3.4 Agency as the Strategic Use of Power
59
3.4.2 The Three Faces of Power
Power is a core concept in politics. There is power to and power over (Biermann et al.
2009b, p. 67). The former relates both to material capabilities and issues of access, i.e.,
power as the capacity to meet needs and fulfill wants, without necessarily affecting the
behavior of others. This conceptualization of power goes back to Hobbes’ Leviathan
and has been widely referred to in the literature (Dowding 1996; Flyvbjerg 1998;
Biermann et al. 2009b), including on the need to “empower” the poor (UNRISD
2010).
2 This understanding, however, becomes more complex once considered in
light of its different dimensions, such as those generally applied to power over.
Power over refers to power relations among actors, and it can be understood
as being expressed in three different forms—sometimes called the “three faces”
of power (Lukes 1974/2005). Dahl (1957, p. 203) gave power a straightforward
definition, suggesting that “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do
something that B wouldn’t otherwise do.” This type of direct action of one actor over
another has been referred to as the first face of power (Bachrach and Baratz 1962;
Lukes 1974/2005) or as instrumental power (Clapp and Fuchs 2009).
However, Bachrach and Baratz (1962, p. 948) contended:
Of course power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B.
But power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social
and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to
public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the
extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing
to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set of
preferences.
This second dimension of power affects the institutional milieu and not directly
another actor. It includes agenda-setting efforts to limit the range of issues, views,
perspectives and choices considered, or whose visions count (Bachrach and Baratz
1962). For instance, this is responsible for the exclusion of certain actors from
decision-making processes, for “non-decisions” on certain issues, for overlooking
individual claims while overemphasizing others, and thus also for “decision-less decisions”. Overall, this form of power aims at shaping the structure of governance to lean
it towards certain outcomes, approaches, and courses of action while overlooking
or downplaying alternatives (Bachrach and Baratz 1962; Barnett and Finnemore
1999; Conca 2006). This exercise has been described as structural power, for power
becomes institutionalized and engraved in settings and designs that can, in turn, reinforce one’s capabilities while limiting the range of action of other actors (Clemens
and Cook 1999; Clapp and Fuchs 2009).
Finally, there is a subtler, third dimension of power that needs to be considered.
All the above recognize that less powerful actors may be limited in their actions,
2 In this regard, some authors also speak of “power from within” (Rowlands 1997, p. 111) as
an earlier step, in reference to developing a sense of one’s own value and of confidence in the
possibility of change — a dimension often found weak in disadvantaged populations, particularly
those in developing countries which experienced colonization (see also Freire 1970; McEwan and
Bek 2006).
59
3.4.2 The Three Faces of Power
Power is a core concept in politics. There is power to and power over (Biermann et al.
2009b, p. 67). The former relates both to material capabilities and issues of access, i.e.,
power as the capacity to meet needs and fulfill wants, without necessarily affecting the
behavior of others. This conceptualization of power goes back to Hobbes’ Leviathan
and has been widely referred to in the literature (Dowding 1996; Flyvbjerg 1998;
Biermann et al. 2009b), including on the need to “empower” the poor (UNRISD
2010).
2 This understanding, however, becomes more complex once considered in
light of its different dimensions, such as those generally applied to power over.
Power over refers to power relations among actors, and it can be understood
as being expressed in three different forms—sometimes called the “three faces”
of power (Lukes 1974/2005). Dahl (1957, p. 203) gave power a straightforward
definition, suggesting that “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do
something that B wouldn’t otherwise do.” This type of direct action of one actor over
another has been referred to as the first face of power (Bachrach and Baratz 1962;
Lukes 1974/2005) or as instrumental power (Clapp and Fuchs 2009).
However, Bachrach and Baratz (1962, p. 948) contended:
Of course power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B.
But power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social
and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to
public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the
extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing
to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set of
preferences.
This second dimension of power affects the institutional milieu and not directly
another actor. It includes agenda-setting efforts to limit the range of issues, views,
perspectives and choices considered, or whose visions count (Bachrach and Baratz
1962). For instance, this is responsible for the exclusion of certain actors from
decision-making processes, for “non-decisions” on certain issues, for overlooking
individual claims while overemphasizing others, and thus also for “decision-less decisions”. Overall, this form of power aims at shaping the structure of governance to lean
it towards certain outcomes, approaches, and courses of action while overlooking
or downplaying alternatives (Bachrach and Baratz 1962; Barnett and Finnemore
1999; Conca 2006). This exercise has been described as structural power, for power
becomes institutionalized and engraved in settings and designs that can, in turn, reinforce one’s capabilities while limiting the range of action of other actors (Clemens
and Cook 1999; Clapp and Fuchs 2009).
Finally, there is a subtler, third dimension of power that needs to be considered.
All the above recognize that less powerful actors may be limited in their actions,
2 In this regard, some authors also speak of “power from within” (Rowlands 1997, p. 111) as
an earlier step, in reference to developing a sense of one’s own value and of confidence in the
possibility of change — a dimension often found weak in disadvantaged populations, particularly
those in developing countries which experienced colonization (see also Freire 1970; McEwan and
Bek 2006).