Power in International Politics. By Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, International Organization, 59(1), 2005: 39-75.

Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall’s article on the conceptualisation of power in international politics is an enlightening example of how to critique a central conceptualisation within a discipline. I am saying enlightening because Barnett and Duvall took ‘power’ and criticised it application by investigators of international political phenomenon and theoreticians operating in the discipline. Not only do they criticise the utilisation of power, they also develop their own typology or taxonomy of power in reaction to the restrictive use of the concept. In my opinion it is unsatisfactory for Barnett and Duvall that there exists only one conceptualisation of power in international politics. They have it against the notion that power is conceptualised only as the ability of ‘an actor controlling another to do what that other would not otherwise do’ (p. 39). For them such a conceptualisation leads to theoretical tunnel vision, and in my opinion, a limitation on creative innovation in the study of international politics and phenomenon related to the concept of power. In other words, Barnett and Duvall’s study and critique of the concept ‘power’ can open new avenues of creativity in policy process that affect not only the global environment, but also transnational phenomenon like wildlife crime. Barnett and Duvall put their argument forward in a clear and concise manner, give other scholars suggestions on how to work with multiple conceptions of power and ‘…demonstrate how a consideration of power’s polymorphous character will enhance and deepen theoretic understanding of international politics’ (Barnett and Duvall 2005: 40).

What is also a valuable contribution of the article is that Barnett and Duvall argue very convincingly that there is not only one legitimate way of conceptualising power, but that alternative and legitimate conceptualisations and typologies are possible (pp. 45-57). For them there are four types of power: structural power, institutional power, productive power and compulsory power (p. 48). It would be easy to dismiss their taxonomy of power on the basis that there is only one legitimate way of viewing power from a certain paradigmatic perspective like positivism with its emphasis on a single reality that can be objectively observed by researchers (Lincoln et al., 2011; Meissner, 2013). In other words, from a positivist perspective a single conceptualisation of power is not only desirable but also the (only) means to arrive at conclusions of how power operates in a political system. This can have significant implications not only for the scientific investigation of power but also for policy formulation. For instance, should policy makers confronted by a challenge be advised from a positivist perspective only, that power is about the control one actor has over another to change the behaviour of the controlled actor, it could focus their attention to the ways and means of changing behaviour. This would entail the application of tangible resources, like military or economic resources, to bring about an amelioration of the problem. With an eclectic conceptualisation of power, policy makers could be advised to look at the problem from a number of angles and how to apply different resources of power and not just one type of power resource to the problem. In this regard, Barnett and Duvall (2005: 41) note that ‘The failure to develop alternative conceptualizations of power limits the ability of international relations scholars to understand how global outcomes are produced and how actors are differentially enabled and constrained to determine their fates’. Since international relations scholars can also act in an advisory role to policy makers, their limited view of power could translate into a specific understanding of the resources needed to address problems and create opportunities and not necessarily an optimal understanding of the situation. For instance, it not only necessary to look at the resources needed to exercise power over others, ‘…one also needs to consider the enduring structures and processes of global life that enable and constrain the ability of actors to shape their fates and futures’ (p. 41).

What I also like about Barnett and Duvall’s article is that they link governance with power and devote an entire section of the article on a discussion on global governance to demonstrate the value of their power typology and the different links between the types of power. For Barnett and Duvall (2005), there is a link between the concept ‘governance’ and the concept ‘power’. They note that ‘…governance is part of a family of concepts, including control, guidance, and steering, which are also elements of the family of “power” concepts’. This argument brings the two concepts closer to each other and it is not necessary to go about in a neat and tidy fashion to indicate where governance begins and power ends, so to speak. Barnett and Duvall (2005) state that it is not enough to focus on institutional power only, because doing so does not tell the whole story. In this regard, we need to tell policy makers the whole story, or we need to come (very) close to telling the whole story. The other types of power, like productive power, can assist us in coming close to telling the whole story. Barnett and Duvall (2005: 60) state that: ‘The concept of productive power as applied to global governance highlights how the discourses and institutions of international relations contingently produce particular kinds of actors with associated social powers, self-understandings, and performative practices’. To get close to the full story, Barnett and Duvall’s typology of power can be utilised as a framework for analysis to ascertain which types of power are predominant in a policy setting and which need bolstering if they are not applied efficiently or are completely absent. What could also help in this regard is that Barnett and Duvall’s argument that the different types of power are neatly separated and that they overlap on a number of fronts (p. 55

To end, the article is useful in highlighting a different mode of thinking about the concept power and how it manifests in society. Thinking about power along different lines and dimensions can help in broadening our understandings of social relations and the capabilities of actors in those relations. In other words, Barnett and Duvall’s (2005) research is not only a useful model, but also a useful way of legitimising the role of alternative views in the policy process. From this we ask a number of questions pertaining to a policy issue. Let us take the issue of wildlife crimes as an example. The first question we could as a way to indicate the utility of Barnett and Duvall’s (2005) typology of power is: assuming that criminals use the four sources of power, how do they use them and to what extent are they using them interchangeably? We could also ask, to counteract wildlife crime, which of the power capabilities do authorities use in their ‘fight’ against wildlife crime? As a follow-up to the last question, and assuming that authorities are not using all four power capabilities because they think of power only as influencing others, which power capabilities do they not use and how can scientists attempt to change their mindset regarding the use of all four power capabilities?   References

Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. 2005. Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(1): 39-75. Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A. and Guba, E.G. 2011. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meissner, R. 2014. A critical analysis of research paradigms in a subset of marine and maritime scholarly thought. In Funke, N., Claassen, M., Meissner, R. and Nortje, K. (eds.), Reflections on the state of research and technology in South Africa’s marine and maritime sectors. Pretoria: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.