The initiator or responder in chief? Reconciling two prominent theories of presidential power

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objective: While there are several different ways of conceptualizing presidential power, at present, two main theoretical frameworks are of considerable importance. The dominant paradigm since the 1960s is Richard Neustadt's idea that “presidential power is the power to persuade.” Yet, persuasion is far more difficult today than it was in the 1960s, raising the following theoretical conundrum: If presidential power is the power to persuade, why is presidential power increasing, while the president's ability to persuade is decreasing?. Methods: Game theory and case studies were used in this study. Results: One answer is that presidents now employ “power without persuasion,” as William Howell argues. Yet, presidents still require persuasion to secure important legislation. Conclusion: This article reconciles these two theories, demonstrating how each describes an important aspect of the pursuit of presidential power.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2067-2079
Number of pages13
JournalSocial Science Quarterly
Volume105
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Southwestern Social Science Association.

Keywords

  • game theory
  • persuasion
  • presidential power
  • unilateral power

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Social Sciences

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The initiator or responder in chief? Reconciling two prominent theories of presidential power'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this