By Bi Yantao
Published on June 12,2026
China has invested heavily in international communication over the past decade, expanding media platforms, training professionals, and creating new institutions. Yet despite these efforts, many observers believe that the overall effectiveness of China’s international communication has not improved proportionally.
The article argues that the main obstacles are not primarily technical, financial, or even communicative. Rather, they are rooted in institutional structures and organizational incentives.
First, many officials and practitioners are aware that the global communication environment has changed. However, recognizing a problem and implementing reform are two different things. Under existing incentive structures, maintaining established practices is often safer than experimenting with new approaches. Innovation may bring uncertain outcomes and personal accountability, while following existing procedures rarely carries significant risk.
Second, there is an enduring tension between traditional publicity-oriented thinking and the logic of international communication. Publicity systems typically emphasize message delivery, organizational objectives, and consistency of expression. International communication, by contrast, places greater emphasis on understanding audiences, building relationships, fostering dialogue, and cultivating trust. As many institutions involved in international communication developed within publicity-oriented environments, older communication habits and assumptions often continue to shape current practices.
Third, the communication ecosystem has become increasingly homogeneous. Although international communication projects are implemented by a wide range of organizations—including government-affiliated institutions, media organizations, universities, think tanks, and external contractors—many operate under similar policy environments, management practices, and evaluation criteria. As a result, different actors often produce similar types of content and rely on similar communication strategies, making innovation more difficult.
Fourth, the expansion of China’s international communication system has created its own institutional inertia. Large organizations naturally prioritize stability, predictability, budget continuity, and risk control. As systems grow, the costs of reform tend to increase, while the incentives for experimentation decline.
Fifth, evaluation mechanisms strongly influence organizational behavior. International communication is fundamentally about shaping perceptions, improving understanding, and building long-term trust—outcomes that are difficult to measure directly. Consequently, institutions often rely on easily quantifiable indicators such as the number of events, projects, media reports, or audience reach. Over time, organizations adapt their behavior to these metrics, sometimes prioritizing measurable outputs over actual communication effectiveness.
The article concludes that the future of China’s international communication depends not only on better content, new technologies, or larger platforms, but also on institutional reform. Without changes in incentive structures, evaluation systems, and organizational culture, many reforms may remain superficial. Sustainable improvement will require an environment that encourages experimentation, tolerates reasonable risk, and evaluates success based on communication outcomes rather than administrative metrics alone.
The full version of this essay in Chinese is available here.
