The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: LElumalai Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_P Date:1/4/09
Time:15:20:52 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/re-
vises/9781405132879_4_P.3d

Nigeria’s GDP that would be required to lift

the 70 millions who are absolutely poor to a

condition in which their basic needs were ful-

filled). This is thepoverty gap: the poorer the

country and the larger the number of people in

poverty, the greater is the gap (i.e. the

resourcesthat must be devoted to raise those

in poverty). The poverty gap thus speaks to

the scale and depth of poverty, and what it

would take as a measure of national output

to bring all of the population above the poverty

line. ThePoverty Gap Ratiorefers to the mean

distance below the $1 a day poverty line

expressed as a percentage of the poverty line

(currently 34 per cent for Nigeria). The

Poverty Gap Indexrefers to additional money

the average poor person would have to spend

(in aggregate or as a proportion of total con-

sumption) in order to reach the poverty line.

The poverty gap for India is currently 4 per

cent, for China 1 per cent and for eastern

Europe 0.1 per cent. The Poverty Severity

Indexmeasures the distribution of welfare of

those below the poverty line (i.e. between the

poor and the ultra-poor). mw

power A minimal definition of power would

refer to the ability of one agent to affect the

actions or attitudes of another. Like most con-

cepts that are central to social science, the

meanings, causes and effects of power are con-

tinually being re-assessed. One thing we know

for sure is that it is trite to think of power only

in negative terms. The possibility of having a

conversation with someone, of running a class

or seminar in which people can learn, of play-

ing a football match, depends upon the

deployment of power: of people taking turns

to speak and listen, of students and teachers

doing work as agreed, of players deferring to a

referee. People both exercise power and are on

the receiving end of power at different times

every day, in all realms of life. More important

than the fact that power is exercised is the way

in which power is constructed and deployed.

To what extent is power concentrated in cer-

tain institutions, relationships or agencies?

How visible is it? What are the opportunities

for power relations to be contested or rotated?

Are accountability mechanisms in place, and if

so how well do they work?

The idea that power is fundamentally nega-

tive continues to be a powerful one, even when

it is coupled with an idea of necessary

restraint. Thomas Hobbes (1968 [1651])

argued that all men (sic) acted as egoists, bent

on the satisfaction of their desires through

relentless power plays. Given a world of

scarcity, only the sovereign could prevent

these individualized acts of power from adding

up to an intolerablestate of nature(cf.sov-

ereign power). Contemporary work on

international relations by so-called

Realists presents a similar view of power, in

which all states seek to maximize their self-

interest and are prepared to use violence to

this end. Anarchy is prevented only by the

exercise ofhegemonyby a dominant power.

Some versions ofmarxismcome close to this

argument. Marxists argue that capitalist

statesdeploy their power to guarantee the

accumulationprocess under the rule ofcap-

ital. It is not surprising, then, that many

Realists and Marxists share the view that the

war in Iraq was fundamentally aboutoiland

the protection of America’s self-interest. As

David Harvey puts it inThe new imperialism,

joining Marx to Mackinder, ‘Whoever controls

themiddle eastcontrols the global oil spigot

and whoever controls the global oil spigot can

control the global economy, at least for the

near future’ (2003b, p. 19).

Of course, there is more to Marxism on

power than a perspective on international rela-

tions. Marxist work on power inhuman geog-

raphyfirst made its mark through a critique of

behavioural and pluralist models of power.

These models, developed by political scientists

such as Robert Dahl to look at power coali-

tions in US cities, emphasized the overt and

dispersed nature of power. Power could be

observed when A made an open attempt to

force B to do something that s/he would not

otherwise do. If A succeeded, s/he had power

in this ‘issue area’. Happily, however, or so

Dahl (1963) concluded, B would probably

exercise power over A in another issue area.

Given the nature ofdemocracyin the USA,

power was hard to monopolize.

Radical scholars disagreed. Steven Lukes

(2005) argued that this view of power was

one-dimensional. The work of power was

most often done in smoke-filled rooms and in

the setting of agendas. Lukes referred to this as

two-dimensional power, and he did not stop

there. Lukes further argued, as did many

Marxist geographers (see marxist geog-

raphy), that not only were agendas bent to

serve certainclassinterests (not least through

the state), but also that many people at the

wrong end of power were unable to see their

powerlessness. In part, this is because of what

Marxists call ‘false consciousness’. Ordinary

people cannot see their ‘objective interests’,

because their political antennae have been

deadened by years of watching sport, shopping

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_P Final Proof page 575 1.4.2009 3:20pm

POWER