Politics and International Relations - Literature review Example

Conceptions of Power (Name) (University Affiliation) (Date) Introduction There is hardly any approach of international politics or international relations that can claim explanatory power without highlighting the conceptions of power. However, many scholars have come up with concepts of power that focus on a limited spectrum and lacks clarity in application. Thus, this paper will offer a broader as well as an innovative perspective on the conceptions of power. By its very nature, power in international politics is associated with the ability of independent units to dominate others. As such, this paper seeks to delineate the different conceptions of power as well as their weaknesses and strengths Pfeffer and Jeffrey (1994), define power as the capability to change the course or sequence of events as well as the ability to influence behavior. It is the capacity to change people’s actions such that they take on a course that was never in their plans before. Jeffrey (1994) further adds that power is associated with the ability to overcome resistance at any given time. On the other hand, Barnett and Duvall (2005) affirm that power is the production of influence that shapes the capabilities of actors, through social relations, to determine their fate as well as their circumstances. The concept of power cannot be mentioned without highlighting the dimension of international politics. As such, international politics is associated with the ability of countries or organizations to influence major groups. It is the potential of countries to advance ‘the purposes of mobilizing others to support or refute controversial ideologies’ (Pfeffer and Jeffrey 1994). Thus, all politics often involve power as major groups in world are always seeking to influence others. Traditionally, international politics involved conflicting policies between national states as well as the struggle of countries to maintain their independence. Moreover, countries relied primarily on their military force when it came to securing their ideologies as well as their boundaries. However, today, the dimension of international politics has somewhat changed as national states are struggling for economic power in order to empower their citizens. According to Spykman and Nicholas (1942), before the end of Cold War, international politics relied on “the mightiness of the military power.” During that period, national states with powerful military resources were designated as the “Great Powers.” Accordingly the ‘game’ of the international politics was primarily dominated by the ‘Great Powers.’ Tentatively, Nicholas (1942) notes that few countries had the military capabilities that could help them support their policies and ideologies adequately. In the 18th century, the power of governments was typically measured along well-defined factors such as the states’ territory, armies, wealth, population as well as navies. However, in the ensuing years this perspective changed as states sought to maximize power relative to one another thus creating a ‘balance of power’ (Spykman & Nicholas, 1942). According to Spykman (1942), the Great Powers sought to increase different elements of ‘national power,’ sometimes referred to as the power of capabilities or resources. They did this in order to calculate the power distribution among them. Conceptions of Power Many scholars have come up with different conceptions of power. However, Barnett and Duvall (2005) approach has been widely used. According to these authors power has various conceptions, which cannot be exhausted. Barnett and Duvall (2005), further assert that scholars in the international relations discipline have often erred in their quest to understand power. Many scholars have stumbled because they usually rely on a single or few conceptions. Considering its forms, power cannot be captured by a single concept in international politics. Thus, for one to understand the conceptual variety of power, one needs to pay attention to the taxonomy that analytically identifies the different forms of power. In this case this paper will focus on Barnett and Duvall’s (2005) conceptions of power: Power can be Compulsory-oriented, Institutional-oriented, and Structural conception of power. Compulsory-oriented Power (Power relates to direct control over the other) This conception posits that power involves the ability of actors to control directly over others in international politics. This conception is associated with the various relations between actors, which gives them the ability to shape or influence directly the actions or circumstances of others in the political realm (Barnett & Duvall, 2005). Many scholars in political science, as well as international relations have come up with definitions of power that fall under this conception. For instance, Weber (1947) defined power as the likelihood that one actor within a social relationship will defy other’s views in its quest to achieve an agenda. In other words, Weber (1947) defined power as the possibility of a state to be in a position to act on its own will regardless of the resistance from other players in international politics. Equally, Balau (1964) defined power as the ability of an actor to influence another state’s behavior by using negative sanctions. In regard to utter influence, more so for scholars in international relations discipline, one definition stands out: Dahl’s (2003) formulation of the basics of power. According to him, power is the ability of State A to get State B to do what State B would otherwise have not done. In Dahl’s perspective, three definitive elements come out. First, is the intentionality associated with the part of State A, that is, its intention to alter State B’s actions in a certain direction. However, if State B changes its action on the mistaken premonition that State A wants it so, then that cannot be concluded as power since it was not State A’s intention that State B does so. Second, is that a conflict of desires is definite in this definition as State B feels compelled to do as State A wishes. Evidently, State A and B have different desires and expect different outcomes, but State B loses in the process. Third, State A is successful as it has ideational materials as well as resources at its disposal thus forcing State B to change its actions. Dahl’s (2003) conceptualizations delineate how the conception of compulsory power hinges on intentionality. Compulsory power revolves around the intentions of Actors to alter the actions of those in the social relationship. Accordingly, compulsory power exists when an actor’s action controls (State A) the other actor’s action (State B). Moreover, it should be noted that power is still present even if the actions are altered unintentionally. On the same note, Bachrach and Baratz (2002) posit that there is presence of power even when those dominating the actions are unaware of how their actions are influencing the production of the unintended effects. They are of the opinion that Power will often exist even if it was not the actor’s intent, as the victims of “collateral damages” such as bombing campaign will undoubtedly feel its effects. This indicates that compulsory power is often perceived or understood best from a recipient’s perspective. Evidently, compulsory power has considerably changed the way states as well as scholars perceive international politics as it concerns the discernable resources that actors employ to have their way. Compulsory power often affects unsuspecting recipients. Strengths of Compulsory-oriented Power conception Under this conception, Barnett and Duvall, (2005) stressed that power is associated with actor A influencing B to do what he would not have otherwise done. This conception is effective in that, it defines power as a direct course over the weaker party. States can use their recognizable resources to exercise their influence over other States or parties in a less pervasive manner. Through this concept, actor A can use his influence to deny actor B the chance to vote for choices that would undermine Actor A’s desires if they were to be adopted. Second, this concept clearly indicates the means through which actors often push for their agendas thus attaining the status, ‘Major power.’ This concept tends to suggest that actors need not use force in order to drive their interest or agendas. An actor simply needs to show that he has the capacity in terms of resources to push for policies and ideologies. Weaknesses of Compulsory-oriented Power conception This conception focuses mainly on the ability of states to use material resources in order to advance its desires in direct opposition to other’s states interests. However, it fails to pay attention of non-major powers; it only focuses more on the ability of ‘major powers’ to deploy resources when advancing their interests. The initiator of this concept fails to note that even multinational corporations can often use their economic power to shape the economic policies in developing countries. The concept undermines the ability of non-groups to set the global economic policies. The conception only focuses on the capacity of States to use its military might to overcome the objections of states. More often than not, non-state groups, as well as networks carry out unconventional warfare campaigns that seek to terrorize populations. In addition, the compulsory power conception fails to address the normative as well as the symbolic resources which actors can use to drive their interests. For instance, Non-governmental organizations often employ normative resources in order to induce targeted states to change through their typical shaming strategy. Bourdieu (2001) gives an example of how Arab countries often use symbolic sanctions in order to have control over other Arab states. They change the behavior of other Arab countries regarding various issues. On the other, Bourdieu (2001) posit that the compulsory-oriented power conception is incomprehensive as it undermines the ability of less powerful states to use other means such the legal recourse to control powerful state’s actions. Institutional-oriented Power (Actors control others through intermediates) Unlike in compulsory power, institutional-oriented power is associated with actors using others, who are socially distant, to control their target states. The conceptual basis here focuses on the informal and formal institutions, which State A uses to achieve his intentions of controlling State B. Accordingly, the conception holds that these formal and informal institutions will often mediate between actor A and actor B though actor A somewhat has influence over the institution or the mediator. The dominated institution will often use its rules as well as procedures to justify actor A’s indirect influence over actor B (Barnett &Duvall, 2005). To explain this conception well, the differences between compulsory power and institutional power will be used. To start, compulsory-oriented power concept stresses on the use of resources to manipulate the others, while the institutional-oriented power conception uses institutions to shape State B. However, one cannot certainly conclude that State A “possesses” the institution being used. More often than not, a dominant actor often retains a considerable control over such institutions thus lording over other players in international politics. In this case, an institution can be regarded as an instrument of compulsory, which is used by an actor to pursue its interest. However, Barnett and Duvall (2005) note that an institution cannot be completely dominated by one actor. For instance, many developing countries have often accused the major powers such as the United States and Britain of manipulating the United Nations to puppet other states. Under institutional-oriented power, State A and B are often removed from direct relationships and the distance is often temporal or spatial. Accordingly, the action of actor A usually affects the conditions or behaviors of other actors through institutional procedures or arrangements such as formalized lines and decisional rules. Strengths of Institutional-oriented power Conception Institutional-oriented power concept provides a reasonable platform to shape global governance. The concept helps states to address pertinent issues such as human rights, children’s rights as well as women’s rights, which are supposed to be administered by institutions. The conception manages to reflect the governing biases in various institutions that are related to international politics (Kreps, 1990). The concept also highlights how the institutional rules are formulated to suit actor A thus establishing the particular pivotal point that serve to create unequal leverage that determines the collective outcomes. The concept produces the losers and the winners as well as the means of influence as far as power concerned. According to Kreps (1990), the concept of institutional-oriented power succeeds in explaining how both the informational and formal institutions play a significant role in the influence of states by dominant powers. The concept helps to depict the party that sets the agenda as well as how the agenda omits particular possibilities, which does not favor other actors. Weaknesses of Institutional-oriented power Conception Although the conception delineates how institutions are used to oppress others, it fails to highlight how these institutions, solve cooperation as well as coordination dilemmas between actors. At the outset, the concept points out that these institutions are not dominated or used by one actor, but several of them. This means that some sort of consultation must take place before an actor thinks of altering another actor’s behavior through the institution. Moreover, the concept fails to explain the point at which actors resort to use institutions in order to push for their agendas. Furthermore, the concept fails to explain the scenario where two opposing sides with equal ‘power status’, collide in the course of using these institutions. Last but not least, the concept does not explain how the weak actors view these institutions: it fails to indicate if the weak actors are often aware of the manipulation (Brass, 2000). Structural Conception of Power Structural conception of power is associated with the co-constitutive or the structures of international relations that define the different types of social beings. The structural conception of power deals with the social capacities of positions under which actors relate. This conception is different from the institutional-oriented power as it is associated with the determination of social interests as well as capacities. Conversely, the institutional-oriented power concept deals with differential constraints concerning action. Importantly, this conception posits that in the structural approach actor A exists due to his relation with the structural position of actor B. In other words, this conception holds under structural power the mutually constituted social beings are often related directly. The social positions that actors occupy usually shape their subjectivities, social relational capacities as well as interests (Barnett &Duvall, 2005). Structural power silhouettes the conditions as well as the fates of actors in two significant ways. To begin, structural positions by their very nature do not create equal social privileges. Accordingly, the social structures often allot differential advantages as well as capacities to different positions depending on the status of the actor. An excellent example is capital-labor relations as well as the master-slave relations. Second, the social structure of power not only comprises of actors as well as their capacities, but their subjective matters as well as their self-understanding. Consequently, structures which often distribute privileges that are unequal affect the effects of actors as well. As such, those left with less privileges often accept the role they play in such a setting. The conception posit that actors under structural power, more so, those with higher privileges often seek to constrain weaker actors from realizing their potential thus cannot put up a fight or challenge. Strengths of Structural Power Conception The conception clearly indicates the position of both the actors, that is the “greater power” and the “weaker power” as it explains the role each actor in a structural power setting. Next, is that the concept can be widely applied in various aspects of international relations both in the private and public sectors. As far as the private sector is concerned, the concept can be applied to international corporations who often reward workers depending on the geographical location of the company. Branches of companies that are often in developing countries tend to get limited privileges as far as the decisions and rewarding of the corporation is concerned. Shareholders in the mother country will often have more privileges than those in branches located in third world countries (Balaam et al., 2008). Weaknesses of Structural Power Conception The concept fails to depict how the power affects the weaker actors. The structural power tends to base its argument on the theory of social stratification; it does not indicate why an actor would want to have more privileges than other actors. According to Barnett and Duvall, (2005) power has to involve the influence of one state to change the behavior of the other state. However, the structural power conception does not indicate how one actor finds himself in the social structure that denies equal rights as those of the other players. Conclusion This paper has tried to address different conceptions of power as well as their strengths and Weaknesses. Just as Barnett and Duvall put it, there is no particular conception that has successfully addressed the dimensions of power as it is a wide concept that needs numerous approaches. The concept of power in international politics is multidimensional as technology is always evolving thus affecting the dimensions of power. References Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. 2002. Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review 56 (4):947-52. Balaam, David N. Veseth, Michael 2008: Introduction to International Political Economy.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(01), 39-75. Blau, Peter. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: J. Wiley. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Masculine Domination. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press Brass, Paul. 2000. Foucault Steals Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science 3:305 30. Dahl, Robert, and Bruce Stinebrickner. 2003. Modern Political Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kreps, David. 1990. “Corporate Culture and Economic Theory.” In James E. Alt and Kenneth A. Shepsle, eds., Perspectives on Positive Political Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1994. Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press Spykman, Nicholas.1942. American Strategy and World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power.New York: Harcourt. Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Free Press. Read More

In the 18th century, the power of governments was typically measured along well-defined factors such as the states’ territory, armies, wealth, population as well as navies. However, in the ensuing years this perspective changed as states sought to maximize power relative to one another thus creating a ‘balance of power’ (Spykman & Nicholas, 1942). According to Spykman (1942), the Great Powers sought to increase different elements of ‘national power,’ sometimes referred to as the power of capabilities or resources.

They did this in order to calculate the power distribution among them. Conceptions of Power Many scholars have come up with different conceptions of power. However, Barnett and Duvall (2005) approach has been widely used. According to these authors power has various conceptions, which cannot be exhausted. Barnett and Duvall (2005), further assert that scholars in the international relations discipline have often erred in their quest to understand power. Many scholars have stumbled because they usually rely on a single or few conceptions.

Considering its forms, power cannot be captured by a single concept in international politics. Thus, for one to understand the conceptual variety of power, one needs to pay attention to the taxonomy that analytically identifies the different forms of power. In this case this paper will focus on Barnett and Duvall’s (2005) conceptions of power: Power can be Compulsory-oriented, Institutional-oriented, and Structural conception of power. Compulsory-oriented Power (Power relates to direct control over the other) This conception posits that power involves the ability of actors to control directly over others in international politics.

This conception is associated with the various relations between actors, which gives them the ability to shape or influence directly the actions or circumstances of others in the political realm (Barnett & Duvall, 2005). Many scholars in political science, as well as international relations have come up with definitions of power that fall under this conception. For instance, Weber (1947) defined power as the likelihood that one actor within a social relationship will defy other’s views in its quest to achieve an agenda.

In other words, Weber (1947) defined power as the possibility of a state to be in a position to act on its own will regardless of the resistance from other players in international politics. Equally, Balau (1964) defined power as the ability of an actor to influence another state’s behavior by using negative sanctions. In regard to utter influence, more so for scholars in international relations discipline, one definition stands out: Dahl’s (2003) formulation of the basics of power. According to him, power is the ability of State A to get State B to do what State B would otherwise have not done.

In Dahl’s perspective, three definitive elements come out. First, is the intentionality associated with the part of State A, that is, its intention to alter State B’s actions in a certain direction. However, if State B changes its action on the mistaken premonition that State A wants it so, then that cannot be concluded as power since it was not State A’s intention that State B does so. Second, is that a conflict of desires is definite in this definition as State B feels compelled to do as State A wishes.

Evidently, State A and B have different desires and expect different outcomes, but State B loses in the process. Third, State A is successful as it has ideational materials as well as resources at its disposal thus forcing State B to change its actions. Dahl’s (2003) conceptualizations delineate how the conception of compulsory power hinges on intentionality. Compulsory power revolves around the intentions of Actors to alter the actions of those in the social relationship. Accordingly, compulsory power exists when an actor’s action controls (State A) the other actor’s action (State B).

Moreover, it should be noted that power is still present even if the actions are altered unintentionally.

Read More