Dependency Theory of Power

Any discussion of power begs the question: "

Where does this ability to influenceanother's behavior come from?
"While much of the literature on power appears to concentrate on the exercise of power
bysome party, it may be equally useful to ask how people respond to someone else'sexercise
of power. People are not by nature compliant. It appears reasonable to assumethat, 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 theextent 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 tothe question: "What can account for this dependence?" In a general sense, we
can concludethat
dependency is related to resources.
We use the term "resources" in a rather broadsense.

For actor A to have power, the resources he/she controls must meet certain criteria (notethe
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 neednot 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, andnonsubstitutable.
In industrial relations, management, through its inherent right to manage theenterprise, has
control over the operation of that enterprise -- it controls the jobresource. 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)
andthere 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 aneeded 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 influencebehavior.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 companymay be
faced with a directive to act in a more environmentally friendly manner. Recognizing that the
ruling government needs financing for an upcoming electioncampaign (
the company controls an important resource
), the company may decide to
ignore
the directive.

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 companymay be
faced with a directive to act in a more environmentally friendly manner. Recognizing that the
ruling government needs financing for an upcoming electioncampaign (
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 analyzeits causes and consequences. In this chapter we will
look at some of the main approachesthat social network analysis has developed to study
power, and the closely relatedconcept of centrality. Network thinking has contributed a
number of important insights about social power.Perhaps most importantly, the network
approach emphasizes that power is inherentlyrelational. An individual does not have power in
the abstract, they have power becausethey can dominate others -- ego's power is alter's
dependence. Because power is aconsequence 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 highdensity 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
distributionacross actors are related, but are not the same thing. Two systems can have the
sameamount of power, but it can be equally distributed in one and unequally distributed
inanother. Power in social networks may be viewed either as a micro property (i.e. itdescribes
relations between actors) or as a macro property (i.e. one that describes theentire population);
as with other key sociological concepts, the macro and micro areclosely 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 facefewer constraints, and have more opportunities than others are in favorable
structural
positions. Having a favored position means that an actor may extract better bargains
inexchanges, have greater influence, and that the actor will be a focus for deference
andattention 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 difficultquestions. But, network analysis has made
important contributions in providing precisedefinitions 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 tofirst think about some very simple systems. Consider the three simple graphs of
networksin figures 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3, which are called the "star," "line," and
"circle."Figure 10.1. "Star" 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 resourceexchange or
resource sharing. But, exactly why is it that actor A has a "better" positionthan all of the
others in the star network? What about the position of A in the linenetwork? Is being at the
end of the line an advantage or a disadvantage? Are all of theactors in the circle network
really in exactly the same structural position?We need to think about why structural location
can be advantageous or disadvantageousto actors. Let's focus our attention on why actor A is
so obviously at an advantage in thestar 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 placesto go to get it;
however, if D elects to not exchange with A, then D will not be able toexchange at all. The
more ties an actor has then, the more power they (may) have. In thestar network, Actor A has
degree six, all other actors have degree one. This logicunderlies 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 samenumber of alternative trading partners (or degree), so all positions are
equally advantagedor 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 centralto the structure, in the sense of having higher degree or more
connections, tend to havefavored positions, and hence more power.