“List the sources of power and explain the various indicators based on which power can be measured.” (2010)
Power, in Max Weber’s sense, is the chance of realising one’s will despite resistance. Because it is a relationship and often a potential, it cannot be observed directly. Sociologists therefore ask two separate questions: what gives people power (its sources), and what observable signs show how much of it they have (its indicators).
Sources of power
- Robert Bierstedt (“An Analysis of Social Power”, 1950): numbers, social organisation and resources such as money, property, knowledge and prestige. A majority is powerless until it is organised.
- John Kenneth Galbraith (The Anatomy of Power, 1983): three sources, personality, property and organisation, used through condign (punishment), compensatory (reward) and conditioned (belief) power.
- Amitai Etzioni (A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, 1961): coercive, remunerative and normative power, as in prisons, firms and religious bodies.
- John R. P. French and Bertram Raven (“The Bases of Social Power”, 1959): reward, coercive, legitimate, referent (identification) and expert power.
- Weber: economic power from market situation (class), social honour (status) and organised pursuit of office (party), plus the authority that gives a right to command.
- Michael Mann (The Sources of Social Power, 1986): ideological, economic, military and political networks.
Indicators and methods of measurement
Robert Dahl (“The Concept of Power”, 1957) suggested comparing actors by the base (resources), means (how resources are used), amount (probability of changing another’s behaviour) and scope (range of issues affected). Empirical studies turned these ideas into methods:
| Indicator | Method | What it shows | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Position held | Positional (C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, 1956) | Who occupies command posts in key institutions | Office is not the same as its use |
| Reputation | Reputational (Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure, 1953) | Whom informed people name as powerful | Measures perceptions |
| Decisions won | Decisional (Robert Dahl, Who Governs?, 1961) | Who prevails when issues are contested | Ignores issues never raised |
| Non-decisions | Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz (1962) | Who keeps issues off the agenda | Hard to observe absences |
| Consequences | John Westergaard and Henrietta Resler (Class in a Capitalist Society, 1975) | Who benefits from outcomes; “power is visible only through its consequences” | Benefit may be unintended |
| Shaped preferences | Steven Lukes (Power: A Radical View, 1974) | Whose wants reflect others’ interests | Needs a judgement of “real interests” |
Broader indicators include the concentration of wealth and income, representation of groups in legislatures and bureaucracy, participation in decision-making in households and communities, and control over information.
Indian illustration: indicators can disagree
- In NFHS-6 (2023-24), released in 2026, 89% of married women said they took part in major household decisions, and 89% had a bank account they used.
- Yet only 74 women (13.6%) were elected to the Lok Sabha in 2024. Participation-based indicators suggest rising power; positional ones show persistent exclusion.
- No single measure is enough, so researchers triangulate.
Conclusion
The sources of power are many: numbers, organisation, property, knowledge, legitimacy and belief. Each measure also captures only one face of power. A sound assessment combines positional, decisional and outcome indicators and stays alert to the power that never shows itself in open conflict.