@article{oai:obirin.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001565,
 author = {牧田, 東一 and MAKITA, Toichi},
 journal = {国際学レヴュー, The Review of international studies},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {In the U.S., international educational and cultural exchanges or cultural relations were initiated by intellectuals supported by private philanthropic foundations, such as Carnegie and Rockefeller philanthropies. This was one of the visible expressions of American liberal internationalism, before and during the interwar period. Developed from this liberal tradition, which values private initiatives above governmental programs, after WWII when the U. S. government increasingly took leading roles in every aspect of international relations, educational and cultural exchange the role of government in implementing them have been debated between diplomatic experts and educators. Diplomats, who were successful in controlling governmental exchange programs, coupled cultural exchange programs with information activities and called it public diplomacy. Both cover, they claim, governmental programs addressed to and trying to influence foreign citizens' minds. Cultural exchange was considered to be slow media, while information activities such as radio programs, (i.e. : Voice of America) were categorized fast media in public diplomacy activities. However, priority of and policies for public diplomacy have been frequently altered by successive administrations. The most recent drastic change was abolishment of the more than 50 year old United States Information Agency, or USIA, by the Clinton administration. AII the activities of the former USIA, which was created a half century ago by Eisenhower by splitting the State Department, were re-incorporated into the same department. The author argues that the basic problem of public diplomacy lies in the misfortunate coupling of cultural exchange and information activities. Two completely different things. While the former is based on mutuality, the latter in recent years often implies unilateral governmental policy advocacy. For the sake of American "soft power," it is better for the U. S. to let them divorce and return cultural exchange to the hands of private organizations. An early pioneer of American cultural exchange said that it belongs to the sphere of Liberty, not of Government in America., 9, KJ00004127415, 論文},
 pages = {83--103},
 title = {米国における国際文化交流のPublic Diplomacy化},
 volume = {17},
 year = {2005},
 yomi = {マキタ, トウイチ}
}