Dependency Theory Of Power

DEPENDENCY THEORY OF POWER Any discussion of power begs the question: "Where does this ability to influence another's behavior come from?" While much of the literature on power appears to concentrate on the exercise of power by some party, it may be equally useful to ask how people respond to someone else's exercise of power. People are not by nature compliant. It appears reasonable to assume that, if a given behavior is not something they would voluntarily engage in, then efforts by someone else to have them engage in that behavior would be met with resistance. Recent research has focused on the attempts people make to nullify or moderate the extent to which such influence is successful. In other words, the question being asked is: "What can account for people's abilities to resist attempts at influence." The answer appears to lie in dependency. Actor A will have power over actor B if actor B is dependent on actor A. This leads to the question: "What can account for this dependence?" In a general sense, we can conclude that dependency is related to resources. We use the term "resources" in a rather broad sense.

For actor A to have power, the resources he/she controls must meet certain criteria (note the similarities to basic economic conditions): 1. Important: For example, if money is very important to B, and A is in a position to dispense money, then B is very likely to be open to A's influence. 2. Scarce: If promotions are unlikely to occur on a frequent basis -- they are scarce -- then B, wishing to be promoted, may accede to A's power if it can be shown that A has control over this scarce "resource". 3. Nonsubstitutable:

If B cannot gain access to a desired resource other than through A, then A has power over B. A salesperson may attempt to gain power over a buyer by claiming that only the product she represents can satisfy the client's needs.

This conceptualization of the power relationship between parties is also useful because it permits us to examine the reciprocal nature of that power. The exercise of power need not necessarily be a unilateral act. Both parties to a relationship may have dominion over resources that the other party desires -- resources that are important, scarce, and nonsubstitutable. In industrial relations, management, through its inherent right to manage the enterprise, has control over the operation of that enterprise -- it controls the job resource. However, the employees, represented by unions, control the resource of labor. Each of these parties controls some resource that the other requires. Dependency works both ways. Hence, there is reciprocal use of power. What is not clear, in this case, is which party has more power. The previous industrial relations example leads us to an examination of the potential behaviors of parties under different conditions of power balance. Consider one extreme; B is significantly dependent on A (A has significant power over B) and there is no reciprocal or countervailing power. In this case, we would expect B to comply with A's wishes.

If the dependency relationship is more modest, then B might try to bargain with A. If your boss asked you to work overtime, you might attempt to negotiate a deal whereby you would get compensatory time off at a later date. In this case, assuming no union, the power balance lies with the boss. However, because she needs you to work (you control a needed resource), you have a degree of power. You are in a position to request a gain -time off later -- because of your power. Where the power distribution is more evenly divided, the parties may be inclined to cooperate. Negotiations over a labor contract may be characterized as cooperation in the sense that the parties work toward some mutual accommodation over the conditions of their working relationship. If B has more power than A, then B may be inclined to fight any attempts by A to influence behavior. In the event that B's power is absolute, B may simply ignore A's attempts at influence.

Companies that have made large contributions to the election campaign of the political party in power, may ignore directives from civil servants. For example, such a company may be faced with a directive to act in a more environmentally friendly manner. Recognizing that the ruling government needs financing for an upcoming election campaign (the company controls an important resource), the company may decide to ignore the directive.

Introduction: The several faces of power All sociologists would agree that power is a fundamental property of social structures. There is much less agreement about what power is, and how we can describe and analyze its causes and consequences. In this chapter we will look at some of the main approaches that social network analysis has developed to study power, and the closely related concept of centrality. Network thinking has contributed a number of important insights about social power. Perhaps most importantly, the network approach emphasizes that power is inherently relational. An individual does not have power in the abstract, they have power because they can dominate others -- ego's power is alter's dependence. Because power is a consequence of patterns of relations, the amount of power in social structures can vary. If a system is very loosely coupled (low density) not much power can be exerted; in high density systems there is the potential for greater power. Power is both a systemic (macro) and relational (micro) property. The amount of power in a system and its distribution across actors are related, but are not the same thing. Two systems can have the same amount of power, but it can be equally distributed in one and unequally distributed in another. Power in social networks may be viewed either as a micro property (i.e. it describes relations between actors) or as a macro property (i.e. one that describes the entire population); as with other key sociological concepts, the macro and micro are closely connected in social network thinking. Network analysts often describe the way that an actor is embedded in a relational network as imposing constraints on the actor, and offering the actor opportunities. Actors that face fewer constraints, and have more opportunities than others are in favorable structural

positions. Having a favored position means that an actor may extract better bargains in exchanges, have greater influence, and that the actor will be a focus for deference and attention from those in less favored positions. But, what do we mean by "having a favored position" and having "more opportunities" and "fewer constraints?" There are no single correct and final answers to these difficult questions. But, network analysis has made important contributions in providing precise definitions and concrete measures of several different approaches to the notion of the power that attaches to positions in structures of social relations. To understand the approaches that network analysis uses to study power, it is useful to first think about some very simple systems. Consider the three simple graphs of networks in figures 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, which are called the "star," "line," and "circle." Figure 10.1. "Star" network

Figure 10.2. "Line" network

Figure 10.3. "Circle" network

A moment's inspection ought to suggest that actor A has a highly favored structural position in the star network, if the network is describing a relationship such as resource exchange or resource sharing. But, exactly why is it that actor A has a "better" position than all of the others in the star network? What about the position of A in the line network? Is being at the end of the line an advantage or a disadvantage? Are all of the actors in the circle network really in exactly the same structural position? We need to think about why structural location can be advantageous or disadvantageous to actors. Let's focus our attention on why actor A is so obviously at an advantage in the star network. Degree: In the star network, actor A has more opportunities and alternatives than other actors. If actor D elects to not provide A with a resource, A has a number of other places to go to get it; however, if D elects to not exchange with A, then D will not be able to exchange at all. The more ties an actor has then, the more power they (may) have. In the star network, Actor A has degree six, all other actors have degree one. This logic underlies measures of centrality and power based on actor degree, which we will discuss below. Actors who have more ties have greater opportunities because they have choices. This autonomy makes them less dependent on any specific other actor, and hence more powerful. Now, consider the circle network in terms of degree. Each actor has exactly the same number of alternative trading partners (or degree), so all positions are equally advantaged or disadvantaged. In the line network, matters are a bit more complicated. The actors at the end of the line (A and G) are actually at a structural disadvantage, but all others are apparently equal (actually, it's not really quite that simple). Generally, though, actors that are more central to the structure, in the sense of having higher degree or more connections, tend to have favored positions, and hence more power.