The analysis of social power often gets caught up in ideological disputes. These disputes commonly perpetuate non-substantive verbal disagreements that have little to do with substantive political argument. Ideological entanglement nevertheless persists clouding considerations of institutional change with sophistry. A solution is presented that identifies and rejects such rhetoric in a falsifiable way. The solution is then used to defend John Harsanyi’s model-theoretic interpretation of the social power relation and an associated approach to institutional change. A recent analysis of the bailout of the banks during the Global Financial Crisis is used as a case study.
