A Reconsideration of William Dugger’s Analysis of Power

Abstract

In 1980, William Dugger published an article entitled “Power: An Institutional Framework of Analysis.” In doing so, he was following a long tradition in social and institutional economic analysis. This framework is the foundation for a good portion of Dugger’s later work and is a major theoretical achievement in institutional economics. This article will examine Dugger’s theoretical development of power. Dugger’s framework begins as a method of analysis that is built on a theory of power in general: that power is discretion exercised by individuals within the context of the roles they occupy in social institutions. Dugger initially applies this to a particular context—the US corporate economy of the 1980s. Later work by Dugger considers the exercise of power in other contexts. This later work provides insight into the ability of his framework of analysis to comprehend the situating of power in other specific historical contexts.

Keywords:

• power
• William Dugger

JEL Classifications:

• B2
• B31
• B41
• B52

Notes

¹ Tony Lawson defines power in the same way. See (Lawson, 2015, p. 38–39).

² In a fascinating article John Hall, Alexander Dunlap and Joe Mitchell-Nelson argue that the replacement leads to the elevation of subreption as a term to describes the over all effects of the invaluation processes of emulation, contamination, subordination and mystification (Hall, Dunlap, & Mitchell-Nelson, 2016, p. 487).

³ Hall, Dunlap and Mitchell-Nelson explore the etymology of the term subreption. They argue that Veblen’s use of the term is somewhat idiosyncratic. “We interpret Veblen’s view of subreption found in his Higher Learning as suggesting a conscious or unconscious act in which a practice that appears consistent with a certain set of values, is introduced into an institution that does not hold these values. In this manner subreption succeeds by deceptively representing the practice in question as consistent with values sanctioned by the institution …” (Hall et al., 2016, p. 481). They find Dugger’s definition of subreption as “fully consistent with Veblen’s understanding …” (Hall et al., 2016, p. 484–485).

⁴ Hall, Dunlap and Mitchell-Nelson make this same observation. See footnote 1.

⁵ See (Waller, 2008) for a description of Galbraith’s theorizing regarding power prior to (Galbraith, 1983).