Political Power as Social Energy: Why Are MDCs More Efficient Than LDCs?

By Werlin, Herbert H. | The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Winter 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Political Power as Social Energy: Why Are MDCs More Efficient Than LDCs?

Werlin, Herbert H., The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies

The author challenges theories of political science that define politics as "a struggle for competitive advantage." Political Elasticity (PE) theory is introduced as a way of seeing political power more in terms of a relationship between leaders and the public - as a form of social energy instead of a resource to be pursued for personal gain. Case studies are presented in this light to show why More Developed Countries (MDCs) tend to be more dynamic than Less Developed Countries (LDCs).

Keywords: Politics defined; Social Energy; Political power manifestations; More Developed Countries; Less Developed Countries; Political Elasticity theory; Solid Waste Management; Tokyo and Lagos; Agricultural Productivity; The Netherlands and Ghana.


On the American Political Science Association Web site, it is recognized that there is more than one definition of politics. Yet the only definition provided, presumably derived from Harold Lasswell's 1936 book, is "who get what, when, and how." This is explained as follows: "Almost always the political process involves competition for scarce resources." However, I regard this unidimensional definition of politics, emphasizing partisanship rather than statesmanship or governance, to be inadequate and counterproductive. Above all, it distorts our understanding of such concepts as democracy, corruption and decentralization of power, and prevents us from linking political science to public administration.

Ask a political scientist what he or she means by "politics." The reaction is likely to be a mixture of irritation and confusion. Introductory political science textbooks frequently use such definitions of politics as "the authoritative allocation of values" and "the pursuit of power" without indicating the relationship between these concepts (Norquist 1998). Yet values cannot simply be imposed (behavior, yes; values, no) and power cannot be pursued within an empty framework. The process of inculcating values requires a strong relationship between leaders and followers. Such a relationship cannot develop unless the struggle for power is carried out within an acceptable framework.

Imagine watching the Olympics and seeing it only as the competitive struggle for victory. How many gold, silver, and bronze medals an individual or nation wins then becomes most important. However, if there is no consensus on every aspect of the competitive process (rules, officiating, equipment, facilities, etc.), the competition is meaningless. How to build consensus to maximize the competitive process is, of course, the responsibility of leadership. This is where we need my suggested overall definition of politics: the relationship of leadership to followership for the purpose of governance, presented in the next section, introducing political elasticity (PE) theory (see Werlin 1998; Werlin 2000).

I believe that behaviorally-oriented political scientists tend to see politics as simply "a struggle for competitive advantage" because political power then is seen as similar to money and, as such, is easier to measure that way. Consequently, they often end up distorting or trivializing political situations and phenomena. Above all, they fail to solve the so-called "mysteries of development" that have been presented in Werlin (1998): (1) why is it that autocratic governments are sometimes more effective (though usually not) in promoting development than their more democratic counterparts?; (2) why is it that More Developed Countries (MDCs) tend to be both more centralized and more decentralized than Less Developed Countries (LDCs)?; (3) why is corruption more devastating for poor countries than rich countries; (4) what explains the capacity of certain countries (such as Singapore) to do "cultural engineering?" and (5) why is it that economic globalization has had a more positive impact on some countries than on others? For this reason, we have to introduce an "elastic" concept of political power, recognizing that we cannot altogether escape the "tautological trap" (seeing what we want to see) in doing so.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Political Power as Social Energy: Why Are MDCs More Efficient Than LDCs?


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?