Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the importance of personal sources of power in politics: comparative perspectives and research agenda

  • Review Article
  • Published:
French Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Political actors derive influence both from their official position and from their own personal standing. However, political science has proven to be better equipped to study formal powers and institutions. The study of informal arrangements, where actors rely on personal connections and authority, is more challenging. This has arguably led to the predominance of an institutional focus in research. We argue for the study of informal sources of power as an equally important area of research. Drawing from historical and contemporary examples, we reintroduce the concepts of auctoritas and potestas to underline the difference between individual and institutional sources of influence. We discuss the various obstacles to measurement and outline attempts proposed to date in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The modern English word of authority, while it is derived from auctoritas, unlike its Roman predecessor also encompasses the right to command, thus making it less distinguishable from potestas or imperium.

  2. We cover AJPS and JOP from January 2015 to January 2017 each, APSR from February 2015 to November 2016 and CPS from January 2015 to February 2017.

  3. Likewise, U.S. Congress maintains ranking on the basis of seniority (Goodwin 1965), however this does not imply that more senior legislators are always more influential on policy-making as other determinants, such the relative strength of party factions, affinity to the executive, electoral performance or prospects, can factor in.

  4. Such as those of an actor who has the ability to influence the outcome but for whatever reason, e.g., because the outcome is already in the preferred direction, neglects to do so.

References

  • Ahlquist, J., and M. Levi. 2011. Leadership: What it means, what it does, and what we want to know about it. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexiadou, D. 2015. Ideologues, partisans, and loyalists: Cabinet ministers and social welfare reform in parliamentary democracies. Comparative Political Studies 48 (8): 1051–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1960. Auctoritas, dignitas, otium. The Classical Quarterly 10 (1): 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baturo, A., and J. Elkink. 2014. Office or officeholder? Regime deinstitutionalization and sources of individual political influence. The Journal of Politics 76 (3): 859–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baturo, A., and J. Elkink. 2016. Dynamics of regime personalization and patron–client networks in Russia, 1999–2014. Post-Soviet Affairs 32 (1): 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baturo, A., and S. Mikhaylov. 2014. Reading the tea Leaves: Medvedev’s presidency through political rhetoric of federal and sub-national actors. Europe-Asia Studies 66 (6): 969–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, K., and M. Laver. 2003. Estimating Irish party policy positions using computer wordscoring: The 2002 election–a research note. Irish Political Studies 18 (1): 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birley, A. 2000. Marcus Aurelius: A biography. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, J. 1987. Political leadership: Towards a general analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunt, P.A., and J.M. Moore. 1969. Res Gestae Divi Augusti: The achievements of the divine augustus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnes, N., and N. Lupu. 2016. What good is a college degree? Education and leader quality reconsidered. Journal of Politics 78 (1): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cienski, J. 2016. Poland’s ‘powerholic’. Politico, available from http://www.politico.eu/article/polands-powerholic-jaroslaw-kaczynski-warsaw-law-and-justice-party-pis/.

  • CNN Politics. 2017. Jeff Sessions’ team takes over Washington, 17 February, http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/17/politics/jeff-sessions-team-takes-over-washington/. Accessed 11 May 2017.

  • Cross, J., and H. Hermansson. 2017. Legislative Amendments and Informal Politics in the European Union: A Text Reuse Approach. European Union Politics (forthcoming).

  • Dewan, T., and F. Squintani. 2016. In defense of factions. American Journal of Political Science 60 (40): 860–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, D., and R. Elgie. 2016. Maximizing the reliability of cross-national measures of presidential power. British Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 731–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck, W. 2003. The age of Augustus. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G. 1983. Quantitative analysis. In Studying the presidency, ed. G. Edwards, and S. Stephen Wayne. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgie, R. 2004. Semi-presidentialism: Concepts, consequences and contesting explanations. Political Studies Review 2 (3): 314–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times. 2016. Poland’s kingmaker, by Henry Foy, 26 February.

  • Fraga, B. 2016. Candidates or districts? Reevaluating the role of race in voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science 60 (1): 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellman, B. 2008. Angler: The Cheney vice presidency. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, G. 1965. The seniority system in congress. American Political Science Review 53 (2): 412–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazareesingh, S. 2012. In the shadow of the general: Modern France and the myth of De Gaulle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, G., and S. Levitsky. 2004. Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 725–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, F. 1953. Community power structure: A study of decision makers. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantorowicz, E. 2016. The king’s two bodies: A study in medieval political theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kerevel, Y. 2015. (Sub)national principals, legislative agents: Patronage and political careers in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies 48 (8): 1020–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krzymowski, M. 2015. Poskramianie Beaty Szydlo [The taming of Beata Szydlo], Newseek Polska, 27 September 2015. Available from www.newsweek.pl/plus/polska/jak-kaczynski-wplywa-na-beate-szydlo-i-andrzeja-dude-,artykuly,371215,1,z.html.

  • Linz, J., and A. Stepan. 1996. Problems of democratic transition and consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. 2005. Power. A radical view. The original text with two major new chapters. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

  • Mahoney, C., and F. Baumgartner. 2015. Partners in advocacy: Lobbyists and government officials in Washington. Journal of Politics 77 (1): 202–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mass, J., and W. Hauser. 1985. The Bakufu in Japanese history. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mommsen, T. 1894. The history of Rome. Vol. I London: Richard Bentley and Son, Publishers in Ordinary to Her Majesty the Queen.

  • Mulcahy, K. 1986. The secretary of State and the national security adviser: Foreign policymaking in the Carter and Reagan administrations. Presidential Studies Quarterly 16: 280–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neustadt, R. 1990. Presidential power and the modern presidents. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 2011. Itogi pervogo desiatiletiya. 1. Printsipat Putina [In Russian, Results of the first decade. 1. Putin’s principate], 25 January, p. 10.

  • New York Times. 2013. Georgia elects new president, but real power will rest with next premier, 28 October, p. A10.

  • Northouse, P. 2009. Leadership: Theory and practice. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, E. 2007. The power of prime ministers: Results of an expert survey. International Political Science Review 28 (1): 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. 1986. An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice 48: 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Péan, Pierre. 1990. L’Homme de l’Ombre. Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepinsky, T. 2016. Colonial migration and the origins of governance: Theory and evidence from Java. Comparative Political Studies 49 (9): 1201–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. 1980. Implications from the disequilibrium of majority rule for the study of institutions. American Political Science Review 74: 432–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. 1991. Prime ministers in parliamentary democracies. West European Politics 14 (2): 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2007. Putin ostaetsya liderom Rossii [In Russian, Putin remains the Russian leader], 17 October, https://rg.ru/2007/10/17/grizlov.html. Accessed 29 April 2017.

  • Sebestyen, V. 2017. Lenin the Dictator. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

  • Skarbek, D. 2016. Covenants without the sword? Comparing prison self-governance globally. American Political Science Review 110 (4): 845–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suetonius. 1914. Lives of Ceasars, Volume I. [c. 121 AD]. Boston: Harvard University Press.

  • Swartz, D. 2007. Recasting power in its third dimension. Theory and Society 36 (1): 103–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Washington Post. 2017. Trump’s hard-line actions have an intellectual godfather: Jeff Sessions, 30 January, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-hard-line-actions-have-an-intellectual-godfather-jeff-sessions/2017/01/30/ac393f66-e4d4-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html. Accessed 11 May 2017.

  • Treisman, D. 2015. Income, democracy, and leader turnover. American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 927–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, D. 2011. Presidential popularity in a hybrid regime: Russia under Yeltsin and Putin. American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 590–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschave, F.-X. 1999. La Françafrique: Le Plus Long Scandale de la République. Paris: Stock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, J. 2007. The Political sources of presidencialismo in Mexico. In Presidentialism and democracy in Latin America, ed. C. Mainwaring, and M. Shugart. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1978. Economy and society. [1918] Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Wirszubski, C. 1950. Libertas as a political idea at Rome during the late republic and early principate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Y., and Y. Yao. 2015. Informal institutions, collective action, and public investment in rural China. American Political Science Review 109 (2): 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, W. 2014. Ruling Russia: Authoritarianism from the revolution to Putin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland

    Alexander Baturo

  2. School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Johan A. Elkink

Authors
  1. Alexander Baturo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johan A. Elkink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Baturo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baturo, A., Elkink, J.A. On the importance of personal sources of power in politics: comparative perspectives and research agenda. Fr Polit 15, 505–525 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-017-0033-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-017-0033-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation