William H. Riker
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 58, No. 2. (Jun., 1964), pp. 341-349.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28196406%2958%3A2%3C341%3ASAITNO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3
The American Political Science Review is currently published by American Political Science Association.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/apsa.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Mon Jul 30 10:19:25 2007
WILLIAMH. RIKER
University of Rochester
The notion of power is often said t o be central to the analysis of politics. B u t 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 t o the
historians of political ideas. I n this introduction I merely observe that the clarification has
not proceeded as far as is needed, so that we are
still not a t all sure of what we are talking about
when we use the term. Nevertheless there is
light ahead, owing especially t o 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 dcfinitions with each other and specify
precisely how they differ. I n so doing we may
be able to resolve some of the ambiguities remaining in the concept of power. I n that hope
this essav is written.
But first a personal remark: most contemporary criticism of political theory is directed, unfortunately, a t the so-called giants of the past.
In such an enterprise, i t is not personally
embarrassing-indeed
i t is academically fa&ionable and intellectually trivial-to
explain
where Plato went wrong or what Rousseau
meant. What political theory needs, however,
is criticism of contemporary theory, for this is
the theory that is important in guiding political
research. But such criticism may be personally
embarrassing, especially when, as in this instance, it is directed a t the work of men whom
of the social
I regard as a t the very forefront
sciences. I want to make i t clear, therefore,.
that (a) I regard the theories I discuss as a
great advance, one which I have in the past
struggles to make and failed and (b) I utter
criticism not captiously but in the spirit of
contributing t o the dialectic of understanding.
-5qSn
or
-+l<qSn,
2
2 Pi
1.
I -1
341
342
T H E A M E R I C A N P O L I T I C A L S C I E N C E REVIEW
n1
R1
Bz
--
o12
oll
--
Oil
--
022
Verbally: To say "R1 has a t least as much influence as Rz" is equivalent t o saying "the measure on the row of a choice of a row by Role 1 is
equal to or less than the measure on the column
of a choice of a column by Role 2, where the
row and column chosen are identical behaviors." The essential notion is t h a t the
greater the power the greater is the ability to
restrict outcomes. If one cannot by one's own
action lessen the range (or value of) outcomes
in a situation, then obviously one has no control over the future. If one can lessen, then one
can control t o that degree. Hence follows the
notion that the ability to restrict outcomes is
the essence of influence or power.
Dahl, also a political scientist, defines power
in a way closer t o the commonsense tradition
than either of the previous two. He says a t the
beginning: "My intuitive idea of power . . . is
something like this: A has power over B to the
extent he can get B t o do something B would
James G. March, "Measurement Concepts in
the Theory of Influence," Journal of Politics, Vol.
19 (1957), pp. 202-226; see also his "An Introduction to the Theory and Measurement of Influence," this REVIEW,Vol. 49 (1955), pp. 43151.
not otherwise
This sentence is formalized
b y the use of two conditional probabilities:
I ~ ~ ( aI b =)
Ifaal
IGI
343
power of i over j is the absolute difference between (1) the maximum reward for j from i's
determination of an outcome and (2) the
minimum such reward. Thus, the greater the
range over which i can determine j's reward, the
greater is i's power over j.
where
= ((YO,Jfz, ab,
ml, tk)
FORMAL
and where
fii
= ((YO,
Mz,ab, mz,
tk)
I xo(ab)Imx,
..
g(a~(tj),
an@))
DEFINITIONS
344
345
I n Cartwright's definition:
Pow a/b=O,
Pow a/c =0,
Pow c/a = 0,
Pow b/a =0,
RbZR,.
I n Karlsson's definition :
=0, pae= 0, pb, = 0, pb, = 0, p,, =0, p,a = 0.
The one clearly ego-oriented definition
(Shapley and Shubik's) defines power in this
circumstance. I n a less obvious way, so does
March's for, while no numerical quantity is
given, i t is asserted that the influence of the
three participants is equal. That i t is equal does
not preclude that it exist. I n the last three
definitions, however, power is clearly non-existent. The array of zeros proves the point. So I
observe that ego-oriented power preserves
power in the system, while other-oriented
power does not.
p,a
346
347
348
349
Then, for j z k ,
Pi
C u,(Oi)v(Aii);a nd let C Pi = 1.
i-1
i-1
http://www.jstor.org
LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 1 -
This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.
[Footnotes]
2
NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.