Public diplomacy and strategic communications are not the same – and it matters

By Lisa Ritchie, Communications Strategist and Founder of EngagingDev

If you work in development program delivery, this article clarifies two powerful – but often confused – streams of program communications that shape perception, partnership and impact.

In the world of development, the term communications covers many tactical and strategic skills and purposes, but it is important to recognise that is it not a single, catch-all function.

Within the bilateral development program landscape, there are distinct communications disciplines with different objectives, audiences and measures of success. Two of the most critical, and often confused, are public diplomacy and strategic communications.

Understanding their differences is not just a matter of semantics, but is essential to making development programs more effective.

What is public diplomacy?

Public diplomacy is how a country communicates with foreign publics to influence perceptions and advance its national interest. In the development context, this often means telling the story of a donor’s contributions to international development – showcasing generosity, shared values and diplomatic partnership.

It’s about soft power: building trust, fostering goodwill and highlighting how a donor nation is a responsible, values-driven global citizen. Public diplomacy content is typically high-visibility, emotionally resonant, and designed to reflect positively on the donor country.

In development programs, public diplomacy takes the form of branded content, high-profile and public launches, social media and mainstream media coverage, and public visibility through events, site visits and and other opportunities for the donor government to engage directly with local stakeholders, including partner governments. It is often geared toward demonstrating partnership and impact in ways that resonate with the audience in a country of operation while also communicating relevance back to domestic audiences.

What is strategic communications?

Strategic communications, by contrast, is about advancing the objectives of the program itself. It is embedded in delivery. It helps stakeholders understand reform, enables feedback loops, manages expectations and builds coalitions for change.

Strategic communications is not about reputation management – it is about behaviour change, stakeholder alignment and reform uptake. Its success is measured by program outcomes, not media impressions or social sentiment. It can include messaging embedded in speeches, internal and external briefs, advocacy campaigns, guidance notes, case studies or learning events and much more. It is often designed to build program awareness and understanding among stakeholders or reflect insights back to key partners, including donors, in order to influence change, adoption or uptake of a policy or other development initiative. Importantly, it unravels the complex, does not shy away from what did not work and it is grounded in evidence and context.

Why removing the confusion matters

Too often, public diplomacy and strategic communications are treated as interchangeable. The result? Communications teams are often pulled in different directions: torn between showcasing donor contributions and supporting real-time reform implementation. Furthermore, when program teams don’t understand or appreciate the difference, strategic communications becomes challenging to implement as it is less visible, less understood and, as a result, not valued.

 Public diplomacy cannot replace the deep, technically-grounded communications needed to drive change. And strategic communications is not strategic if it is only considered in the context of public diplomacy and good news stories.

 At EngagingDev, we approach communications as a strategic asset. For the detail on why, see Beyond the Good News: Why strategic communications in development matters.

Different tools, different outcomes

 Here is a quick side-by-side to show you how public diplomacy and strategic communications differ across purpose, audience and impact.

Making the relationship work

Public diplomacy and strategic communications can, and should, coexist in a program’s communications strategy. But they must be clearly defined, separately resourced, and strategically aligned. Public diplomacy can amplify the results that strategic communications helps make possible. Strategic communications, meanwhile, benefits from the visibility and goodwill that public diplomacy can generate.

Both require skilled strategists and communicators. Both need clarity of purpose. And both are too important to be muddled together.

At EngagingDev, we help programs design communication strategies that differentiate public diplomacy from strategic communication—ensuring each is aligned with the program’s purpose, audience, and impact goals.

Conclusion

Development communication is not one-size-fits-all. When we confuse public diplomacy with strategic communications, we dilute the value of both. But when we understand and invest in each discipline appropriately, we strengthen program outcomes and program and donor reputations alike.