Mark Haugaard

National University of Ireland, Galway, School of Political Science and Sociology, Faculty Member

Followers

210

Following

Co-authors

Mentions

3,575

Public Views

Mark Haugaard is Professor of Political Science and Sociology at the National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. He is the founder editor of the Journal of Political Power, published by Routledge, and the book series, Social and Political Power, with Manchester University Press. He has published extensively upon power, and his most recent publication is The Four Dimensions of Power: understanding domination, empowerment and democracy, 2020, Manchester University Press.

less

Naim Kapucu

University of Central Florida

David Seamon

Kansas State University

Geoffrey Pleyers

UCLouvain (University of Louvain)

Armando Marques-Guedes

UNL - New University of Lisbon

Noe Cornago

University of the Basque Country, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

Yannis Hamilakis

Brown University

Timothy Lubin

Washington and Lee University

Linus Hagström

Swedish Defence University

Mauro Grondona

University of Genova

Víctor Muñoz Gómez

Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

InterestsView All (10)

Uploads

Papers by Mark Haugaard

Power

Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks, Jun 24, 2016

The four dimensions of power: conflict and democracy

Routledge eBooks, Sep 29, 2021

ABSTRACT This article theorizes the four dimensions of power, which builds upon the work of Dahl,... more ABSTRACT This article theorizes the four dimensions of power, which builds upon the work of Dahl, Lukes, Foucault, Bourdieu, and Giddens, among others. The four dimensions correspond to four aspects of social interaction. The first dimension refers to the agency-energy aspect of interaction. The second concerns the structural components. The third concerns the epistemic element of interaction. The fourth relates to the social ontological elements of social subjects. The theory has implications for both normative and empirical research. Normatively the theory provides a pragmatist power-oriented way of building democratic theory. Empirically the theory provides a power-oriented conceptual map of everyday interaction.

The four dimensions of power

Kleptocracy, authoritarianism and democracy as ideal types of political power

Journal of political power, Mar 31, 2023

This article explores kleptocracy, authoritarianism and democracy as sociological ideal types of ... more This article explores kleptocracy, authoritarianism and democracy as sociological ideal types of the exercise of political power. Kleptocracy is theorized as an ideal type which uses coercion as its primary power resource, while both authoritarianism and democracy are based upon authority, defined as a belief in legitimacy. Where authoritarianism and democracy differ is how a belief in legitimacy is obtained. These differences and similarities are explored with reference to the four dimensions of political power, which consist of agency, structure, social epistemology and social ontology.

Power and Legitimacy

The vocabulary of power: a review of Power and international relations: a conceptual approach, written by David A. Baldwin

Journal of political power, May 4, 2017

Power and International Relations opens with an account of Robert Dahl's theory of power, followe... more Power and International Relations opens with an account of Robert Dahl's theory of power, followed by an analysis of the implications of this perspective for international relations (IR). The latter constitutes a critique of IR theory, which is criticised for an imprecise usage of power-related terminology. The first two chapters are a clarification of Dahl's position, relative to his various critics, including Bachrach and Baratz, Lukes and Clegg. In chapter three, Baldwin explains the full implications of Dahl's approach to power for social science in general. Chapter four is a general discussion of international relations, chapter five is an engagement with IR realism, six concerns IR constructivism, seven on IR neoliberalism and chapter eight is the conclusion. Baldwin is an outstanding scholar with an in-depth knowledge of the power debates and the IR literature. His erudition and demand for precision structures the book. Unlike many commentators who are quick to jump to conclusions, or who caricature the work of others, Baldwin is meticulous, carefully parsing what others actually write, rather than what is attributed to them. Baldwin makes a convincing case that Dahl's work on power is substantially more nuanced than is generally acknowledged and that it provides excellent conceptual tools for making sense of the most complex theoretical problems in IR. While I think highly of this book, I will conclude by drawing attention to aspects of domination that Dahl's characterisation of power occludes. Baldwin's immediate focus of criticism is (what he terms) the conventional wisdom (Baldwin 2016, p. 3, 20) that Dahl had a primitive one-dimensional view of power, which was superseded by more nuanced and sophisticated second-(Bachrach and Baratz 1962) and third-dimensional perspectives (Lukes 1974). Central to Baldwin's argument is a careful reading of Dahl's 1957 article 'The concept of power' , which contains Dahl's much quoted definition of power: ' A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do'. (Dahl 1957, pp. 202-203). As argued by Baldwin, there are three points about this definition that readers either generally overlook, or don't take sufficiently seriously, which, in combination, lead to a mischaracterisation of Dahl's position. First, this is not really a definition in a strong sense that it is often read. Rather, it is a concept that reflects Dahl's 'desire to capture the "central intuitively understood meaning" of power, the "primitive notion that seems to lie behind all" power concepts (e.g. influence, control, authority, etc.)'. (Baldwin 2016, pp. 13-14; internal quotes from Dahl 1957). Second, Dahl states that this concept 'will not be "easy to apply in concrete research problems: and therefore, [that] operational equivalents of the formal definition, designed to meet the needs of a particular research problem, are likely to diverge from another in important ways"' (Baldwin 2016, pp. 13-14-italics added by Baldwin). Third, there is a distinction between a conception of power, which is broad and general, and an operational definition that

Mark Haugaard

Uploads

Papers by Mark Haugaard

Log In

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.