Interview with the Author

FA: You write that state branding is gradually supplanting nationalism and that the brand state's use of its history and geography limits the antagonism often inherent in nationalism. But is state branding as harmless as you make it out to be? Since states are responsible for creating their own images, what is to prevent a state from creating an exclusionary image that brings suffering and harm to others? And how can you argue that state branding is replacing nationalism, especially when the last decade has seen a resurgence of nationalist conflict?

van Ham: I argue that the art of politics is changing from old-style diplomacy to the art of brand-building and reputation management. This applies to all economic and political actors in Europe; no exceptions. Of course, the brand state is not a brand new state, but it has become a political player which is promoting itself smarter and more aggressively than before ("Now even more efficient/ clean/ democratic/ liberal ..."). Just as religious faith no longer has a monopoly in giving purpose to people's lives, the state can no longer claim the loyalty of "its" citizens; patriotism (let alone undiluted nationalism) cannot be taken for granted.

This does not mean that states are themselves completely responsible for their image, either at home or abroad. They cannot simply manipulate their reputation as they please. No amount of spin-doctoring can turn "Libya" into a welcoming holiday destination for the whole family overnight. You are, of course, right when you argue that states may still bring suffering and harm to others. But the price of having such a "rogue" image is becoming increasingly high. It's hardly any fun being a pariah state nowadays. The Iraqs and North Korea who linger at the fringes of the global economy, shunned by the world community, serve as deterring examples. In our globalized world, no state can afford a bad image and a shaky reputation. Postmodern states understand that they will have to drop their complacent take-it-or-leave-it attitude, and actively engage in brand asset management.

For example, even a country like Germany (not particularly well-known for its openness to foreigners), is now flirting with the image of multiculturalism. The reasons are mainly economic, since all demographic trends call for more immigration to Germany during the next decades just to sustain economic productivity and competitiveness. But Berlin's recent attempt to attract foreign computer specialists by offering them greencards proved harder than expected, partly because Germany is still tarred with an (undeserved) image of a xenophobic and closed society. German policy-cum-image makers know that in order to compete on the international market, the country has to reinvent itself and redo its image. This is why German politicians not only condemn neo-nazi attacks on foreigners on moral grounds, but also argue that it damages Germany's reputation abroad, and hence hurts the country's economy.

The brand state uses "nationalism" in a superficial, playful manner where patriotic feelings no longer run deep. Flags turn into logos; anthems become opening tunes for festivities and sports events; and kings and castles are reworked into cute tourist attractions. Are there exceptions to this happy Euroland? Unfortunately, yes; quite a number. But if countries such as Macedonia and Serbia really want to join the globalization bandwagon, they have little choice but to follow the brand state's rules and ethics, all of which clearly exclude runaway nationalism. Looking back on Europe's conflict-ridden past, this can only be called an improvement. That's why I argue that we should forget about nationalism in Europe, and welcome the brand state.

FA: In discussing the implications of state branding for Europe's political landscape, you pose the following question: "Why should we assume that the public readily buys into the seductive meanings of consumer capitalism but remains rational and objective when making political decisions?" Do you really think it is fair to equate a typical person in the marketplace and a national government working in the international arena?

van Ham: I'm not equating a typical person with national governments here. My argument is that the western public approaches economic and political questions with a shared attitude. Ideology and religion no longer offer clear guidelines for the average citizen and consumer, and today's TV-ads are happy to sell us presidents as well as God. Bureaucrats increasingly refer to citizens as their "clients," using the same marketing techniques and evaluation methods as their counterparts in the private sector. Just as big firms have to manage and defend their reputations-using advertisement, premium pricing, and trademarks-the brand state realizes that it has to invest heavily in business-to-customer as well as customer-to-business relationships. Although these dialogues were earlier called "democracy," the brand state now uses tried-and-tested techniques such as "identity consultancy" and "focus groups." As a state-with-an-attitude, it has to deal in new ways with customers service; community activities; environmental and ethical questions; as well as share- and stakeholder relationships. So, if citizens are treated as consumers of public policy and are addressed by the same media drawing upon the same set of tricks as used by commercial marketeers, should we really be surprised that the general public reacts in a similar way?