A$187 million per year in climate finance through
multilateral and bilateral channels since 2010, including $229 million in 2014-15.
In Switzerland, they have already ratified the Paris Agreement since 2017 to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions by 50%.31 But significant challenges still remain as the CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel are still pretty high. 32 On the other hand in 2019, the Council of Ministers of the
Republic of Bulgaria approved the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan.

29 Albania - Voluntary National Review on Sustainable Development Goals, (United Nations, 2018), pg. 40,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20257ALBANIA_VNR_2018_FINAL2.pdf
30 Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, "Second Voluntary National Review of the 2030 Agenda in
the Czech Republic," last modified 2021, pg. 48,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279492021_VNR_Report_Czech_Republic.pdf
31 "Switzerland," Sustainable Development Report 2022, accessed June 27, 2022,
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/switzerland
32 Switzerland implements the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Switzerland’s Country Report 2018,
(Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, n.d),
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/agenda2030/en/documents/laenderbericht-der-schweiz

8
The strategy's purpose is to operate as a guide, providing a framework for action on adaptation to
climate change as well as key directions through 2030.
On the other hand, In 2019, Albania undertook a scheme to integrate transboundary flood
risk management that is climate resilient. Albania also put into effect the National Climate Change
Strategy and Plan as well as the National Strategy for Development and Integration .33 Lastly, in
Czech Republic the problem of climate change is still pretty prominent. They have a framework for
this matter, which are the Climate Protection Policy Czech Republic and the Strategy on Adaptation
to Climate Change in the Czech Republic. The greenhouse emissions in Czech Republic significantly
fell by nearly 36% by 2021.34
With the explanation above, it can be made in the form of a matrix table regarding SDGs
and their achievements. This table uses the scoring method that has been described in the
previous Comparative Method section. The following findings are based on the analysis that has
been made:

Countries Goal 1.1 Goal 2.1 Goal 6.1 Goal 7.1 Goal 13.1 Score

Denmark +1 +1 +1 +1 +0.5 4.5

Australia +1 +0.5 +1 +1 +0.25 3.75

Albania +0.75 +1 +1 +1 +0.75 4.5

Bulgaria +1 +0.5 +1 +1 +0.75 4.25

Czech +1 +1 +1 +0.75 +0.5 4.25

Republic

Switzerland +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 5

Radar Scale of Compliance to SDG:

33 Albania - Voluntary National Review on Sustainable Development Goals, (United Nations, 2018),
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20257ALBANIA_VNR_2018_FINAL2.pdf
34 Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, "Second Voluntary National Review of the 2030 Agenda in
the Czech Republic," last modified 2021, pg. 60,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279492021_VNR_Report_Czech_Republic.pdf

9
Ranks (from the best to the worst) of SDGs Compliance:
Switzerland, Denmark, Albania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Australia

Soft Power Diplomacy

Global Diplomacy Index (GDI) through number of posts
According to Lowy Institute 2019, we can analyze the number of diplomatic posts
between the six countries. In Denmark, they have 176 posts, which consists 74 Foreign
Embassies and 102 Consulates. In contrast, almost double the number, Australia has 336 posts,
which consists of 79 Foreign Embassies and 257 Consulates. On the other hand, Albania only
has 44 posts, which consists of 27 Foreign Embassies and 17 consulates. Almost triple its
number compared to Albania, Bulgaria has 147 posts, which consists 71 Foreign Embassies and
76 Consulates. Switzerland has about 106 posts, which consists of 48 Embassies and 58
Consulates. And lastly coming the second best, The Czech Republic has 303 posts, which
consist of 90 Embassies and 213 Consulates.35

Cultural heritage through number of tourists

In the comparison of the economy/business, it is only calculated based on the number of
international tourists. This comparison is based on data from the World Bank 2019. Denmark
has around 33,093,000 tourists. In Australia, the number of arrivals that indicates international
tourists reach around 9,466,000. With the smallest amount of arrivals, Albania has 6,406,000
international tourists in 2019. It indicates that they have the least attractive holiday or cultural
35 "Global Diplomacy Index – Country Comparison," Https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/, accessed
June 28, 2022, https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/country_comparison.html

10
attractions. Bulgaria on the other hand, has around 12,552,000 arrivals or international tourists
in 2019. Switzerland has around 11,818,00 foreign tourists in 2019. Lastly, in Czech Republic,
the arrival number of tourists in 2019 is the highest with 37,202,000 people. 36

Education through number of foreign students

In the comparison of education, it is only calculated based on the number of foreign
students that came into the countries. This comparison is based on data from the World Bank
2019. Denmark has around 34.030 foreign students. In contrast, Australia has a really
significant number with 355.627 foreign students. This indicates that Australia's education is
appealing and the regulations to enroll in their county are very manageable and open to other
countries. Albania on the other hand only has 21.654 foreign students. And even less than
Albania, Bulgaria with the least amount of students with 16.280 foreign students. This indicates
that Bulgaria has little recognition in their education system. With the second best, Switzerland
has 260.000 foreign students. And Lastly, Czech Republic has around 50.121 foreign students in
2019. That shows that they have not the best recognition in education but also not the worst.37

Economy/Business through number of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows

In the comparison of the economy/business, it is only calculated based on the number of
FDI inflows. This comparison is based on data from the World Bank 2019. Denmark is a pretty
big income country with FDI 1.58 Billion USD. But compared to Australia, Denmark has a
significantly lower FDI number. Australia’s FDI is reported to be 19.64 Billion USD. Albania
FDI is also not bad with 7.2 Billion USD, which is better than Denmark. This can indicate that
Albania has a certain attractiveness in business than Denmark. Next, Bulgaria has about 2.7
Billion USD, still better than Denmark but significantly smaller than Australia. On the other
hand, almost triple Bulgaria’s number, Switzerland has around 8.77 Billion USD for their FDI.
And lastly, with the smallest FDI number, The Czech Republic has around 980 Million USD.38
36"International Tourism, Number of Arrivals - Denmark, Albania, Switzerland, Australia, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic," World Bank Open Data | Data, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?locations=DK-AL-CH-AU-BG-CZ.
37"Over-age Students, Primary (% of Enrollment) - Denmark, Albania, Switzerland, Australia, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic," World Bank Open Data | Data, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.OENR.ZS?locations=DK-AL-CH-AU-BG-CZ.
38"Foreign Direct Investment, Net Inflows (BoP, Current US$) - Denmark, Albania, Switzerland, Australia,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic," World Bank Open Data | Data, accessed June 28, 2022,
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?locations=DK-AL-CH-AU-BG-CZ.

11
 Politics through level of democracy
In the comparison of Politics, it is only calculated based on the level of democracy. This
comparison is based on data from the Freedom House 2019. Denmark has 95/100. Better than
Denmark, Australia has 97/100 for their scoring. With the worst one, Albania scored only
67/100. Not much better, Bulgaria’s score is only 79/100. On the other hand, Switzerland has a
pretty great score with 96/100. And lastly, Czech Republic also has a high score of democracy
with 91/100. 39
Based on the data and comparisons above, it can be described in a matrix table regarding
the five indicators of Soft Power Diplomacy. Calculation using the number of predetermined
indicators. The following table compares the analysis of Soft Power Diplomacy among the six
countries:

Comparison Denmark Australia Albania Bulgaria Switzerland Czech Republic

Unit

GDI (Total 176 336 44 147 106 303

Post)

Culture 33.093.000 9.466.000 6.410.000 12.552.000 11.818.000 37.202.000

(Number of
Tourist)

Education 34.030 355.627 21.654 16.280 260.000 50.121

(Number of
Foreign
Student)

Economy / 1.58 Billion 19.64 Billion 7.2 Billion 2.7 Billion 8.77 Billion 980 Million
Business USD USD USD USD USD USD
(Number of
FDI Flow)

Politics: 95/100 97/100 67/100 79/100 96/100 91/100

Democracy
(Level of
Democracy)

Radar Scale of Soft Power Diplomacy:

39"Countries and Territories," Freedom House, last modified October 22, 2019,
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores.

12
 With this radar chart, it can be seen which country has the best soft power diplomacy
among the six countries. The easiest indicator to see is based on the existing form of the chat
radar. Ranking (from the best to the worst): Australia, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria,
Denmark, and finally Albania.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, which was carried out by conducting political comparisons
based on a predetermined method, it can be concluded that the order of the countries with the
best compliance in the SDGs and the Soft Power Diplomacy they carry out. The data received
and processed from this analysis are taken from government documents as well as the United
Nations and World Banks. In analyzing based on the data above, it can be seen that the country
with the best SDG fulfillment is Switzerland. Followed by Denmark, Albania, Bulgaria, Czech
Republic, and Australia. This shows that Switzerland can fulfill its sustainability interests and is
a country with a chance to live a better life in the next few years.
Furthermore, in comparing the soft power diplomacy between the six countries, it can be
concluded which indicators of comparison have the best achievements by the six countries based
on the pentagon shape that is manifested in the radar chat in the analysis section. It can be seen
that the fulfillment of the political economy is the best indicator. In addition, rankings for soft
power diplomacy can be determined. The easiest indicator to see is based on the existing form of
radar chat, where the closer to a score of 10, the fulfillment of soft power diplomacy is getting

13
better. Ranking (from the best to the worst): Australia, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria,
Denmark, and finally Albania. This shows that Australia has good soft diplomacy and can lobby
other countries, while Albania is still far from good and cannot influence other countries in
making decisions.

14
 Bibliography

Albania - Voluntary National Review on Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations, 2018.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/20257ALBANIA_VNR_2018
_FINAL2.pdf.
Antwi, Gabriel. "Importance of Diplomacy." ResearchGate. Last modified March 10, 2019.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331642976_Importance_of_Diplomacy.
"Australia." Sustainable Development Report 2021. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/australia.
"Australia." Sustainable Development Report 2022. Accessed June 27, 2022.
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/static/profiles/pdfs/SDR-2022-australia.pdf.
Bulgaria: Voluntary National Review SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS. United
Nations, 2020.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/26289VNR_2020_Bulgaria_R
eport.pdf.
"Countries and Territories." Freedom House. Last modified October 22, 2019.
https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores.
"Denmark." Sustainable Development Report 2022. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/denmark.
"Foreign Direct Investment, Net Inflows (BoP, Current US$) - Denmark, Albania, Switzerland,
Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic." World Bank Open Data | Data. Accessed
June 28, 2022. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.KLT.DINV.CD.WD?
locations=DK-AL-CH-AU-BG-CZ.
"Global Diplomacy Index – Country Comparison."
Https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/country_comparison.html.
"Indicator 2.1.2." Australia Government. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://www.sdgdata.gov.au/goals/zero-hunger/2.1.2.
"International Tourism, Number of Arrivals - Denmark, Albania, Switzerland, Australia,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic." World Bank Open Data | Data. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?locations=DK-AL-CH-AU-BG-CZ.
Ministry of Finance. "Voluntary National Review 2021." Last modified 2021.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279532021_VNR_Report_De
nmark.pdf.
Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic. "Second Voluntary National Review of the
2030 Agenda in the Czech Republic." Last modified 2021.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/279492021_VNR_Report_Cz
ech_Republic.pdf.

15
Newton, Kenneth, and Jan W. Deth. Foundations of Comparative Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Nye, Joseph S. "Soft Power and Public Diplomacy Revisited." The Hague Journal of
Diplomacy 14, no. 1-2 (2019), 1-14. doi:10.1163/1871191x-14101013.
"Over-age Students, Primary (% of Enrollment) - Denmark, Albania, Switzerland, Australia,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic." World Bank Open Data | Data. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.OENR.ZS?locations=DK-AL-CH-AU-
BG-CZ.
"Prevalence of food insecurity (FIES)." Statistics Denmark. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/temaer/SDG/globale-verdensmaal/02-stop-sult/delmaal-
01/indikator-2#:~:text=Target%202.1,sufficient%20food%20all%20year%20round.
"Research Guides: Political Science: Comparative Politics." Research Guides at New York
University. Last modified December 23, 2020.
https://guides.nyu.edu/polisci/comparative-politics.
"Sustainable Development Report 2022." Sustainable Development Report 2022. Accessed
June 28, 2022. https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/profiles/switzerland.
Switzerland implements the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Switzerland’s Country
Report 2018. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA, n.d.
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/agenda2030/en/documents/laenderbericht-der-schweiz-
2018_EN.pdf.
"Take Action for the Sustainable Development Goals." United Nations. Accessed
June 28, 2022. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-
goals/#:~:text=The%20Sustainable%20Development%20Goals%20are,Learn%20more
%20and%20take%20action.
UN Water. "Australia." SDG 6 Data. Accessed June 28, 2022. https://sdg6data.org/country-or-
area/Australia.
UN Water. "Denmark." SDG 6 Data. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://www.sdg6data.org/country-or-area/Denmark#anchor_6.2.1b.
UN Water. "Switzerland." SDG 6 Data. Accessed June 28, 2022.
https://www.sdg6data.org/country-or-area/Switzerland.

16