![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Two questions about Dahl’s evolving view of power are addressed. Have critics failed to distinguish his broad concept of power from the operational measures required for its study? It is argued that his classic study Who Governs? was driven by a concept of power on whose narrowness they rightly focused because it excluded important questions about power relations and mechanisms. Secondly, how satisfactory is his final conceptualization of power? This, it is argued, is still too narrow. It conflates power and influence, failing to see the importance of its dispositional character. It advances too narrow a view of its origins and its impact. And it fails to acknowledge the virtues of relating the concept of power to that of ‘interests’.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. That both Dahl and Baldwin may have been unsure or even confused about this distinction is suggested by Baldwin’s footnote 7, which reads: ‘The terms operational definition and operational measure are often used interchangeably’.