Objective of the paper 
The objective of the paper can be summarized in three points: 
1. Analysis of a case study of the internationally oriented communication of the 
Liechtenstein Government on the main issues of the business location, with the help of 
theoretical approaches in the field of agenda setting and issue management; 
2. Establishment of an analytic basis for further communication considerations for 
Liechtenstein; 
3. Answering of the question whether and, if so, how and with which modifications the 
social framing-of-issues model developed by Eichhorn can be applied to 
communication between States, 1.e. also between two systems. 
Digression: Communication among States 
The present case appears at first glance to be a "communicative dispute between peoples"; 
communication by, for, and between States; and a public contest. 
Classic communication between States is traditional diplomacy, the purpose or art of which is 
to solve international difficulties in a peaceful way. Its main task can be described as 
"management of international relations through negotiations" or, if the emphasis 1s on the 
acting individuals, the "maintenance of relations between sovereign States by accredited 
representatives". 
Public diplomacy (PD), in contrast, encompasses all communication measures — both direct 
and indirect — between a Government and the public of another country. It thus supplements 
classic diplomacy by the public component. The goa/ of public diplomacy is to generate 
understanding abroad for the ideals, culture, and policies of a nation: "Public diplomacy is a 
Government's process of communicating with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about 
understanding for its nation's ideas and ideals, its institutions and cultures, as well as its 
national goals and current policies." (Tuch 1990, 3). Not only public officials work on 
improving the image of their own country in the perception of other countries, however, but 
rather also international corporations, civil society organizations, cultural institutions, and 
citizens travelling abroad. 
The boundaries between the individual "disciplines" are blurry, however. Signitzer, for 
instance, divides PD into a hard school, which he understands to be political information, and 
a soft school, which he describes as cultural communication (see Signitzer 1990, 199). What 
should not be neglected is the relatively new discipline of nation branding, the marketing of a 
country like a product, since countries are increasingly competing with each other like 
globally acting companies. This view is also support by the observation of Olins, who says 
that countries and companies are becoming "more and more similar" (Olins 2000, 254). 
The goal both of public diplomacy and of nation branding is, in any event, the improvement 
of the image of one's own country in the perception of other countries. 
PD was "invented" and shaped by the United States in the 1960s. Historically speaking, 
however, public diplomacy is not a new phenomenon, since especially in times of war 
Governments have always tried to influence public opinion abroad. It constitutes a mixture of 
foreign propaganda, political marketing, and cultural diplomacy. 
16