Power is a ubiquitous term in political science, and yet the discipline lacks a metric of power that can be applied to both formal and informal political contexts. Building on past work on power and power resources, this paper develops a method to estimate the power of different actors over an organization. It uses this method to analyze the power of the public, private, and civil sectors within an original dataset of 245 cases of product and corporate environmental evaluations, such as ENERGY STAR, LEED Certification, and Newsweek’s Greenest Company Rankings. These initiatives have received limited attention from the political science literature, but they have become an increasingly prominent political phenomenon. The paper finds that the private and civil sectors likely have more power over these information-based governance initiatives than the public sector. It also reveals their lack of transparency and hybrid accountability relationships, which complicate their legitimacy and effectiveness.
AnziaSarah F.2011. “Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups.” Journal of Politics73 (02): 412–27.
4.
BarnettMichael N.FinnemoreMartha. 1999. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International Organization53 (04): 699–732.
5.
BaumgartnerFrank R.BerryJeffrey M.HojnackiMarieLeechBeth L.KimballDavid C.2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BevirMark. 2009. Key Concepts in Governance. Los Angeles: SAGE.
CashoreBenjaminAuldGraemeNewsomDeanna. 2004. Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven: Yale University Press.
12.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science10 (1): 103–26.
13.
CobbMichael D.KuklinskiJames H.1997. “Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion.” American Journal of Political Science41 (1): 88–121.
14.
CollinsPaul M.Jr.2007. “Lobbyists before the U.S. Supreme Court: Investigating the Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs.” Political Research Quarterly60 (1): 55–70.
15.
ConversePhilip E.1985. “Power and the Monopoly of Information.” American Political Science Review79 (1): 1–9.
16.
CookFay L.JacobsLawrence R.KimDukhong. 2010. “Trusting What You Know: Information, Knowledge, and Confidence in Social Security.” Journal of Politics72 (2): 397–412.
17.
CullenMichael J.1975. The Statistical Movement in Early Victorian Britain: The Foundations of Empirical Social Research. Hassocks: Harvester Press.
18.
CutlerA. ClaireHauflerVirginiaPorterTerry. 1999. Private Authority and International Affairs. Albany: State University of New York Press.
19.
DahlRobert A.1957. “The Concept of Power.” Behavioral Science2 (3): 201–15.
DürAndreas. 2008. “Measuring Interest Group Influence in the EU: A Note on Methodology.” European Union Politics9 (4): 559–76.
22.
EastonDavid. 1971. The Political System; an Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf.
23.
EisenstadtS. N.RonigerLouis. 1980. “Patron–Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchange.” Comparative Studies in Society and History22 (1): 42–77.
24.
EliasSteven. 2008. “Fifty Years of Influence in the Workplace: The Evolution of the French and Raven Power Taxonomy.” Journal of Management History14 (3): 267–83.
25.
EpsteinDavidO’HalloranSharyn. 1994. “Administrative Procedures, Information, and Agency Discretion.” American Journal of Political Science38 (3): 697–722.
26.
EtzioniAmitai. 1975. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: Free Press.
27.
FelsenthalDan S.MachoverMoshé. 2011. “Power Indices.” In Encyclopedia of Power, edited by DowdingKeith, 510-518. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
28.
FowlerLinda L.ShaikoRonald G.1987. “The Grass Roots Connection: Environmental Activists and Senate Roll Calls.” American Journal of Political Science31 (3): 484–510.
29.
FrenchJohnRavenBertram. 1959. “The Bases of Social Power.” In Studies in Social Power, edited by CartwrightDorwin, 150–67. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
FungArchonGrahamMaryWeilDavid. 2007. Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
GoodinRobert E.KlingemannHans-Dieter1998. A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
GooginsBradley K.RochlinSteven A.2000. “Creating the Partnership Society: Understanding the Rhetoric and Reality of Cross-Sectoral Partnerships.” Business and Society Review105 (1): 127–44.
33.
GrigsbyEllen. 2008. Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
34.
GrindleMerilee S.1977. “Power, Expertise and the ‘Tenico’: Suggestions from a Mexican Case Study.” Journal of Politics39 (2): 399–426.
35.
GunasekaranA.PatelC.McGaugheyRonald E.2004. “A Framework for Supply Chain Performance Measurement.” International Journal of Production Economics87 (3): 333–47.
KlüverHeike. 2009. “Measuring Interest Group Influence Using Quantitative Text Analysis.” European Union Politics10 (4): 535–49.
48.
KoppellJonathan G. S.2005. “Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of ‘Multiple Accountabilities Disorder.’”Public Administration Review65 (1): 94–108.
49.
KraftMichael E.StephanMarkAbelTroy D.2011. Coming Clean: Information Disclosure and Environmental Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
LasswellHarold D.KaplanAbraham. 1950. Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press.
51.
LauRichard R.SmithRichard A.FiskeSusan T.1991. “Political Beliefs, Policy Interpretations, and Political Persuasion.” Journal of Politics53 (3): 644–75.
52.
LohmannSusanne. 1998. “An Information Rationale for the Power of Special Interests.” American Political Science Review92 (4): 809–27.
53.
LupiaArthur. 1992. “Busy Voters, Agenda Control, and the Power of Information.” American Political Science Review86:390–403.
ReedWilliam. 2003. “Information, Power, and War.” American Political Science Review97 (4): 633–41.
66.
Rodriguez GarciaJ. M.2001. “Scientia Potestas Est—Knowledge Is Power: Francis Bacon to Michel Foucault.” Neohelicon28 (1): 109–21.
67.
RomzekBarbara S.DubnickMelvin J.1998. “Accountability.” In International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration. Vol. 1, edited by ShafritzJay, 6-11. Boulder: Westview Press.
68.
RomzekBarbara S.IngrahamPatricia Wallace. 2000. “Cross Pressures of Accountability: Initiative, Command, and Failure in the Ron Brown Plane Crash.” Public Administration Review60 (3): 240–53.
69.
RonigerLuis. 1994. “The Comparative Study of Clientelism and the Changing Nature of Civil Society in the Contemporary World.” In Democracy, Clientelism, and Civil Society, edited by RonigerLuisGüneş-AyataAyes, 1-18. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
70.
RudderCatherine E.2008. “Private Governance as Public Policy: A Paradigmatic Shift.” Journal of Politics70 (4): 899–913.
71.
SmithT. V.1951. “Power: Its Ubiquity and Legitimacy.” American Political Science Review45 (3): 693–702.
72.
StenmarkDick. 2001. “The Relationship between Information and Knowledge.” Proceedings of IRIS, 24:11–14.
73.
TriadafilopoulosTriadafilos. 1999. “Politics, Speech, and the Art of Persuasion: Toward an Aristotelian Conception of the Public Sphere.” Journal of Politics61 (3): 741–57.
74.
UphoffNorman. 1989. “Distinguishing Power, Authority & Legitimacy: Taking Max Weber at His Word by Using Resources-Exchange Analysis.” Polity22 (2): 295–322.
WeberMax. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press.
78.
WiserJames L.1977. “Reason and the Role of Persuasion.” Journal of Politics39 (2): 427–45.
79.
WrongDennis H.1979. Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell.
80.
YackeeSusan W.2006. “Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16 (1): 103–24.
81.
YoungOran R.2013. On Environmental Governance: Sustainability, Efficiency, and Equity. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
