Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Power in International Politics

  • Michael Barnett (a1) and Raymond Duvall (a2)

The concept of power is central to international relations. Yet disciplinary discussions tend to privilege only one, albeit important, form: an actor controlling another to do what that other would not otherwise do. By showing conceptual favoritism, the discipline not only overlooks the different forms of power in international politics, but also fails to develop sophisticated understandings of how global outcomes are produced and how actors are differentially enabled and constrained to determine their fates. We argue that scholars of international relations should employ multiple conceptions of power and develop a conceptual framework that encourages rigorous attention to power in its different forms. We first begin by producing a taxonomy of power. Power is the production, in and through social relations, of effects that shape the capacities of actors to determine their circumstances and fate. This general concept entails two crucial, analytical dimensions: the kinds of social relations through which power works (in relations of interaction or in social relations of constitution); and the specificity of social relations through which effects are produced (specific/direct or diffuse/indirect). These distinctions generate our taxonomy and four concepts of power: compulsory, institutional, structural, and productive. We then illustrate how attention to the multiple forms of power matters for the analysis of global governance and American empire. We conclude by urging scholars to beware of the idea that the multiple concepts are competing, and instead to see connections between them in order to generate more robust understandings of how power works in international politics.This article was first presented at a conference, “Who Governs in Global Governance?” at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We thank the participants at the conference, including Emanuel Adler, Alex Wendt, Neta Crawford, Kathryn Sikkink, Helen Kinsella, Martha Finnemore, Jutta Weldes, Jon Pevehouse, Andrew Hurrell, John Ruggie, and especially Duncan Snidal, Robert Keohane, and Charles Kupchan. Other versions were presented at the University of Minnesota and the International Studies Association meetings in Budapest, Hungary in June, 2003. We also want to thank Kurt Burch, Thomas Diez, Tom Donahue, William Duvall, Ayten Gundogdu, Stefano Guzzini, Colin Kahl, Amit Ron, Latha Varadarajan, Michael Williams, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the editors of the journal, and two anonymous reviewers. We also acknowledge the bibliographic assistance of Emilie Hafner-Burton and Jonathan Havercroft.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Power in International Politics
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Power in International Politics
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Power in International Politics
      Available formats
Hide All
Abbott, Kenneth, and Duncan Snidal. 1998. Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1):332.

Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. 1962. Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review 56 (4):94752.

Bachrach, Peter, and Morton Baratz. 1963. Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytic Framework. American Political Science Review 57 (3):63242.

Baldwin, David. 1980. Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis. International Organization 34 (4):471506.

Benton, Ted. 1981. Objective Interests and the Sociology of Power. Sociology 15 (2):16184.

Brass, Paul. 2000. Foucault Steals Political Science. Annual Review of Political Science 3:30530.

Caporaso, James. 1978. Dependence, Dependency, and Power in the Global System: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis. International Organization 32 (1):1343.

Carpenter, R. Charli. 2003. ‘Women and Children First’: Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans, 1991–95. International Organization 57 (4):66194.

Checkel, Jeffrey. 2001. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization 55 (3):55388.

Clark, Anne Marie, E. Friedman, and Kathryn Hochstetler. 1998. The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society: A Comparison of NGO Participation in UN World Conferences on the Environment, Human Rights, and Women. World Politics 51 (1):135.

Cox, Robert. 1992. Multilateralism and World Order. Review of International Studies 18 (2):16180.

Dahl, Robert. 1957. The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science 2 (3):20115.

Digeser, Peter. 1992. The Fourth Face of Power. Journal of Politics 54 (4):9771007.

Emerson, Richard. 1962. Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review 27 (1):3141.

Finnemore, Martha. 1996. Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology's Institutionalism. International Organization 50 (2):32547.

Gallie, W. B. 1956. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56:16798.

Garrett, Geoffrey, and George Tsebelis. 1999. Why Resist the Temptation to Apply Power Indices to the European Union? Journal of Theoretical Politics 11 (3):291308.

Gill, Stephen, and David Law. 1989. Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital. International Studies Quarterly 33 (4):47599.

Glassman, Jim. 1999. State Power Beyond the ‘Territorial Trap’: The Internationalization of the State. Political Geography 18 (6):66996.

Goldstein, Judith. 1989. The Impact of Ideas on Trade Policy: The Origins of U.S. Agricultural and Manufacturing Policies. International Organization 43 (1):3171.

Gowan, Peter. 2003. U.S. Hegemony Today. Monthly Review 55 (3):3050.

Guzzini, Stefano. 1993. Structural Power: The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis. International Organization 47 (3):44378.

Harrell-Bond, Barbara. 2002. Can Humanitarian Work with Refugees Be Humane? Human Rights Quarterly 24 (1):5185.

Hay, Colin. 1997. Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power. Politics 17 (1):4552.

Hurrell, Andrew, and Ngaire Woods. 1993. Globalization and Inequality. Millennium 24 (3):44770.

Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. American Power and the Empire of Capitalist Democracy. Review of International Studies 27 (5):191212.

Ikenberry, G. John. 2002. America's Imperial Ambition. Foreign Affairs 81 (September/October):4460.

Ikenberry, G. John, and Charles A. Kupchan. 1990. Socialization and Hegemonic Power. International Organization 44 (3):283315.

Joachim, Jutta. 2003. Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and Women's Rights. International Studies Quarterly 47 (2):24774.

Johnstone, Ian. 2003. Security Council Deliberations: The Power of the Better Argument. European Journal of International Law 14 (3):43780.

Jupille, Joseph, James Caporaso, and Jeffrey Checkel. 2003. Integrating Institutions: Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 36 (1–2):740.

Keohane, Robert, and Lisa Martin. 1995. The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security 20 (1):3951.

Krasner, Stephen. 1991. Global Communications and National Power: Life on the Pareto Frontier. World Politics 43 (3):33666.

Litwak, Robert. 2002. The New Calculus of Pre-emption. Survival 44 (4):5380.

Mallaby, Sebastian. 2002. The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire. Foreign Affairs 81 (2):27.

Mansfield, Edward. 1993. Concentration, Polarity, and the Distribution of Power. International Studies Quarterly 37 (1):10528.

Mehta, Pratap Bhanu. 2003. Empire and Moral Identity. Ethics and International Affairs 17 (2):4962.

Moravcsik, Andrew. 1997. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization 51 (4):51354.

Neumann, Iver, and Jennifer Welsh. 1991. The Other in European Self-Definition: An Addendum to the Literature on International Society. Review of International Studies 17 (4):32748.

Nye, Joseph. 2003. U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq. Foreign Affairs 82 (4):6073.

Pierson, Paul. 2000. The Limits of Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and Change. Governance 13 (4):47599.

Price, Richard. 1998. Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization 52 (3):61344.

Ray, James Lee, and J. David Singer. 1973. Measuring the Concentration of Power in the International System. Sociological Methods & Research 1 (4):40337.

Risse, Thomas. 2001. Let's Argue: Communicative Action in International Relations. International Organization 54 (1):140.

Shaw, Martin. 2002. Post-Imperial and Quasi-Imperial: State and Empire in the Global Era. Millennium 31 (2):32736.

Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 1995. International Law in a World of Liberal States. European Journal of International Law 6 (4):50338.

Wendt, Alexander. 1998. On Constitution and Causation in International Relations. Review of International Studies 24 (special issue):10118.

Williams, Michael. 1996. Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration. International Organization 50 (2):21336.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Organization
  • ISSN: 0020-8183
  • EISSN: 1531-5088
  • URL: /core/journals/international-organization
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 348
Total number of PDF views: 4254 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 4213 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.