1. Functionalist Theory
Parsons – the ‘variable sum of power’
Parson’s view of power was developed from his general theory of the nature of
society. Value consensus is essential for the survival of social systems. From
shared values come the collective goals of members of society, e.g if
materialism is a major value of Western industrial society, collective goals such
as economic expansion and higher living standards can be seen to stem from this
value. Western societies are able to realise these goals which indicated
increasing power in society.
Parsons view of differentials within society derives from his general theory. As
goals are shared by all members, power will generally be used to further
collective goals. Both sides of the power relationship will benefit, e.g politicians
in Western societies promote policies for economic growth which will raise the
living standards as a whole. The exercise of power usually means that everyone
wins, forming the basis for the cooperation and reciprocity that Parsons
considered essential for society.
Parsons regarded power differentials as necessary for effective pursuit of
collective goals. If members of society put their efforts and resources
together, they are more likely to realise their shared goals than being
individualistic. This cooperation requires organisation and direction which
requires positions of rule. Some therefore grant power directly to others. This
power is authoritative. It is regarded as legitimate, since it is seen to further
collective goals. This means some are granted authority for the benefit of all.
Parsons analysis of political power provides a typical illustration of his views on
the nature of power. Money is deposited into a bank = Power is deposited in
political leaders; the electorate can withdraw its grant of power at the next
election. Power resides ultimately with members of society as a whole. Granting
of power generates benefit for electorate as they are used to further
collective goals. With this, power in society can increase.
Criticisms
Many argue Parsons’ view of the nature and application of power in society are
naive, suggesting he has done little more than translate into sociological jargon
and rationalisations promoted by the power-holders to justify their use of
power. Parsons fails to appreciate that power is frequently used to further
sectional interests rather than benefiting society as a whole.

2. The Pluralist theory of power
1. Classical pluralism
The classical pluralist position argues:
Power is diffuse rather than concentrated.
In society a large number of groups represent all the significant and
different interests of the population.
Groups compete with each other for influence over government.
Competition follows the 'rules of the game'.
All groups accept the legitimacy of the decision making process and of its
outcome.
Competition between groups ensures that no one group dominates.
The government is a neutral arbiter between interests.
The logic of this model leads to a decision-taking methodology - Lukes' first
dimension of power. It means that:
Inputs into the decision making process and the outputs are studied.
Decisions are seen as being rationally taken.
Governments consider alternatives and adopt policies that meet national
interests.
Dahl's approach clearly illustrates the pluralist approach. In his study of New
Haven in Connecticut, Who Governs (1961), he studied three major issues, and
concluded that no group dominated New Haven politics. The study reflected the
pluralists' preference for the study of specific issues and concrete decisions.
This conclusion is echoed by Polsby (1963), who argued that sociologists should
study specific issues in order to determine who gets their own way.
This classical pluralist position is no longer regarded as an accurate description
of the distribution of power in contemporary liberal democracies. Increasingly,
theorists are adopting what is called the 'elite pluralist’ position.
2. Elite pluralism
Pluralism has changed partly as a response to theoretical criticism, and partly
because it is clear that liberal democracies don't correspond very well with the
pluralists' rather idealistic view of their operation.

3. The development of the elite pluralist position has emerged in Dahl's, Dilemmas
of Pluralist Democracy (1982). The emphasis remains upon the existence of a
number of interest groups, which compete with each other for scarce
resources. However, it differs from classical pluralism in two main ways:
1. There is recognition that not all individuals are necessarily represented by
the interest group system. Among the under-represented are black people, the
working class, consumers, women, the unemployed and the old. (Note that they
are all groups with little economic power.)
In this view, under-representation occurs because people do not wish to be
represented. Additionally, the government protects the interests of the under-
represented, because although they might not have any economic or political
resources, they do have a vote. So the representative electoral system acts as a
check on the unrepresentative aspects of the interest group system.
2. It is acknowledged that groups are less open and responsive to their
members than classical pluralists assumed, because all organisations tend to be
hierarchical. As a result, it is accepted that some groups (and individuals) have
more access to decision-making than others. Generally, it is argued that
economic interest groups have more access than ideological (cause) groups.
The elite pluralist response to this situation is to contend that the policy-
making process is made up of a large number of policy communities. In each
policy area there will be a distinct set of interests to be represented. The
interest groups, quangos and civil servants involved in the policy area will form
an actual or potential policy community. The very existence of such diversity,
within a policy community, with no segment of it with a claim to a privileged
position, preserves pluralism and prevents the domination of government by any
particular interest.
This version of pluralism presents us with innovation without change - the
essential elements remain the same. Groups are still seen as competing with
each other for scarce resources, with no one group dominant, and with the
government retaining an independent and neutral stance. The main divergence
with classical pluralism is over the process by which power is exercised and
decisions taken. For the elite pluralist, fewer groups are involved in the process
of consultation and indeed this process may have certain elitist or corporatist
elements.

4. Criticisms
A clear problem with the Pluralist approach is that it is only examining the
public face of decision-making.
A group may also exercise power through its ability to prevent a policy option
being considered - a process often called 'agenda setting'. This preventative
option is the second dimension of power and is frequently called non-decision-
making.
Additionally, a group may exercise ideological hegemony with the dominant
ideology serving the groups interest, although such interests will be presented
and often widely understood as being the national interest. This process is the
third dimension of power (see Lukes).