Power & negotiation Flashcards
Power as force
Narrow perspective equating power with force.
- Force not necessarily used
+ denies any other form of power.
Ideological = emphasis on violence
it becomes a justification for violence and a devaluation of non-violent means of causation
Power as possession
Power as resource based (indicators/ sources)
Resource based =
*Material indicators: wealth, military etc.
*immaterial indicators
* aggregate power, distinct from relevant power.
Difficult to observe + analyze:
* NO differentiation between ‘‘will and skill’’ or ‘‘determination and capabilities’’
* static
However, this view overlooks the importance of utilizing resources effectively through will and skill. Size or possession alone does not equate to ability, as noted in structuralists dilemma. Parties cannot predict outcomes solesly based on size, negotiation sucess can be achieved by the small and the weak.
Power as ability
Power is the ability of one party to move another in an intended direction (influence)
- related to payoffs –> results
- focus on social power –> relationships between parties
- focus on net power = applied power
Problems:
If one party prevails, does that mean the other had no power?
what about resistance to power? is that also power?
Power as (purposeful) action
Power is an action by one party intended to produce movement by another
Potential forms:
* pressure (negative -stick)
* inducement (positive- carrot)
*resistance
Useful in conflict management
* parties (including third parties) in conflict try to influence the behaviour of the other side
* derives from the fact that disputing sides need each otehr in finding solutions to their problems.
If power is defined as purposeful action towards producing desired outcomes, then….
- power observed through resourcs does not always produce expected behaviour
- power is context based
(at the nexus of will (interests/resources) and skill (ability to translate the resources into a desired outcome (VUKOVIC)
Power in (pre)negotiation -> leverage (niet in dias)
Power is measured in terms of resources and is influential in prenegotiation. The exclusion of actors,
choice of sites, design of the agenda, choice of mediators, etc. Also negotiation is itself a test of
power: the powerful will enter negotiation with advantages, and further exhibit their power through
success
Strategic power multiple forms
Strategic power comes with multiple forms:
a. Resources
b. Legitimate power: derives from a norm that is accepted by the disputants
c. Information power: ability to transmit and manipulate information
d. Expert power and referent power: status and prestige
e. Coercive power: sticks
f. Reward power: carrots
g. Relational power: connections
Tactical power (at the table)
a. Communication tactics.
b. image tactics
c. momentum tactics.
Excercises of strategic power
- Hard power –> coercive diplomacy
- Soft power –> public diplomacy
- Smart power –> hard + soft power
Hard power –> coersive diplomacy
Coersive diplomacy,
involves attempting to influence another party, be it a state or non-state actor, to alter its behavir through the threat or use fo forcem as well as economic incentives.
encompess
Soft power –> Public diplomacy
Soft power, also known as public diplomacy, is another approach to persuade the opponent to change their behavior by influencing their desires. It involves shaping others’preferences through co-opting rather than coercing them
t. It encompasses resources such as values, image (foreign policies), and culture. The effectiveness of soft power is context dependent and relies on the willingness of the recipients to internalize the messages conveyed
Smart power
Strategic approach combining elements of both hard as soft power.
It involves flexing one’s muscles while also employing the persuasive tactics of soft power. This approach aims to send strong messages that are grounded in values, principles, and culture in order to appeal to a broader audience. By utilizing both hard and soft power, smart power seeks to achieve a comprehensive and effective influence over others
Structuralist dilemma
Raises the question of why actors with asymmetric power engage in negotiations.
Common wisdom: equal power results in more effective negotiation
- due to the ethical norm of
reciprocation.
However, high-power symmetry often leads to DEADLOCKS:
- as each party holds the other in check, resulting in a preservation of the status quo (e.g., Cold War scenario).
On the other hand, low-power symmetry also results in deadlocks
- since neither party possesses the power to compel the other to move, leading to a focus on defending their existing status rather than reaching an agreement.
Ø Perceived asymmetry more productive condition for negotiatio
Key points
power is about perceptions (contextual)
stakes are about perceptions (salience + determination)
succes (outcome) is about perceptions (satisfaction)
Power is contextual, relational and perceptive
Ø Perceived asymmetry more productive condition for negotiation
Strategie= borrow power from third parties
Weaker parties may form coalitions with
other parties, such as the G77, to amplify their influence and gain collective bargaining power. By aligning themselves with international groupings, weaker parties can enhance their visibility and impact
