Power in Politics

12 Key excerpts on "Power in Politics"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  The SAGE Handbook of Power

  • Stewart R Clegg, Mark Haugaard, Stewart R Clegg, Mark Haugaard(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  21 Reconfiguring Power in a Globalizing World P h i l i p G . C e r n y INTRODUCTION The concept of power has traditionally played a central and crucial role in the analysis of International Relations and World Politics. It has been seen as the key factor, variable, driving force or ‘currency’ in relations among states. Indeed, this role has been seen by many observers since Thucydides as the defining attribute of the international system itself. This interpretation of the role of power is said to derive from the understanding that no seriously effective level of organized, authoritative or legitimate governmental or socio-political structure exists above the level of the state that does not itself emanate from and, in the last analysis, remain responsible to autonomous, sovereign states – i.e., that there is no genuinely supranational power structure or political process in world politics. Therefore in order to explain what happens in world politics – as distinct from politics within states – it is necessary to privilege (a) power-seeking actions of states (taken as structurally coherent ‘unit actors’ in and of themselves: Waltz 1979) and of ‘state actors’ (actors acting through or on behalf of states) and (b) structured, ongoing relations of power between and among states, over the claims of other potential causal variables. This interpretation is usually labelled the ‘realist’ – or, in a revised version that has become widespread in academic International Relations since the 1970s, ‘neorealist’ – paradigm, derived originally from the thought of such political theorists as Machiavelli and Hobbes and central to the nineteenth century German concept of Realpolitik . In this understanding of the world, there is no agreed, overarching political forum in which individuals, economic interests and social groups can systematically and effectively express their views and pursue their goals – in other words, engage in collective action – other

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 15 Jan |Learn more

  Political Power

  The Development of the Field

  • Mark Haugaard, Kevin Ryan, Mark Haugaard, Kevin Ryan(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Verlag Barbara Budrich

    (Publisher)

  Political power at the level of world politics is thus becoming less like old-fashioned “power politics” or Realpolitik , and more like the domestic politics of: • interest group pressure, competition and conflict; • the clash of ideologies and social values; • the construction of – and resistance to – evolving norms and rules of the game; and • an uneven but growing “civilianization” of power relations. More controversially, I argue that, paradoxically, while these crosscutting processes can be destabilizing at some levels, they are likely to be broadly stabilizing at system level. The centrality of power in international relations The concept of power has traditionally played a crucial role in the analysis of International Relations and World Politics. It has been seen as the key factor, variable, driving force or “currency” in relations among states. Indeed, this role has been seen by many observers since Thucydides as the defining at-tribute of the international system itself. This interpretation of the role of power is derived from the understanding that no seriously effective level of organized, authoritative or legitimate governmental or socio-political struc-ture exists above the level of the state that does not itself emanate from, and in the last analysis remain responsible to, autonomous sovereign states. In Globalization and the Transformation of Power 187 other words, there is no genuinely supranational overarching power structure or political process in world politics. Therefore, in order to explain what hap-pens in world politics – as distinct from politics within states – it is necessary to privilege (a) power-seeking actions of states (taken as structurally coherent “unit actors” in and of themselves: Waltz 1979) and of “state actors” (actors acting through or on behalf of states, mainly politicians and bureaucrats) and (b) structured, ongoing relations of power between and among states, over the claims of other potential actors or causal variables.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  International Law, Power, Security and Justice

  Essays on International Law and Relations

  • Serge Sur(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Hart Publishing

    (Publisher)

  It is beneficial in this respect to state its principal characters clearly (section II) before showing in any way expres-sions of power that are translated by the way states manage it (section III). I. Definition We can understand the term power in multiple ways, abstract or technical. A dictionary definition, for example, may devote three pages to the term, but it will be more a series of particular illustrations than a general defini-tion. One learns thus that it is a word used in philosophy, mathematics, mineralogy and even various games. The more general sense is provided by definition number 1: ‘the right or act by which one commands others, 4 Power as a Regulator of International Relations authority’ and definition number 10: ‘the power to do something’. It is ben-eficial here to adhere to a definition that fulfils the needs of the exercise. It must be sufficiently large to cover the range of different behaviours encoun-tered in international relations. It must cover the whole of the answers to the simple question: who can do what? It must also be precise enough to be distinguished from the neighbouring notions with which power is often unduly confused. A. Components In this essay, power is defined as a capacity—capacity to do; capacity to make someone do; capacity to prevent someone from doing; capacity to refuse to do. These different terms merit a degree of explanation, as does the chosen arrangement of the terms themselves. i. Analysis a. Capacity Capacity refers to an aptitude or a potential for action that is translated by concrete manifestations but unexhausted by any of them, retaining the same potential even after being employed. For example, legislative power defines the possibility for a legislator to adopt successive laws and to endow them with a determined authority.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  International Studies

  Interdisciplinary Approaches

  • P. Aalto, V. Harle, S. Moisio, P. Aalto, V. Harle, S. Moisio(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Part III Concepts 8 Power in International Relations: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Tuomas Forsberg 207 Introduction Power has traditionally been an extremely important notion in the study of international relations. In particular, the realist school of thought has built around it the whole theory of international relations. Hans Morgenthau (1979 [1948]) wanted to define the study of interna- tional politics through interests defined in terms of power. For Kenneth Waltz (1979), distribution of power was the key variable in determining the nature of an international system. John Mearsheimer (2001) regards power as the currency of great-power politics. Power is pivotal, however, not only for realist scholars; all IR theories have to deal with the concept. As Stefano Guzzini (2005) has noted, power is too important a concept to be left to the realists. All major IR theories have an built-in idea of power, whether explicit or not. Liberals understand power in terms of trade, or soft power; Marxists in terms of production forces and capital; constructivists in terms of norms; and post-structuralists in terms of discourses – at least, these descriptions are how the standard and somewhat stereotypical accounts of these approaches would like to have it. The very plethora of approaches to power tells us that, in IR, there is no single notion of power on which the discipline would converge. This further underlines the fact that power is a very difficult concept to define and pin down. It may, therefore, be questionable whether there is any room for an interdisciplinary approach to power reflecting the idea of international studies (IS) and whether such an approach would bring any added value to the present understanding(s) of power in IR. The existing plurality of IR theories has not enhanced the level of power analysis in world politics. By contrast, Janice Bially Mattern (2008) has argued that P.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Manager as Politician

  • Jerry W. Gilley(Author)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  Power is the ability to (potentially or actually) control other people and to impose your will on others. Power is the ability of one person to affect the behavior of someone else in a desirable way. It is also the ability of a person or group to influence another person or group. Power is based on formal authority, knowledge, personality, and access to information. It is also based on a person's ability to control resources. Power is typically used to obtain a desired result. It is used to get others to perform a certain action that they normally would not perform. It is used to push a group to accomplish the goals of another person and to control other people. It is distributed both formally and in- formally and is used to get accomplished what the most powerful person wants. Finally, managers who understand power and its effects possess much greater autonomy than those who do not. Understanding Power, Politics, and Influence in Organizations / 21 Power can sometimes become addictive and is not relinquished eas- ily. However, power does not last forever, and transitions of power often result in major conflict in organizations. Consequently, you must have a complete understanding of who has power and how they use it in the organization. Power is based on five elements. First, power is grounded formal au- thority, which is present in any reporting relationship. Second, power is based on knowledge: the more knowledge you possess, the more power- ful you are. Third, power is based on personality. Individuals with per- suasive, charismatic personalities typically are granted greater power. Fourth, power is based on one's ability to control information. Informa- tion is essential to decision-making, goal setting, and communications. Fifth, power is based on one's ability to control resources and increases as people become more dependent on the resources you control. There are two perspectives on power: distributive and integrative.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Superpowers in the Post-Cold War Era

  • K. Aldred, Martin A. Smith(Authors)
  • 1999(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  1 Power Power: what it is, who has it, and how it is used, are questions which lie at the heart of international relations. This book is con- cerned with the nature and uses of power by leading countries or groups of countries. Because it is such an important concept, this first chapter will focus on defining power and the ways in which it can be exercised in international affairs. The authors are interested in the kind of power which enables those which possess it to aspire to a leading or dominant status and role. POWER DEFINED A very common basic definition of power sees it being exercised when A gets B to do something which B might not otherwise do. Because two or more actors are involved in a situation in which it is exercised, it is usually argued that power is relative. If only one actor existed, or if individual actors had no contact with each other, there would be no opportunity (or need) for one to exercise power over the other. As John Rothgeb has put it: ‘power is found only when members of the international system interact with one another’. 1 A further important point here is the extent to which power can be either active or passive. Klaus Knorr, a well-known academic writer of the period from the 1950s to the 1970s, wrote that ‘the active side [of power], is concerned with what a country can do to other countries; the other, passive side, concerns a country’s ability to limit what other countries do to it’. 2 Thus, one can say that the most powerful countries are those which are able to maximise their influence on others whilst minimising the ability of others to influ- ence them. In short, the leading powers are likely to be the most active ones. This view has been popular amongst political scientists. Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, for example, has written that ‘international primacy means that a government is able to exercise more influence on the behaviour of more actors, with respect to more issues than any other government can’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Political Globalization

  State, Power and Social Forces

  • Morten Ougaard(Author)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  (Gilpin 1981, p. 9) 145 The application of this general principle to the set of social arrange- ments that make up the contemporary global governance system is not as straightforward as it may seem. Power, as frequently noted, is an essentially contested concept that is subject to ongoing definitional discussions about power as capabilities, as relations, structural power, ideational and discursive power, and so on (see Baldwin 2002 for an overview). These controversies, however, are not central to the present discussion where it suffices to say that power here is defined as the capacity to influence social outcomes in accordance with interests and preferences, indicating that the concept points to capabilities as well as relations, and that it is open to a variety of power-resources. The central problem in the present context is another one, namely the referent object of power – i.e. the question of to whom or to what power is ascribed. In the international relations literature this question is addressed in at least three different ways. One answer is that states are the referent objects of power. This is a staple of international relations theory, in particular, of course, state-centred approaches like realism and neo- realism. Although there is debate about what constitutes power – mili- tary capabilities, structural economic power and various sorts of ‘soft power’ (Baldwin 2002; Nye 1990) – discussions of power in world society focus on the power of states and nations. Another possibility is to consider social forces or classes as the referent objects of power. For instance Robert Cox has suggested the existence of a powerful ‘transnational managerial class’ (Cox 1987, pp. 358–9), Kess van der Pijl argued along similar lines for the existence of an ‘Atlantic ruling class’ (Pijl 1984), whereas in a more recent and more complex argument he pointed to an ‘international of capital’ as the dominant social force (Pijl 1998, p. 133).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Understanding American Power

  The Changing World of US Foreign Policy

  • Bryan Mabee(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  American Power and International Relations 59 While all three sets of opposing concepts have an important role in the discourse and debate on US foreign policy, they are so entan-gled in normative meanings and with partisan politics, as well as being historically contingent, that they have lost much analytic value. However, I would further suggest that the terms are nonethe-less important in understanding debates about the relationship between the US power and the world. All the concepts continue to be used in debates about US foreign policy, and they feature signifi-cantly in the ways in which American policy-makers and commenta-tors discuss the future role of American power in the world. Therefore, recounting these debates is not just of historical interest: the debates and policies pursued have demonstrated the contours of important conceptual concerns about the shape of the international system and the US’s role within it. What remains is to broaden out our view of the US in international relations, drawing on the key insights of these debates: how can we better understand power, and what does the international system look like and what role does the US have within it? What is power in international relations? The most common view on power in international relations sees power in terms of the ability to achieve particular policy outcomes: that is, states have power when they are able to achieve specific goals, and especially when these goals conflict with the goals of other states in the international system. Such goals may be moderate or ‘revolutionary’ (or revisionist), and the amount of power required will vary in terms of the kinds of goals that are desired. However, what this means in both theory and practice is problematic, espe-cially in terms of whether or not it tests the limits of that we can conceive of as ‘power’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Organizational Politics

  • Maleehah Gull(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Society Publishing

    (Publisher)

  This involves the full scope of real power. Outside authority circles, be that as it may, power might be associated with a person’s special status or standing, learning, and experience. This implies control also lies outside power structures in organizations as no expert system is resistance free. Power is ceaselessly in movement and pervasive in every single organization. This is what is implied by OP. Conflicts arising from power attempts or the contest or rivalry for power in organizations are constant. Politics is the mix of intensity and expert; their use and projection. In the more casual sense, it is the movement of summed up power attempts, both vertical and level, in social interactions. At the point when a performer, recognizing that the accomplishment of its objective is impacted by the conduct or different actors in the situation, undertakes activity against the others to ensure that its own goals are accomplished. Political action involves disagreements and differences. Politics include aggregate issues that result in conflicts. It is competitive, conflictive, and oppositional. Where, without a doubt, there is no opposition or conflict there will be no politics. Conflicts exist in organizations because of differences in values, interests, and goods. This is the pluralist origination of organizations. It is singular differences that set up the potential for struggle and diversity. So, the executives are about the control of diversity and struggle. From one Organizational Politics 232 viewpoint, it is the direction of diversity into consent. On the other hand, it is the ventilation of differences. Those who study politics study how individuals institutionalize their differences (conflicts. The fundamental sources of political conflicts are as follows. The first is that resources (Organizations and others) are scarce, driving to both open and quieted conflicts. Organizations are composed of individuals, interest groups, constituencies.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Power in the Changing Global Order

  The US, Russia and China

  • Martin A. Smith(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Polity

    (Publisher)

  1 Understanding Power

  As the discussions in the introduction here have indicated, there is relatively little for students of world politics and international relations to go on from within their own discipline in attempting to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of power. In order to do so it is, therefore, necessary to step outside disciplinary boundaries. It is worth considering, in particular, insights put forward by sociologists, who have argued that power is embodied in human relationships.

  Power as relationships

  Sociologists are, indeed, interested primarily in human relationships. Therefore, if it is accepted that power is essentially a social phenomenon, it is hardly surprising that notably detailed and sophisticated explorations of it should have been developed by them. Amongst the best known of those who have studied power has been the American sociologist Talcott Parsons. His distinctive insight was the suggestion that, in terms of its functionality, power can usefully be compared to money. In developing this metaphor, Parsons stressed that power is not primarily a material commodity or resource. Rather, he argued that it should be viewed as a vital – indeed the vital – medium of exchange in social and political relations, just as money is the vital medium of exchange in economic and commercial life.1 In Parsons’s analysis, if it is viewed as a medium of exchange, then power, like money, is worth very little in its own right. Its real value is found in the extent to which – and the effectiveness with which – it can be operationalized to obtain desired outcomes. Thus, in this view, power is essentially instrumental. Its worth lies in the extent to which it helps in achieving or advancing desired objectives.

  In the world politics and international relations literature, the power/money comparison has been quite widely criticized. Such criticisms have been made on the grounds that power resources, especially material ones, are less fungible than money. To speak of the fungibility of money means that it can be converted into something of equivalent worth and value in a variety of different transactions and contexts. With this in mind, it has been argued that, for example, a significant military capability will not necessarily convert into an effective power resource in the economic or commercial arenas. Traditional military capabilities might not even realize effective power in the face of certain types of armed threat, such as those involving the kinds of insurgency which occurred in Afghanistan after 2001 and Iraq after 2003.2

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  International Relations

  A Handbook of Current Theory

  • Margot Light, A.J.R. Groom(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  Part Two: Partial Theories 8 Power, Influence and Authority A VS. de Rueck University of Surrey and CAC It has been held that as wealth is to economics, so power is to politics, and Morgenthau expressed the classical view that 'International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Nevertheless, power has proved as difficult to conceptualize as it is to quantify. Power Politics in International Relations (IR) The 'realist' school of thought developed the use of power as the key explanatory concept in the study of IR, and many scholars accepted power as the organizing principle for the whole discipline of political science. The most comprehensive and systematic treatment of international studies within this framework is by Morgenthau [30]. To this one should add the works of Aron [1], Schwarzenberger [38], and the Sprouts [44,45] and Wight [48] as well as the penetratingly critical assessment of the whole 'power polities' school of inter-national theorists carried out by Claude in his well-known study [13]. The classical concept of the 'balance of power has been subjected to systems analysis by Kaplan [22] and Rosecrance [35], and to game theory analysis by Schelling [37], while Singer has made a sustained attempt both to establish an historical quantitative data bank and to test empirically the propositions derived from balance of power theory, with inconclusive results [43]. He finds, for example, that during the nineteenth century peace depended on parity between coalitions, whereas in the twentieth century, preponderance of the leading coalition was the condition for international stability [40,41]. For those interested in reviewing the range of power approaches in IR, a number of useful surveys exist [7, 8, 31, 46]. The recent litera-ture on the modern doctrine of nuclear deterrence is reviewed in Chapter 10. 113

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  International Relations

  Perspectives, Controversies and Readings

  • Keith Shimko(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  712. 40 Claude, Power in International Relations, p. 213. 41 Karl Deutsch et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957). 42 Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics , p. 211. 43 Alexander Wendt, “ Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics, ” International Organization 46, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 391, 394. 44 John Vasquez, The War Puzzle (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 87. 45 Ibid., p. 196. 46 Ibid., p. 116. 47 Wendt, “ Anarchy Is What States Make of It, ” p. 391. 48 Michalak, Primer in Power Politics , p. xii. 74 Chapter 3 Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. POINTS OF VIEW The Consequences of China ’ s Rise From a power politics perspective, the distribution of power among the great powers determines the character of international relations. Since the end of the Cold War, most have characterized the international system as unipolar, with the United States clearly the world ’ s dominant military and economic power. Some saw this as a “ unipolar moment ” that was unlikely to last very long. Others were not so sure. Even though nothing lasts forever, the magnitude of U.S. domi-nance, particularly in military terms, was such that the unipolar “ moment ” might last for some time — perhaps even decades. But whenever that moment ends, it will be because another great power has emerged to challenge that dominance. Given its population and potential economic power, the most likely candidate to knock the United States off its hegemonic perch is China.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book