page: 11-The “revolution in power analysis” was rooted in works by Harold Lasswell and Abraham

Kaplan (1950), Herbert Simon (1953, 1954), and James March (1955) and Robert Dahl’s“Concept of
Power” (1957), his Who Governs? (1961), and/the community powerdebate.

page 12:Dahl’s (1957) definition of power in terms of A’s ability to get Bto do something that B would
not otherwise do has been bothwidely accepted and widely criticized.

: the two most influential sources ofcriticism— an article by Bachrach and Baratz (1962) and a pamphlet
by Steven Lukes (1974).

page 15: The community power debate is sometimes characterized as a debate between “elitists” and
“pluralists” and at other times as a debate between sociologists and political scientists.

The central issue in this debate was whether American communities were governed by a small group
(the elite) or whether the most influential groups varied from one issue to another (the position of the
pluralists).

In order to determine the distribution of influence in his case study of new Haven, Dahl examined
decision making in three issue- areas: (1) urban redevelopment; (2) public education; and (3) political
party nominations

: The overall conclusion was that the influential people in one issue area were different from those in
the other issue- areas— ie the “pluralist”conclusion.

: Dahl further talks about “Indirect vs. Direct Influence” and “Actual vs. Potential Influence.” He tries to
understand power through “Methods and Data,” “The Definition and Measurement of Influence”and
“Operational Measures of Influence”.

: Dahl’s explanation thus became a very positivist approach to power.

Page 16: Bachrach and Baratz (1962) published an article entitled “Two Faces of Power”in the American
Political Science Review, which criticized Dahl’s worfor focusing on “the ability to initiate and veto
proposals” while ignoring the ability to prevent proposals from even being considered in the first place.
Further, influence can derive from the ability to suppress issues or to keep them off the agenda of
decision makers.

: Bachrach and Baratz were criticizing the research methodology and one of the six operational
measures used in “Who Governs?” but their criticism fell short of examining the abstract concept of
power underlying Dahl’s work.

Page 18: In 1974 Steven Lukes picked up on the title of the article by Bachrach and Baratz, “Two Faces
of Power,” and proposed yet a third “face.” He described a “one- dimensional view of power”(the first
face) based on the methodology and operational definitions of influence used in Who Governs? a “two-
dimensional view of power” (the second face and a “three- dimensional view of power”(the third face)
that differed from the other two in the following respects: First, whereas the first two involve
observable conflicts of policy preferences, the three- dimensional view allows for the possibility that A
can manipulate the preferences of B so as to prevent conflict from occurring. The second difference
between the three- dimensional view and the others is the assumption that the “real interests” of B may
differ from the policy preferences of B. In any case, an exercise of power is always detrimental to the
interests of B according to the three- dimensional view.

*This is a post-positivist critique of power.*

Page 24: The most important difference between Dahl’s concept of power (1957) and the concept of
power proposed by Lukes in 1974 was the requirement that A’s power with respect to B always be
harmful to B’s interests. page 26: In 2005 Lukes revisited his own critique of Dahl and suggested three
amendments: (1) the admission of a narrow focus on a subspecies of power— domination; (2) the
admission that it was a mistake to depict A’s power as always detrimental to B’s interests; and (3) the
admission that everyone has multiple and conflicting interests

: Modern Analysis on Power in Dahl’s work has focused on *politics and power are ubiquitous* as found
in “private clubs, business firms, labor unions, religious organizations, civic groups, primitive tribes,
clans,” and even in “families and romantic couples”. *Intuitive Notion of Power* is where influence is a
social relation in which A causes B to do something that B would not otherwise do, does not include the
change in B’s behavior is not confined to overt acts, but also includes changes in B’s beliefs, values,
attitudes, feelings, and predispositions. Further, Dahl suggests the change in B’s behavior must be in
response to A’s preferences. Normally, this means that B’s behavior changes in a direction desired by A;
but Dahl also insists on the possibility that B’s behavior may change in the opposite direction. He calls
this *negative power*.

(Page 28)

*You may begin your answer on Power by the following quote on Power*: Power has many forms, such
as wealth, armaments, civil authority, influence on opinion. No one of these can be regarded as
subordinate to any other, and there is not one form from which the others are derivative. (Lasswell and
Kaplan (1950) quoting Bertrand Russell (1938, 13– 14)) PAGE 49

In the introduction part you may introduce power as a *much contested concept* as there are unsettled
debates on theory- laden concepts, interests, essential contestability, zero- sum power, potential power,
fungibility, intentions, measurement, reciprocal power, structural power, “power over” versus “power
to,” and the role of costs in power analysis.The broad tradition of Lasswell, Simon, March, Dahl,
Harsanyi, Baratz and Lukes and other social scientists help us understand power analysis

: In contemporary discourse, Power is understood as a *relational concept*.The relational power

perspective views power as multidimensional rather than monolithic and unidimensional. This allows for
the possibility that power can increase on one dimension while simultaneously decreasing on another.
(page 50)
 page 59: *Problems in Power Analysis* include a)*Theory Dependence of Concepts like power*:
concepts are “theory dependent” and acquire their meaning only in the context of the theories inwhich
they are used. Guzzini observes that “concepts are not self- sufficient”and that “they derive their
meaning . . . from the theories (e.g., realism) in which they are embedded.”

Similarly, Mearsheimer notes that “power can be defined in different ways, raising the question of
which definition is correct.” b) *Intertwining of power and interest as concepts*: It is frequently
asserted that the concept of power is inextricably intertwined with the concept of interests (e.g., Lukes
1974, 2005, 2015; Guzzini 2013; Dowding 2011b; Gaventa 1980; Hayward and others. c)*power as
essentially contested concept* : Concepts are so value laden that no amount of argument or evidence
can ever lead to agreement on a single version as the “correct or standard use” as per Gallie. d)*power
as zero-sum game*: Traditionally, scholars of international relations have distinguished between conflict
and cooperation. Power, it has often been argued, has to do with conflict but not with cooperation.
International relations scholars like Hawtrey (1930); Hirschman (1945); Kindleberger (1970); Gilpin
(1975, 1981); and Mearsheimer (2001) have depicted power in zero- sum terms and politics, according
to this view, is a “game of winners and losers”( Krasner 1991). Zero sum power is based on the
assumption that total power is limited. Consequently, any increase in one actor’s power necessitates a
decrease in the power of other actors in a social system.