Economic Growth and the Role of Human Capital

Byron Ramirez Ph.D.

PUBLISHED:

September 16, 2024

Measuring economic growth allows us to determine whether an economy is expanding, remaining unchanged, or declining. Assessing economic performance, namely economic growth expressed through Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is a common method for evaluating the overall health of an economy. A healthy economy generates jobs and tends to lead to improvements in per capita income and living standards. 


In spite of the COVID-19 pandemic’s adverse effects on productivity, supply chains, and economic output worldwide, the U.S. economy has recovered relatively well during the past couple of years. In 2023, the U.S. economy grew at an average rate of 2.5 percent, indicating modest growth. Although there were some fears of economic decline (and trepidation concerning a potential recession), the U.S. economy has rebounded and created jobs, raising overall economic output. The figure below shows the percent change in real GDP (adjusted for inflation) in the United States during the past six quarters. As we can observe, throughout this time period, the U.S. economy has had positive economic growth.


Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis


Meanwhile, some countries such as Mexico and India have struggled economically, particularly on a GDP per capita basis. So, one might wonder, why has the U.S. economy been able to recover notwithstanding the difficulties of the COVID-19 pandemic? What has enabled the U.S. to remain economically resilient during these past few years? We will explore this a bit later. But first, let’s discuss how the theories behind economic growth have evolved over time. 


Background on the Study of Economic Growth


Economic growth has been studied for several decades. The economist, Robert Solow, became a prominent scholar on the subject in the 1950s. Solow’s theories proposed the role of accumulation of physical capital and emphasized the importance of technological progress as the ultimate driving force behind sustained economic growth. 


Growth theorists in the 1950s argued that technological progress occurred in an unexplained manner, and thus they placed technological growth outside of their economic model. However, there was a significant shortcoming in assuming that long-run economic growth is largely determined by some unexplained rate of technological progress which, after all, could not be modeled. 


By the 1960s, growth theory was based mainly on the neoclassical model, developed by Ramsey (1928), Solow (1956), and Koopmans (1965), to name a few. The neoclassical model considered individual consumers and firms and assumed that they make rational choices to maximize their utility or profits, and it also presumed perfect information and zero transaction costs. The neoclassical growth model posited that economic growth results from capital accumulation through household savings. Over time, economists would realize that consumers and decision makers in general are not always rational, markets indeed lack perfect information, and transactions between parties certainly yield costs. 


In the 1980s, most of the research conducted by economists centered on “endogenous growth” theories, in which the long–term economic growth rate was largely assumed to be determined by government policies. As such, economists argued that government policies help to motivate businesses to invest in research and development so they can continue to drive innovation.  Several of the economic models that emerged also began to broaden the definition of capital, and included references to human capital (Lucas 1988; Rebelo 1991; Romer 1986). Moreover, another key assumption of the endogenous growth theory is that economic growth is principally the result of internal forces, rather than external ones. 


In the late 1980s and early 1990s, scholarly works began to posit that technological progress generated by the discovery of new ideas was the only way to avoid diminishing returns in the long run. Two professors from the University of Chicago, Paul Romer and Robert Lucas, introduced the notion of “ideas” and of “human capital” as variables that have influence on economic growth. From their research emerged the subfield – the economics of technology. In their ensuing models, the purposive behavior that underlay innovations hinged on the prospect of monopoly profits, which provided individual incentives to carry out costly research (Aghion and Hewitt 1992; Grossman and Helpman 1991; Romer 1990).


Economists’ earlier theories about economic growth had suggested that labor and physical capital and increased productivity from technology are the primary factors that contribute towards economic growth. Over time, however, economists recognized the challenges of achieving economic growth especially as there are diminishing returns to capital and labor, combined with the reality that some countries are not as efficient in their allocation of resources as suggested by the neoclassical growth model.  Consequently, Robert Lucas (1988) and Paul Romer (1994) as well as others (Barro 1997; Rebelo 1991; Sachs and Warner 1997) proceeded to advance ‘Endogenous Growth Theory’ by arguing that economic growth can be driven by human capital, namely by the expansion of skills and knowledge that make workers productive. Thus, they argued that human capital has increasing returns to scale (i.e., the output increases by a larger proportion than the increase in inputs).   


The Influence of Human Capital on the Economy 


For some time now, there has been growing research on the impact of human capital on the economy. A study conducted by the Centre for Economics and Business Research in 2016 indicated that human capital is nearly 2.5 times more valuable to the economy than physical assets such as technology, real estate and inventory. The study also highlighted that for every $1 invested in human capital, $11.39 is added to GDP (CEBR, 2016). This study underscored the important role human capital plays in driving economic growth. When human capital increases in a society, including in areas such as education, science, manufacturing, and management, it leads to increases in innovation, increased productivity, and improved rates of labor force participation, all of which support economic growth.


And so, we come back to the questions: Why has the U.S. economy been able to recover notwithstanding the difficulties of the pandemic? What has enabled the U.S. to remain economically resilient during these past few years? I argue that the United States has been able to withstand the adverse effects of the pandemic due to its sizable stock of human capital. Since the U.S. is a high-income country with a workforce that has relatively high levels of education and health (on average), it tends to develop human capital at a higher rate (relative to other countries), enabling it to contend with economic adversity through innovation driven by knowledge workers. Below is a graph using data from the World Bank which shows the relationship between the Human Capital Index (Note: HCI is comprised of education and health components), and GDP per capita. As we can see from the graph, the United States has a high HCI score (0.7) and a high level of GDP per capita (slightly above USD$60,000). 


Source: Our World in Data, 2024


Key Lessons 


The Human Capital Index, developed by the World Bank, conveys the productivity of the next generation of workers compared to a benchmark of complete education and full health (World Bank, 2024). The HCI measures the knowledge, skills, and health that a child can expect to accumulate during their youth, taking into account factors such as education, health, and survival rates. The index is devised to indicate how improvements in health and education outcomes can lead to considerably greater productivity of the next generation of workers. Higher values indicate higher expected human capital. The United States’ relatively high HCI index score of 0.7 as of the year 2020, indicates that the country had made investments in human capital. A country's HCI score is its distance to the “frontier” of complete education and full health. Based on this index score, a child born in the United States will be 70 percent as productive when she grows up as she could be if she enjoyed complete education and full health.  In other words, the future earnings potential of children born will be 70% of what they could have been with complete education and full health. 


Unlike physical capital, human capital has increasing rates of return. Therefore, economic growth is augmented at a larger rate as human capital accumulates (people acquire more knowledge and skills). If human capital is indeed nearly 2.5 times more valuable to the economy than physical assets, then economies (nations) ought to invest in those areas that support human capital, namely education and health. And if investing $1 in human capital yields an estimated $11.39 to GDP, then countries will benefit greatly from investing in improving the health and education of people. 

Nations that invest in human capital are more adept at developing innovations that improve efficiency, competitiveness, and productivity. Human capital is also a key input in the research sector, which develops and incubates new ideas that support technological progress and innovation. Moreover, investing in education is intricately connected with the development of human capital and economic development (Barro and Lee 1993; Romer 1993). Hence, an increase in the educational attainment level of the population will, in turn, yield knowledge spillover effects which spur innovation across different industries and sectors.  And at the aggregate level, innovation will produce the long-term effect of increasing the economic growth rate. 


Innovation led by human capital (skilled knowledge workers) provides productivity gains that allow firms to expand their size, market reach and profits. Human capital also contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations within the social and public sectors.  In all, investing in human capital is beneficial to the well-being of the economy and society in general. Enhancing the education and health of people is essential to developing human capital and economic resilience. The acquisition of skills and knowledge enable ‘knowledge workers’ to drive entrepreneurial activities and innovation, proving that human capital is indeed the most important factor to developing a resilient economy and a functioning society. 

References

Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (1992). A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323-351.

Barro, R. (1997). Determinants of economic growth: a cross-country empirical study (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. W. (1993). International comparisons of educational attainment. Journal of monetary economics, 32(3), 363-394.

Centre for Economics and Business Research. (2016). Korn Ferry Economic Analysis: Human Capital. 

Data Page: Human Capital Index. Our World in Data (2024). Data adapted from World Bank. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/human-capital-index-in-2020 [online resource]

Grossman, G. M. and E. Helpman (1991). Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Koopmans, T.C. (1965). On the Concept of Optimal Economic Growth. In: Johansen, J., Ed., The Econometric Approach to Development Planning, North Holland, Amsterdam.

Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 2, 3-42.

Ramsey, F.P. (1928). A Mathematical Theory of Saving. Economic Journal, 38, 543-559.

Rebelo, S. (1991). Long-run policy analysis and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy. IC, 500-521.

Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth, Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.

Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous Growth and Technical Change, Journal of Political Economy, 99, pp. 807-827.

Romer, P. M. (1993). Idea gaps and object gaps in economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 32(3), 543-573.

Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3-22.

Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (1997). Fundamental sources of long-run growth. The American Economic Review, 184-188.

Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2024). Gross Domestic Product. Retrieved from: https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product [online resource]

World Bank. (2024) World Bank Group launches Human Capital Index (HCI). Retrieved from: https://timeline.worldbank.org/en/timeline/eventdetail/3336  [online resource]

Drucker in the Lab: Leading Through Trust, Not Control

By Linda Megerdichian • November 15, 2025
Last semester, two students approached me to advise their AI-based graduate projects at a time when no one else in the department was available or willing to take them on. Our department lacked sufficient faculty with software or AI specialization at the time to support the growing number of requests in this area. I decided to take on the projects and serve as their advisor. I was honest with them from the beginning and told them that I had no prior experience in training machine learning models. Still, I said that if they were willing to put in the effort, I would learn alongside them and support them every step of the way. Both students wanted to build careers in AI, and I knew that their graduate projects could set the tone for the opportunities ahead. I have always believed it is my responsibility to open doors for my students, even when the path ahead is uncertain. Although I understood how the overall system architecture should be designed, I was learning the rest in real time just like them. Others advised me not to take the risk, but I believed in their determination and their right to pursue ideas they were genuinely passionate about rather than what was convenient for faculty. Today, both students successfully demonstrated their projects, and I could not be prouder of what they had accomplished. When I think about this experience, I am reminded of Peter Drucker’s view that leadership is not rank or privilege; it is responsibility. He often wrote that a leader’s first duty is to help others perform to the best of their abilities. That means creating conditions where people can discover what they are capable of, not directing them from above, but believing in them enough to let them try. In this small lab moment, I saw that principle come alive. I did not have the answers, and they knew it. But leadership, as Drucker would say, is not about knowing everything. It is about doing the right thing, even when it means stepping into uncertainty. Trust replaced control. Curiosity replaced expertise. And in that space, both students grew, and so did I. Drucker believed the most effective organizations are those built on mutual trust, where authority is replaced by responsibility, and learning is shared across all levels. That day in the lab, I realized that education itself is one of the purest forms of management, not managing systems or people, but managing potential. Sometimes, the best leadership lesson does not come from a management book. It comes from saying yes when it would have been easier to say no, and discovering that faith in others is the most powerful management tool of all.

Marc Benioff: Reimagining Capitalism through Management as a Liberal Art

By Robert Kirkland Ph.D. • November 4, 2025
When Marc Benioff founded Salesforce in 1999, Silicon Valley had a pretty straightforward playbook which was technological disruption at any cost. Profit, scale, and market capture dominated corporate ambition. Benioff, who worked under Steve Jobs at Apple and explored Buddhist philosophy, was not satisfied with that approach. He envisioned a company that would not only revolutionize enterprise software through the cloud but also redefine the social purpose of business itself. His leadership at Salesforce reflects Peter Drucker's concept of Management as a Liberal Art (MLA). This idea holds that management is not just about efficiency or growth, but about making work human, creating meaning, and building institutions that serve society (Drucker, 1989). Philanthropy as Structure From Salesforce’s inception, Benioff took an unusual approach. He instituted the “1-1-1 model”, pledging one percent of company equity, product, and employee time to philanthropy. This simple yet radical idea embedded social responsibility into the company’s DNA, ensuring that business success translated into community benefit (Salesforce, 2021). Peter Drucker made a similar point in The Concept of the Corporation (1946). He argued that companies cannot operate as "islands of profit" detached from their communities. Benioff's model, now replicated worldwide through the Pledge 1% movement, demonstrates that corporate citizenship can be institutionalized, not just idealized. By formalizing philanthropy as part of corporate structure rather than discretionary charity, Salesforce gave proof to Drucker’s claim that companies can serve as stabilizing social institutions. Human-Centered Leadership Drucker emphasized that management is a humanistic discipline requiring both knowledge and self-awareness. Benioff has consistently modeled this through self-reflection and moral grounding. As a long-time advocate of mindfulness and meditation, he integrates spiritual awareness with corporate purpose. In Trailblazer (2019), Benioff reflects on how introspection informs strategic clarity and ethical leadership. Compassion is a core managerial value for Benioff. This aligns with Drucker’s insistence that good leaders must "engage the whole human being," acknowledging both rational capability and emotional complexity. In cultivating mindfulness as an organizational practice, Benioff turns what Drucker called “self-knowledge” into a shared institutional expectation, not a private exercise. Stakeholder Capitalism in Practice Perhaps Benioff’s most significant Druckerian contribution is his public challenge to shareholder primacy. As a high-profile advocate of stakeholder capitalism, he has urged fellow executives to view not just investors, but also customers, employees, communities, and the planet as legitimate stakeholders in corporate decision-making. Drucker anticipated this shift in 1999 when he argued that institutions must balance individual rights with broader social responsibilities, and that leadership must be anchored in moral purpose rather than short-term gain. Benioff operationalized this at Salesforce by making equality, climate action, and community impact strategic priorities alongside financial metrics. Salesforce has built environmental and social-impact objectives into its leadership accountability and public reporting, positioning those outcomes as core measures of performance rather than PR exercises. In Drucker's terms, this marks a shift from a purely economic mandate to an explicitly ethical one. Building a Meaningful Culture At Salesforce, Benioff’s internal culture emphasizes equality, diversity, and trust. His mantra of “Ohana” a Hawaiian term for family defines the company’s social ethos. Through listening sessions, employee councils, and direct engagement with staff, Benioff attempts to cultivate what Drucker would call a functioning institution: a place where individuals are offered both status and function, and where they derive meaning through active contribution. One concrete expression of this philosophy is Salesforce’s repeated company-wide pay equity audits. The company has publicly acknowledged compensation gaps across gender and race and then allocated millions of dollars to close them. This reflects Drucker’s view that organizations must respect human dignity and align personal fulfillment with collective mission. Benioff’s conviction that fairness can be measured and corrected turns theory into everyday management practice. Balancing Technology and Humanity In Post-Capitalist Society (1993), Drucker identified the rise of the knowledge worker as a defining feature of modern institutions. Salesforce, as a platform for digital collaboration across sales, service, marketing, analytics, and commerce, is organized around those workers. But Benioff’s management philosophy resists the idea that productivity can be reduced to code and dashboards. He argues that innovation begins in empathy and trust, not automation, which echoes Drucker’s warning that management cannot dissolve into technique. At the same time, Salesforce has embraced artificial intelligence through Einstein GPT and autonomous AI agents to automate routine tasks. While this automation has replaced certain roles, Benioff has publicly insisted that human connection remains irreplaceable in high-value work such as enterprise sales, and Salesforce is simultaneously hiring thousands of additional salespeople. By automating repetitive tasks while elevating distinctly human work, Benioff is enacting Drucker’s belief that technology must remain subordinate to judgment, responsibility, and moral purpose (Drucker, 1990). His leadership has also demonstrated Drucker’s axiom that effective management requires balancing continuity with change. Continuity and Change Over two decades, Salesforce has evolved from a single product - customer relationship management delivered via the cloud - to a global platform ecosystem spanning analytics, integration, AI, collaboration, and industry-specific solutions. Yet it’s core values; trust, customer success, innovation, and equality have remained remarkably consistent. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this balance. Salesforce mobilized its logistics network and relationships to support public health responses, sourced and donated medical equipment, and repurposed internal systems to help governments and hospitals. Simultaneously, it accelerated digital transformation for its customers, positioning the company as both economic actor and civic partner. This is management serving society not just stakeholders. Moral Stewardship and Systems Thinking A key aspect of Drucker’s MLA is its interdisciplinary nature. He describes management as a liberal art because it must draw on ethics, psychology, economics, history, and even theology to exercise wise judgment (Drucker, 1989). Benioff exemplifies this approach. He openly blends spiritual language, social justice arguments, civic activism, and technology strategy. He links corporate tax policy to homelessness and public health, climate action to fiduciary duty, and workforce equity to innovation capacity. This is not accidental rhetoric. It is an attempt to widen the frame of what “business leadership” is allowed to talk about. And in doing so, Benioff turns the CEO role into something closer to what Drucker called moral stewardship: the active use of organizational power to strengthen society’s fabric. A Model for the 21st Century Drucker argued that a functioning society depends on institutions that foster responsible citizenship, provide meaningful work, and accept obligations beyond profit. Salesforce’s global initiatives illustrate this principle. Its Climate Action Plan, net-zero commitments, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and Pledge 1% expansion reinforce that corporations can be both market leaders and social institutions. Benioff sees business as a primary vehicle for delivering resources, talent, and problem-solving at scale to communities. Marc Benioff’s work at Salesforce is one of the clearest contemporary examples of Management as a Liberal Art. Through empathy, ethical reflection, institutional responsibility, and systemic awareness, Benioff has redefined 21st century management. Like Drucker, he views organizations as moral communities’ arenas for both performance and purpose. In an era of automation, widening inequality, and environmental crisis, Benioff believes that capitalism can be rehabilitated, but only if leaders understand management not as control, but as stewardship. The liberal art of management is not an outdated ideal; it is a living practice and essential for the legitimacy of business itself.  References Benioff, M. (2019). Trailblazer: The power of business as the greatest platform for change. Currency. Drucker, P. F. (1946). The concept of the corporation. New York: The John Day Company. Drucker, P. F. (1989). The new realities: In government and politics, in economics and business, in society and world view. New York: Harper & Row. Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization. New York: HarperBusiness. Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: HarperBusiness. Salesforce. (2021). Philanthropy and the 1-1-1 model. https://www.salesforce.com/company/philanthropy/

Drucker on Soft Power

By Michael Cortrite Ph.D. • November 4, 2025
What is Soft Power? A relatively new concept in the field of leadership is soft power. The term was coined in 1990 by Joseph S. Nye, a leading architect of U.S. foreign policy for six decades. He worked for two U.S. presidents and served as dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government for a decade. Nye believed that whatever helped the world helped the United States. Soft power refers to an organization’s or country’s ability to influence others through attraction rather than coercion or payment. A good example is the aid that the United States gives to other poorer nations to alleviate disease, hunger, poverty, and illiteracy. Nye also discussed “smart power,” which involves using both hard power (military or political might) and soft power. (Nye, 1990). In furtherance of a more peaceful world, the question is whether we want leaders who are oblivious to the effectiveness of soft power and instead use hard power to coerce, threaten, and force people, or leaders who use both soft and hard power to help people. In the short term, hard power typically prevails over soft power, but in the long term, soft power often prevails. Hard power is a short-term solution, whereas soft power has long-lasting results. (Nye, 2025). Clearly, soft power can be more effective for accomplishing goals in many circumstances. However, there are times when hard power can be used in conjunction with soft power — the concept known as smart power — to be more effective in influencing the behavior of others. Sometimes people are attracted to or intimidated by threatening or bullying behavior (hard power). In this case, hard power is more effective because people fear the negative consequences of speaking out against the people in power (Tanis et al. 2025). An example of the failure of hard power can be seen in the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, intended to limit terrorism. The invasion itself, along with brutal images of Abu Ghraib prison and the imprisonment of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay Prison without any due process, was shown to increase the recruitment of more terrorists (Nye, 2008). Another example of potential real-life consequences of a leader choosing between hard power and soft power is reported in Foreign Policy Magazine (2025): Joseph Nye was dismayed that the new administration in Washington was using the hard power tactics of threatening, bullying, and ordering, along with canceling the soft power accomplishments of U.S. foreign aid programs. He predicted that they were ceding a United States-led world to one dominated by China, because China understands the potential of soft power. Apparently, the current administration does not. Veteran journalist Andreas Kluth (2025) notes that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one of the most effective examples of the United States' soft power. It is best known for its humanitarian efforts to combat AIDS, malaria, and starvation abroad. It is estimated that without the work of USAID, an additional 14 million deaths will occur in the next five years. Almost as bad as the deaths is that the goodwill created in numerous foreign countries will be gone. Kluth and the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee (2025) are concerned that China will be stepping into the void of losing USAID. They warn that China now has more soft power than the United States and outspends the United States in foreign aid 40 to 1 in its pursuit of world domination (Kluth 2025). In this regard, Blanchard and Lu (2012) point out a weakening of U.S. soft power since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the US invasion of Iraq, and continuing unilateralism of the United States. Peter Drucker Drucker was born in Vienna, Austria, in 1909, and as a young man witnessed Europe being taken over by the totalitarian, fascist regime of Adolph Hitler starting in the mid to late 1920s and Hitler’s being elevated to Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Drucker knew firsthand that totalitarianism hurts people, and he spent much of his life analyzing its causes and cautioning people against it. According to Drucker, people will not willingly allow their country to become totalitarian if society gives all people status, dignity, respect, and a meaningful place in society. Drucker called this a functioning society. He advocated for a people-centric approach in leadership, where people were given autonomy and no one was left behind or abandoned by society. Although Peter Drucker did not use the term "soft power," upon examining his writings and life’s work, it is clear that he preferred the use of soft power over hard power. His classic invention of Management by Objectives, which gives employees considerable autonomy, is a prime example of soft power (Drucker 1954). He felt that companies had a social dimension as well as an economic purpose (Drucker 1942). He wanted companies to treat workers as an important resource, rather than solely as a cost (Drucker 1993). Drucker would disapprove of the most powerful democracy in the world ceding its world leader status to a totalitarian country, China. The fear is that China being seen as the world leader might influence or encourage other countries to allow dictatorial and autocratic governance (Shlapentokh 2021).  Bardy et al. (2010), in their study of Peter Drucker and ethics in the United States and Europe, posit that Drucker’s good ethics in business efforts ensure that society is being served and that change efforts are successfully brought about by adhering to Drucker’s discourse and right behavior. They said that Drucker was caring and ethical in his treatment of managers and employees, much like a leader who prefers soft power. Drucker was quoted as quoting William Norris; “The purpose of a business is to do well by doing good” (p. 539). Showing his preference for doing good for people demonstrates care ethics (Coorman, 2025), which is mostly what soft power is entails. Conclusion Peter Drucker is renowned for his ability to predict future trends in various domains, including business, economics, and society (Cohen, 2012). Currently, the world seems to be at a crossroads: Will democracy survive? Will we learn how to communicate with each other? We need to remember the wise and ethical teachings of Peter Drucker, especially on the effectiveness of using soft power. Drucker’s blend of practical management advice with profound ethical underpinnings underscores his status as a thought leader who not only understood the mechanics of management but also engaged with the moral implications of leadership within complex societal frameworks. References Bardy, R. & Rubens, A. (2010). Is There a Transatlantic Divide?: Reviewing Peter F. Drucker’s Thoughts on Ethics and Leadership of U.S. and European Managers. Management Decision. Vol. 48. Iss. 4. 528-540. DOI:10.1108/00251741011041337. Cohen, W. (2012). Drucker on Marketing: Lessons from the World’s Most Influential Business Thinker. McGraw Hill. Coorman, L. 2025. Soft Power. Master’s Thesis. Indiana University, Herron School of Art and Design. 2025. https://hdl.handle.net/1805/50513 Drucker, P, (1942). The Future of Industrial Man. Mentor Book/New American Library. Drucker, P. (1954). The Practice of Management. Harper & Row. Drucker, P, (1993). The Concept of the Corporation. Routledge. Kluth, A. 2025. How the U.S. is Making China Great Again. The Week. Iss. 12. Aug 2, 2025. Nye, J. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. Basic Books. Nye, J. (2008). Soft Power. Leadership Excellence. Vol. 25. Iss. 4. April 2010. Nye, J. 2024. Invest in Soft Power. Foreign Policy. Sept. 9. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/09/09/us-soft-power-culture-political-values-democracy-human-rights/ Nye, J. (2025). Obituary. Los Angeles Times, 5/21/25 p. 11. Shlapentokh, D. 2021. Marxism and the Role of the State in the Soviet and Chinese Experience. International Journal of China Studies. Vol. 12. Iss. 1. (Jun. 2021) 157-186. https://2q21dwppn-mp03-y-https-www-proquest-com.proxy.lirn.net/scholarly-journals/marxism-role-state-soviet-chinese-experience/docview/2565686898/se-2. Tanis, F. and Emanuel, G. 2025. To Speak or not to Speak: Why Many Aid Groups are Silent about the Trump Cuts. NPR Weblog Post. August 1, 2025. https://www.proquest.com/abitrade/blogs-podcasts-websites/speak-not-why-many-aid-groups-are-silent-about/docview/3235492953/sem-2?accountid=150887
Show More