Beyond the “Considerable Powers” Debate: Assessing the Conceptualisation of Presidential Power(s) in Comparative Studies

Debates of what constitutes presidential “power” and how to conceptualise it have long concerned scholars of the US-American presidency. Presidential power has played an equally prominent role in comparative research on presidents and regime types, most prominently in relation to the stipulation of “considerable powers” as part of Duverger’s definition of semi-presidentialism. In a concurrent development, indices of presidential power have found widespread acceptance over the last decades and are habitually employed in a wide range of (primarily quantitative) studies. Nevertheless, an explicit and deeper engagement with the conceptual foundations of such measurement schemes is – in contrast to the “considerable powers” debate – still largely missing. Furthermore, several scholars have already pointed out that individual indices often lack construct validity and cautioned against an unmodified use in statistical analyses. In this paper, we seek to address this gap in comparative scholarship on presidential power by analysing the conceptual foundations of several aggregate indices and measurement schemes. Arguing that conceptual-theoretical ideas are embedded in authors’ methodological choices, we flesh out and highlight the largely hidden and implicit assumptions underlying extant comparative approaches. We find that while there is a partial convergence of scholars’ understanding of the core bases of presidential “power”, considerable differences remain. In particular, this is illustrated by the classification of popular presidential elections as a weighting mechanism or power in its own right, respectively, or exclusive focus on popularly elected presidents. Hence, our paper contributes to the literature on concept formation in political science and the foundations of comparative research on presidential politics.