Stephen Lukes (2004) offers three explanations of how decisions in political settings are likely to be made. Each of these decision models emerges from three competing views of power - what power is, how it should be used, its limits, and its application in different settings. The first view is that of the pluralists, which Lukes (2004) considers to be one-dimensional focused as it is on the study of concrete, observable behavior. The second perspective is the two-dimensional view which is inherently critical of the views set forth by the pluralists. Lukes (2004) says that in this view, power is used as a form of control meant to bring about specific outcomes and to differentiate between key issues that are real and those that are merely potentials. The two-dimensional view moves beyond the one-dimensional view by incorporating into the analysis of power relations the question of the control over the agenda of politics and the ways in which potential issues are kept out of the political process.
It is nevertheless, in the view of Lukes (2004) inadequate to explain power relations for three reasons. First, it is overly committed to behaviorism or the study of overt, actual behavior of which concrete decisions in situations of conflict are seen as paradigmatic. Secondly, the two-dimensional view of power is inadequate because it associates power with actual, observable conflict. The third reason for its inadequacy is its insistence that non-decision-making power only exists where there are grievances that cannot be entered into the political process in the form of issues (Lukes, 2004).
In contrast, the three-dimensional view of power, "involves a thoroughgoing critique of the behavioral focus of the first two views as too individualistic and allows for consideration of the many ways in which potential issues are kept out of politics either through the operation of social forces and institutional practices or through...