Bachrach, Peter and Morton Baratz. "Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework". The American Political Science Review, Vol.57, No.3 (1963): 632-642.

Bachrach, Peter and Morton Baratz. "Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework". The American Political Science Review, Vol.57, No.3 (1963): 632-642.

• Contemporary research on decision-making tend to use the terms 'power' and 'influence' interchangeably, neglecting distinctions between them and similar concepts (632).
• Most studies also focus exclusively on decision-making power and the influence of individuals in the decision-making process, ignoring the entire 'second-face' of power existent in agenda-setting and non-decisions (632, 641).
• Most contemporary descriptions of power fail to distinguish between power over material space and power over persons. Additionally, these accounts fail to place power in the context of structures or other persons. Power does not exist in a vacuum, it only exists relative to other objects or persons (632-633).
• Power can only be definitely expressed by one individual over another when the goals of those two groups are contradictory, and one group can be obeying the other. If two individuals have the same goal, and act accordingly, then power is not being expressed despite appearance (633).
• An expression of power can only relate to a situation in which two sides have opposing interests, and one side is able to make the other comply despite such a decision being against their interests (633).
• Effective expression of power requires that penalties for non-cooperation be understandable, enforceable, and sufficiently severe (634).
• "We can now draw together the several elements of our conception of power. A power relationship exists when (a) there is a conflict over values or course of action between A and B; (b) B complies with A's wishes; and (c) he does so because he is fearful that A will deprive him of a value or values which he, B, regards more highly than those which would have been achieved by noncompliance" (635).
• The authors define "power" as the ability to obtain another's compliance against their interests, whereas 'force' is the ability to obtain one's goals despite manifest noncompliance. In a power dynamic the victim retains choice, whereas no choice exists in a forceful dynamic (636).
• 'Influence' is defined as the ability of one actor to change the actions of another without resorting to threats or sanctions. Whereas 'power' is threatening, 'influence' occurs without negative consequences for noncompliance (637).
• Distinguishing between 'power' and 'influence' is especially difficult since decision making often involves both elements. Whether the influence or the power of Person A more effects Person B's decision is rarely clear cut and depends strong on interpretation (637).
• The authors reject the standard definition of 'authority' as institutionalized power, instead choosing a definition based on the presumed logicality of 'authority'. For the authors, 'authority' is the ability to have others trust that your advice is in their best interest (638). In a great example, trust of Big Brother is authority, fear of Big Brother is power (639).