IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v58y1964i02p341-349_08.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Ambiguities in the Notion of Power

Author

Listed:
  • Riker, William H.

Abstract

The notion of power is often said to be central to the analysis of politics. But while that analysis is a very ancient activity, the conceptual clarification of the notion of power has been undertaken only in the past generation. The reason for this discrepancy I leave to the historians of political ideas. In this introduction I merely observe that the clarification has not proceeded as far as is needed, so that we are still not at all sure of what we are talking about when we use the term. Nevertheless there is light ahead, owing especially to some formal definitions that have been offered in recent years by Shapley and Shubik, March, Dahl, Cartwright, and Karlsson. By reason of the formality of these definitions the issues of meaning have been more sharply delineated than was previously possible. Hence we have reached the point, I believe, where we may confront definitions with each other and specify precisely how they differ. In so doing we may be able to resolve some of the ambiguities remaining in the concept of power. In that hope this essay is written.

Suggested Citation

  • Riker, William H., 1964. "Some Ambiguities in the Notion of Power," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 341-349, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:58:y:1964:i:02:p:341-349_08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400081107/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Fishburn & Steven Brams, 1981. "Efficacy, power and equity under approval voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 425-434, January.
    2. Tasos Kalandrakis, 2006. "Proposal Rights and Political Power," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 441-448, April.
    3. David A. Baldwin, 1971. "Inter-nation influence revisited," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(4), pages 471-486, December.
    4. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2003:i:2:p:1-5 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Lucas, David S. & Boudreaux, Christopher J., 2020. "National regulation, state-level policy, and local job creation in the United States: A multilevel perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    6. Babajanyan, S.G. & Melkikh, A.V. & Allahverdyan, A.E., 2020. "Leadership scenarios in prisoner’s dilemma game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 545(C).
    7. Lucas, David & Boudreaux, Christopher, 2018. "Federal Regulation, Job Creation, and the Moderating Effect of State Economic Freedom," MPRA Paper 92593, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ajit Chaudhuri, 2016. "Understanding ‘Empowerment’," Journal of Development Policy and Practice, , vol. 1(2), pages 121-141, July.
    9. David S. Lucas & Christopher J. Boudreaux, 2019. "The Interdependence of Hierarchical Institutions: Federal Regulation, Job Creation, and the Moderating Effect of State Economic Freedom," Papers 1903.02924, arXiv.org.
    10. Nozomu Matsubara, 1989. "Conflict and Limits of Power," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 33(1), pages 113-141, March.
    11. James M. Snyder Jr. & Michael M. Ting & Stephen Ansolabehere, 2005. "Legislative Bargaining under Weighted Voting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 981-1004, September.
    12. Piet Verschuren & Bas Arts, 2005. "Quantifying influence in complex decision making by means of paired comparisons," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 495-516, January.
    13. Andre Blais, 1974. "Power and causality," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 45-63, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:58:y:1964:i:02:p:341-349_08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.