Answer

Two broad frameworks to understand power

Introduction

            Power is a concept that is difficult to measure and is also relatively elusive to grasp and understand. Even though power is difficult to measure its impact is evident in international and national events globally. Sometimes power has been regarded as being imprecise, vague and difficult to describe objectively.  Despite the apparent confusion in the definition of power it is not a meaningless concept because its effects are felt and seen everywhere every day. The effects of power are real and can be understood clearly. It is therefore a concept that cannot be ignored entirely.  Power influences international politics and determines outcomes of such events such as war or trade negotiations among others.

Power has been likened to the role money plays in economics and has also been seen as playing a central role in international and national politics. This comparison has been found to be somewhat misleading as in economics money is the central resource that is used to buy other commodities whereas resources which can be used to gain power in a certain context may not achieve the same result in a different context. For example, money can be used to purchase a real estate property, buy household goods or engage in an internet transaction whereas one of the known power sources i.e. the military, can be used to win an armed conflict but cannot be used in an internet transaction.

A country’s resources and national performance have been used in recent times as a measure of national power and especially as they affect the capability and combat proficiency of a nation’s military.  Country’s resources that are taken into account include technology, enterprise, human beings, capital and other physical resources whereas national performance touches on national ideas, infrastructural developments and external constraints.  However, the formulation described does not relate to other power types as it only applies to military power.  Military power looked at alone, though important, may not achieve the desired outcomes that a nation desires. For example, even though the United States of America possessed superior military power, it was unable to win the Vietnam war. Another example, is that desired outcomes in the world of finance or climate change cannot be realized through military force or combat proficiency.  Human relationships determine power in different contexts and as such it is impossible to have a single measure of power.

Two useful understandings of power

               Power is a concept that is contested as there is no one single understanding that is acceptable to all people. Some people hold that power is the ability to effect or resist change while other people disagree. Others people think power is the ability of a person to get what they desire or want in life.  Power could be understood as the influence one has to get a desired outcome in a situation.  However, there are also people who disagree with this take on power and they argue that there are many issues that affect the ability to achieve a desired outcome some may be tangible while others are not. There are basically two understandings of power namely power as resources that a country has and the behavioral outcomes or relational understanding of power

1. Power as resources

            In this understanding, the ability to achieve desired outcomes using available resources underlies the measurement of power. In such cases countries that have large populations, occupy large land areas, hold vast resources, have a large military and are economically strong are said to be powerful. In this case power can be measured and predicted. This understanding can be compared to a card game where one player holds high cards.  Even though it is true that a country with a large amount of resources controls a lot of power, this understanding creates other problems that may not be obvious.  It is not always the case that a powerful nation due to possession of an enormous amount of resources always gets what it wants. There are instances when it may not.  Nevertheless, power is often conveyed through resources and hence resources cannot be ignored in the overall understanding of power.  For example, in card game if one player holds the highest cards, other players may just give in and not challenge that particular player. However, in a game of soccer a team that possesses more balls than the others will not necessarily win the game or get the other teams to fold their hands and give in.  This implies that resources that are used to determine the outcome in one context may be useless in another context. 

            Even in cases where holding certain resources determine how the outcome could be sometimes the outcome may not depend on having resources alone.  For example, the United States of America lost the war in Vietnam even though it had more resources and hence was more powerful than the Vietnamese.  Skillful leadership and well-designed strategies are sometimes required in using resources to achieve desired outcomes. Usually leaders make wrong judgements and strategies are not always on the cutting edge thus making resources as a source of power to achieve a desired outcome useless.

            Nevertheless, abundance of resources is a major catalyst towards achieving certain goals. A country that holds abundant resources may not require the best of strategies to achieve its desired outcomes as much as a country without adequate resources.  A country facing resources deficit will require an optimal strategy to achieve desired outcomes. Its tolerance to error in strategy implementation will be very small as any small adverse change could easily derail its ability to achieve its desired outcomes. Power as resources is therefore very important in understanding power.  Countries that have abundant resources are more likely to take on riskier projects than those that hold less resources.

            However, it’s important for policy makers to understand which resources influence the power behavior in a specific context. For instance, in modern day military conflicts, it’s not availability of resources that determine the outcome but the technological capability of each nation engaged in the conflict.  For example, Israel which has relatively less resources than Iran could win a war against Iran easily because of possession of superior military technology and weapons. Resources in this case are not a source of power which would help Iran to achieve the desired outcome.  Power as resources or what some analysts call “elements of power” has been found to be misleading and even inferior to behavioral outcome or relational understanding of power.  Human behavior in a specific context produces desired outcomes and not just abundance of resources.

1. Behavioral outcomes or relational understanding of power

            The ability to affect the behavior of others to achieve desired outcomes is what underlies relational or behavioral understanding of power. Relational power pays more attention to contexts and strategies used to influence others to achieve a certain objective and not just resources even though resources may be applied in the process. Relational power pays attention to power conversion strategies and relate means to ends. The issue of smart power comes into effect i.e. combining hard power and soft power resources to realize desired outcomes.

            Commanding change, controlling agendas, and establishing preferences are the three main aspects of behavioral or relational power even though it may be difficult to distinguish them adequately. Commanding change refers to the ability to command other people to change their behavior to achieve certain outcomes against their initial preferences.  This is a type of relational power that relies on carrot and stick strategy. Those who change their behavior are rewarded through promotions, cash or any other incentive deemed desirable while those who oppose or criticize are punished by being denied certain privileges.

The ability to influence others to change their preferences in favor of a specific and different preference is also another form of relational power.  This relational power enables a nation to influence others to want to do what it wants in a certain contentious matter without commanding them.  This can be done by controlling agendas which then gives a player in a power game the ability to influence other players to choose what he/she wants.  Establishing preferences is another way of exercising relational power.  In this case a nation could shape preferences in ways that produce what it wants rather than using carrot and stick strategy that is used in commanding change. This power type makes people behave in a  manner that is contrary to their initial preferred choice.

 In measuring relational power in each case it is critical to know the strength of the initial preferences of the other nations in the power game and how much they changed due to the influence of the powerful player.  Some measures used in relational power are negative.  Economic measures such as economic sanctions are some of the relational power maneuvers used by certain nations in a bid to change the behaviors of target nations.  Economic benefits are sometimes also used to influence the choice of preference in some instances. Dimension of framing and agenda-setting are also used in relational power. Nations can use ideas and certain institutions to frame the agenda for an action in such a way that other nation’s preferences are irrelevant or illegal to pursue.  This ensures options to an issue under discussion are out of the table completely and only what a particular player desires are the feasible options. In this way the player influences the outcome to its favor without commanding change.

Conclusion

            Power as resources is an important understanding of power since ownership of certain resources produce power than influence outcomes in certain specific contexts.  Resources are therefore important in understanding global politics and effects of power.  However, resources alone may not be able to influence outcomes in certain situations. The ability to convert resources in to power is critical in almost all cases. Relational or behavioral power is therefore superior as it relates to strategies and contexts that connects means to ends. Countries that possess more relational power are able to influence outcomes in their favor better than those which rely on abundance of resources to influence outcomes in their favor. However, nations which embrace both types of power in international relations are likely to achieve better outcomes than those who do not.

.