Eric A. Schutz - Markets and Power: The 21st Century Command Economy

To Cathy, Alex, and Megan, and to Mom, Dad, and Adrienne, with love

List of Tables and Figures

Economics and Power

Where the concept of power has been an important element of inquiry, it has brought with it much controversy. Who has it and who does not? What are its bases? What are its possibilitieswhat does having it permit, what does lacking it prohibit? Of what exactly is it constitutedhow does one know when one has it or lacks it? Is it "good" or "bad"? These are questions over which great argument has long coursed in all the social sciences, not to mention in philosophy and literature, but the mainstream of modern economics is uniquely silent on such issues. How can a social science not only avoid engaging in questions about social power but eschew its use as a theoretical construction altogether? Isn't power an essential element of all human relationships?

The term power carries three distinct but closely related meanings. We refer, first, to an individual's (or a group's) power to do some particular thing or to achieve desired ends in general, the capacity to act decisively in the world. This sort of power is closest in meaning to the physical power of the natural sciences, the ability to exert energy to accomplish things, and in humans may be directly related, of course, to a person's physical or intellectual strength. Second, in a more explicitly social sense of the term, we refer to power as the ability to influence other people, to get them to act or think in ways they would not otherwise. Power as the capacity to affect other people is indeed the very essence of social relations: Only to the extent that individuals affect each other can there even be "social relations" among them. Finally, we refer to power over people, in which an individual or group not only influences others but does so in a dominating way, getting them to do things that they do not wish to do or that are not in their own interest to do. This sort of power is, of course, strongly negative in connotation, and is the essence of power as a social problem as well as a philosophical and moral concern.

I will refer to these three sorts of power as, respectively, the power of accomplishment, influence or the power to influence, and dominating power. Perhaps not surprisingly, the last of these, the most problematic, will be the main focus of this book. One might ask, if dominating power is the main issue, why not then simply refer to it as "domination," an obviously much more precise term that immediately makes clear my intentionswhy not just title my book Markets and Domination! I prefer to use the much broader term "power" because while domination is distinct in meaning from the other two kinds of power, it needs emphasizing that it is so closely tied to them that the three kinds of power are, in an essential way, all of a piece, they are essentially one. Having power of accomplishment generally implies having power to influence othersand conversely, of course, being able to influence people not only requires that one be able to accomplish specific things, it is itself a kind of accomplishment. Similarly, the power to influence people generally implies also the power to dominate them to one degree or another and conversely, domination not only is a particular form of influence but also requires that one be able to influence people in certain ways. Using the term power inclines one to ask about what specific connections there are among its three forms, connections that, as will become evident in this book, I believe are absolutely essential in an inquiry the ultimate concern of which is domination per se. Alternatively, looking at "power," rather than at "domination," inclines one to consider at the same time the particular powers people may have that enable them to dominate others, as well as at the particular powers that those who are dominated lack.

How can any modern social science almost totally avoid both discussion about and analytic use of the concept of power? First, let me clarify that not all economists avoid considering power in their workmerely most of those working in the mainstream of the field.' In the writings of those representing the now dominant, politically conservative schools of economic thought neoclassicals, monetarists, and new classicalsthe concept of power virtually never appears, not even in analyses in which the presence of power is pretty obvious, for example, that of market monopoly. Those representing the most conservative of all schools of economic thought, the Austrians, do discuss matters of power, but virtually always restrict their discussion to issues of the dominating power of government. For them, significant power relationships among private individuals and organizations in the market economy simply do not exist.