Power as transformative capacity

ST includes the premise that power dynamics are present in development processes at all times as a result of participating actors with their individual interests in relation to outcome.

Actors are seen as knowledgeable individuals or groups. Actors can have different interests in promoting certain outcomes of development processes. Actions will thus involve intentions by actors to secure the outcome according to their particular interests. Actors to secure an outcome in this regard exercise power by the use of resources as means. Therefore, according to the theory, resources are, ‘the media through which power is exercised’ (Giddens 1979:131). Further Giddens emphasises that power within social systems which enjoy some continuity over time and space presume regularised relations of autonomy and dependence between actors or collectivities in the context of social interaction. ‘Power relations within social systems can be regarded as relations of autonomy and dependence’ (Giddens and Dallmayr 1982:199).

ST holds that ‘power is actors’ capability of achieving outcomes’ (Giddens 1985:172). Human agents may be limited in their options, but there is always potential for them to activate resources to influence and change the situation whereby they may increase their influence:

Power is never merely a constraint but is at the very origin of the capabilities of agents to bring about intended outcomes of action. (Giddens 1984:173)

Power is hence about actors’ influence on processes to achieve a certain outcome. Giddens does not explicate the notion of process or outcome and does not equalize structuration and power. Therefore I find that Giddens does not refer only to the outcome of structuration

55 when he talks about the exercise of power. I rather interpret Giddens and ST as viewing structuration and hence social production or reproduction as superior to the exercise of power. Structures are the frames that influence, enable or constrain actors in development processes where power is exercised by actors by the use of resources. Actors will then during the process either reproduce or reshape the structures which influence the process.

As an example, I understand planning of a new industry in Greenland as a development process. The structures are the frames under which the process is going on, and as structuration is a phenomenon happening at all times, actors will either reproduce or reshape structures like norms (e.g. organisation of the group of government officials to administrate the project) and traditions (e.g. who talks to whom, and how), while actors seek to influence the outcome of decision processes (e.g. concerning whether or not aluminium smelter operation should be implemented, where to place an aluminium smelter, and which ownership model to implement).

Giddens emphasises that actors’ use of power in a decision-making process does not necessarily bring that the objective of an actor is obtained or the process is influenced. Power dynamics are the use of resources in order to achieve a desired outcome. Influence can still be achieved by the use power if resources are unequally distributed and actors who hold the greater transformative capacity dominate the other actors. If the actors who hold greater transformative capacity have no interest in influencing the decision outcome, for example, because they are more interested in influencing the structure, then structures in the decision-making process can be changed and influence the transformative capacity of other actors. The complexity of multiple actors’ influence on processes influences both the process and the other actors’ capability to influence. This is illustrated in Figure 5.5.

Process

Reshapes or reproduces structure

Constrained or enabled by structure

Constrained or enabled by structure Reshapes or reproduces

structure Structure

A B

Figure 5.5: Illustration of ST and the complexity of multiple actors’ influence on structures, in relation to processes, where the actors’ actions influence both the process and the structure, and thereby other actors’ capability to influence the outcome of a process. The figure is developed by the author, based on ST and Giddens (1984), with emphasis on operationalising the theory for empirical research.

When actors influence decision-making by using their superiority in a transformative capacity to achieve the outcome they desire, they are dominating other actors’ access to influence.

Capacity and hence possibility to dominate others can be given by structures or be achieved by use of power either to influence directly or to change the structure to gain influence (Giddens 1984).

56

Power can hence be used either to achieve a desired outcome or to transform the structures.

Focusing on the actors’ influence on the decision-making process, I cover just one side of Figure 5.5. Another approach could have been to investigate how structures enable or constrain actors, but as the purpose of the investigation is to contribute to the understanding of why SEA practitioners influence decision-making, emphasis is put on the actors’ capacity to influence. My interpretation of ST and the related structural power concept can be used to designate the linkage between the decision-making process and the SEA process. This means that the research covers two types of influence by actors on decision-making:

1) The influence on structures by the use of agency as they are reshaped or reproduced by actors.

2) The influence on the outcome of decision-making by the exercise of power.

The influence on structures and outcomes can in principle happen simultaneously or independently. This depends on the actions of the actors, and actors can decide to focus on changing or preserving an existing structure or on the outcome of the process, or both. It is expected that this will also happen in practice while actors will try to influence the outcome of decision-making if they have an interest in a certain outcome. As structures are both enabling and constraining, actors can use the structures to gain influence or they can reshape them to gain influence. There can also be actors who do not influence outcome or change structures, if they do not have a particular interest in either. Alternatively, actors can have a greater interest in changing the structure than influencing the outcome. An example of this taken from the case study is when the Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources did not use its access to formulate the decision-making support report. The Ministry changed the structure of the process by not using its access and did not exercise power even though it had the opportunity. That was probably because its primary interest was that the process should happen in an acceptable manner, so that the outcome would be accepted and used by the politicians. The Ministry had an interest in environmental issues being included uncensored, to secure public and political acceptance of the process. By acting differently from the prescription of the formal structure, that was what it gained.

Therefore, four different possible combinations for power and structuration in decision-making can be identified. These are illustrated in Table 5.3.

Structure enables certain action

Structure constrains certain action Actor influences the outcome Actor uses capacity to

influence the outcome of the to influence the outcome of a process

Actor does not use capacity to influence the outcome of the process

57 Table 5.3: Actors’ possible actions constrained or enabled by structure and what it means for the related capacity to influence development processes and hence exercise power. Developed from Giddens (1984).

In the following paragraph I will develop further on the content of Table 5.3, to design a theoretical approach for the research of the process of the aluminium SEA.