Systemic Power

Systemic power is a form of power that indirectly and impersonally privileges one group at the expense of another. One group sees its power to attain desirable outcomes increase at the expense of another group's power because of the way policy makers are influenced by the socioeconomic system. By virtue of the societal position of their jobs, policy makers are more dependent on some interests than others. The pressures to keep their jobs, to have successful careers, and to create effective policy make them more attentive to the upper strata of society. These biases are not identical with cultural biases, but are specific to policy makers because of their situational location as policy makers in the social system.

The term systemic power is used to denote the unintentional power relation between groups. The group that benefits does not intentionally act to create or maintain its privileged position. In fact, the argument for systemic power is an argument concerning the behavior of public officials, not the behavior of the groups that comprise the power relation. Accordingly, the term can be used to explain anomalies in some elitist theories of government. Groups might consistently get what they want from institutions, not because they rule by deliberate attempts to affect policy as such, but because their very nature inclines policy makers to depend on them. In this sense, systemic power is a form of power different from agenda setting because there is no conscious action on the part of the empowered group to empower itself (whereas agenda-setting groups consciously try to get their agenda into policy debate).

The question remains as to why this constitutes a power relation between the groups privileged and those disadvantaged by the socioeconomic pressures policy makers are subjected to. There is no direct conflict between these groups and so no direct exercise of power over anybody. The groups are in competition, however, because they are vying for the limited opportunity to achieve their desired outcomes, despite perhaps not being aware they are in competition. This opportunity can be considered outcome power: the power to bring about a result. There is an indirect power relation between these groups because the amount of power that policy makers distribute to one group depends on the amount of power distributed to another group.

Clarence Stone identifies three systemic inequalities that force policy makers to accommodate the upper strata of society at the expense of the lower: economic, associational (or organizational), and social. The upper strata can provide revenue for institutional maintenance, can organize themselves better (by avoiding many collective action problems through their self-directing hierarchies or small memberships) and so are easier to deal with, and policy makers consider the upper strata to be more interesting and fruitful to work with. In many instances, Stone contends, these inequalities can discount the influence of the vote for elected policy makers, and so public accountability. Benefits that might have otherwise gone to the middle [Page 656]or, more acutely, lower strata of society, are redistributed upward because this entails less effort and provides more revenue and a greater social reward for policy makers.

...