In reaction against the elite theory of power Dahl put forward a pluralist view of power concerned with direct decision making. Dahl developed a dyadic orientation towards power, “First, let us agree that power is a relation, and that it is a relation among people”. This view of power focuses on behavior in the making of decisions where there is an observable conflict of interests. Dahl describes those with power have control and are thus able to bring about a change in another actor which they would not otherwise do. For Dahl, this change is represented as an alteration in activity, belief, or something else (Dahl, 1957). In this analysis of power dahl seems to be interested in analyzing power in a quantative way “the actor with the highest probability of securing the response is the more powerful.”
rather than considering the mechanisms that enable one to exert power.
Dahls empiricist perspective on power has major limitations to understanding the concept of power within public policy. Dahl fails to recognize the “dynamics of non decision-making" . (Bacharach and Baratz, 1962, p. 952), as a demonstration of power. Although explicit conflict is of course a demonstration of power, power can manifest itself both consciously and unconsciously and that power exists when ‘non decisions’ are made as well, fundamental to understand power within public policy is number of ways can be exercised eg one can enable individuals or groups to carry out certain actions by shaping their beliefs and cognitive frameworks, for example media is employed within public policy and is a effective way of exerting power without coercion and direct observable conflict. Illustrates Dahl conceptualization of power has limits as does not address other ways in which power is used.
Power is so diffused and interwined within the social world, affecting how various actors influence decision making in the policy process (Chopra interactions of power in the making and shaping of social policy in contemporary south asia 2011 153-171.) thus dahls approach to power is too simplistic, as power does not simply exist in a dyadic relationship involving conflict but rather to have a good conceptualisation of power within public policy it is crucial to understand how social factors effect power as inevitably the extent of power one has depends on the social structure one is in which Dal does not indicate. Therefore, Dahls focus on the individual rather than addressing the broader social structure and the mechanisms which allow for power fail to give a coherent analysis of power within public policy.
A fundamental difference between Dahl and Lukes conceptualisation of power is that lukes acknowledges that power “is at its most effective when least observable” which is crucial to having a good understanding of power within public policy.
Lukes three dimensional view of power concerns the relationship between the social consciousness of social actors and the reproduction of relations of power. Lukes is primarily interested in power as domination, here power exists where ‘people are subjected to domination and acquiesce in that domination” (dowding, 2006).Power concerns the ability to bring about effects either personal or for other individuals Therefore, when considering the relationship between power, structure and agency, Luke’s argues that ‘social life can only be understood as an interplay of power and structure’ (Swartz, 2005).
The three-dimensional view of power concerns shaping peoples interests so that they don’t manifest in conflict with the interests of the powerful in the first place. Lukes addresses an important point that Dahl overlooks: if power as Dahl conceptualizes it only shows up in cases of actual conflict, it follows that actual conflict is necessary to power. But this is to ignore the crucial point that the most effective and insidious use of power is to prevent such conflict from arising in the first place just as lukes states “power is a capacity not the exercise of that capacity”.
Lukes three-dimensional view of power illustrates an even more subtle way of manipulating people to comply without coercion or constraint. Lukes is concerned with the question: ‘how do the powerful secure the compliance of those they dominate” (Hearn, 2008).
Luke’s third dimension of power focuses on what people believe to be their real interests and the extent to which those perceptions can be manipulated. Power is not possessed by an an individual it is a thing that surfaces when an individual or group need to exert it to enable something and it can be exerted in a number of different ways and is present in a number of different social factors. (Assessing poltical infleucne in complex decision making an instrucment based on triagluation international poltical science review 199). Those exerting power can transform the powerless for example by creating a pervasive system of ideology or false consiousness. Lukes states “is it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires you want them to have that is, to secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires”. Lukes view is different to other scholars on power as it occurs through hidden social forces and institutional practices. This is referred to as ‘mobilization of bias’ often shaping people’s thoughts, preferences and desires such that they are unaware of its influence or effect. (A bradshaw a critique of Stephen lukes view a radical view.)
Although Lukes recognizes that power is a multi dimensional social factor rather then something that comes into play purely in direct decision making, thus offering a better conceptualisation of power than Dahl, there are still limitations to Luke’s three-dimensional view as an analysis of the causal and structural reality of power needs to be addressed in order to be able to discern how certain individuals and groups are able to gain the social resources that enable them to prevail.
Lukes states that, power can be “unconscious mechanisms or coercive means” however there is a clear lack of evidence provided by Lukes that proves these mechanisms come into action when demonstrating power. Lukes three-dimensional view of power is too broad and more attention needs to be stressed on the ideological aspects of power and the ways in which social processes reflect and reinforce, but also change the structure of power. Therefore, the relationship between power structure and agency within his theory needs to be developed whilst also outlining the mechanisms at play that create the dominant and the dominated.
In conclusion, I have accentuated that Dahl does not have a thorough understanding of power as limits power to be demonstrated only within observable conflict within decision making. Lukes three-dimensional view of power has a more coherent understanding of power illustrating that power is present within social structures and can be exercised to influence people through both conscious and unconscious mechanisms. However, as I have shown there is no clear delineation in Lukes three-dimensional view of power of what these mechanisms are or how a certain individual or group is able to acquire the means to be powerful within society which is necessary for a comprehensive conceptualisation of power.