Editing Authority

{{Short description|Legitimate power to decide or authorize}}
{{other uses}}
[[File:AuthorityOfLaw.JPG|thumb|The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] is the highest judicial authority in the country]]
'''Authority''' is commonly understood as the [[Legitimate expectation|legitimate]] [[Power (social and political)|power]] of a person or group of other people.<ref>{{cite book |authorlink1=Frank Bealey |first=Frank |last=Bealey |year =1999 |title=The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science: A User's Guide to Its Terms |url=https://archive.org/details/blackwelldiction00beal |url-access=limited |isbn=0-631-20694-9 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/blackwelldiction00beal/page/n37 22–23] |publisher=Wiley }}{{dead link|date=September 2024}}</ref><ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Miller
 |first1               = David
 |author-link1         = David Miller (political theorist)
 |date                 = 26 June 2003
 |chapter              = Political authority
 |title                = Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=XQNmx06L3sgC
 |series               = Very Short Introductions
 |publisher            = Oxford University Press
 |page                 = 20
 |isbn                 = 9780191577864
 |access-date          = 28 September 2024
 |quote                = Political authority has two sides to it. On the one side, people generally recognize it ''as'' authority, in other words as having the right to command ... On the other side, people who refuse to obey are compelled to do so by the threat of sanctions ... And these two aspects are complementary.
}} 
</ref>
In a civil [[State (polity)|state]], ''authority'' may be practiced by [[Legislature|legislative]], [[Executive (government)|executive]], and [[Judiciary|judicial]] branches of [[government]],<ref name=":0">''The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought'' Third Edition, Allan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, Eds. p. 115.</ref>{{qn|date=September 2024}} each of which has authority and <em>is</em> an authority.<ref>
{{cite book
 |last1                = Covell
 |first1               = Charles
 |date                 = 9 July 2009
 |chapter              = Rousseau, Kant and Hegel
 |title                = The Law of Nations in Political Thought: A Critical Survey from Vitoria to Hegel
 |url                  = https://books.google.com/books?id=0e3MCwAAQBAJ
 |publication-place    = Basingstoke
 |publisher            = Palgrave Macmillan
 |isbn                 = 9780230244450
 |access-date          = 28 September 2024
 |quote                = [According to Kant, the] juridicial order of civil society found its concrete institutional embodiment in the civil state, as through the legislative, executive and judicial authorities that comprised the basis of the state constitution and the system of state government. Of the three state authorities, the legislative authority was understood by Kant to be foundational in that it stood as the sovereign authority in the state ...
}} 
</ref>
The term "authority" has multiple nuances and distinctions within various academic fields ranging from [[sociology]] to [[political science]].

In the exercise of [[governance]], the terms ''authority'' and ''power'' are inaccurate synonyms. The term ''authority'' identifies the [[political legitimacy]], which grants and justifies rulers' right to exercise the power of government; and the term ''power'' identifies the ability to accomplish an authorized goal, either by compliance or by [[obedience]]; hence, ''authority'' is the ''power'' to make decisions and the legitimacy to make such legal decisions and order their execution.<ref>''The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought'', Third edition, Allan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, eds., pp. 677–678.</ref>{{qn|date=September 2024}}

== History ==
[[Ancient history|Ancient]] understandings of authority trace back to [[Ancient Rome|Rome]] and draw later from Catholic ([[Thomism|Thomistic]]) thought and other [[tradition]]al understandings. In more modern terms, forms of authority include transitional authority (exhibited in, for example, [[Cambodia]]),<ref>{{Cite news|title=United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)|last=Widyono|first=Benny|date=Oct 2014}}</ref> public authority in the form of popular power, and, in more administrative terms, bureaucratic or managerial techniques. In terms of bureaucratic governance, one limitation of the governmental agents of the executive branch, as outlined by George A. Krause, is that they are not as close to the popular will as [[Representative democracy|elected representatives]] are.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Legislative Delegation of Authority to Bureaucratic Agencies|last=Krause|first=George A.|date=2010|work=The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy|publisher=Oxford University Press|editor-last=Durant|editor-first=Robert F.|location=New York|page=524}}</ref> The claims of authority can extend to national or individual [[sovereignty]], which is broadly or provisionally understood as a claim to political authority that is [[Legitimation|legitimated]].<ref>{{Cite news|title=Sovereignty|last=Glanville|first=Luke|work=The Oxford Handbook of the Responsibility to Protect|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2016|editor-last=Bellamy|editor-first=Alex J.|location=New York|page=153}}</ref>

Historical applications of authority in political terms include the formation of the city-state of [[Geneva]], and experimental treatises involving the topic of authority in relation to education include ''[[Emile, or On Education]]'' by [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]]. As [[David D. Laitin|David Laitin]] defines, authority is a key concept to be defined in determining the range and role of political theory, science and inquiry.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Laitin|first=David|date=1998|title=Toward a Political Science Discipline: Authority Patterns Revisited|journal=Comparative Political Studies|volume=31|issue=4|pages=423–443|doi=10.1177/0010414098031004002|s2cid=146736449}}</ref> The relevance of a grounded understanding of authority includes the basic foundation and formation of political, civil and/or ecclesiastical institutions or representatives. In recent years, however, authority in political contexts has been challenged or questioned.

== Political philosophy ==
There have been several contributions to the debate of [[political authority]]. Among others, [[Hannah Arendt]], [[Carl Joachim Friedrich]], [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Alexandre Kojève]] and [[Carl Schmitt]] have provided some of the most influential texts.

In European [[political philosophy]], the [[jurisdiction]] of political authority, the location of [[sovereignty]], the balancing of notions of [[freedom]] and authority,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Hegel on Freedom and Authority|last=Cristi|first=Renato|publisher=University of Wales Press|year=2005|location=Cardiff, Wales}}</ref> and the requirements of political obligations have been core questions from the time of [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] to the present. Most [[democracy|democratic]] societies are engaged in an ongoing discussion regarding the legitimate extent of the exercise of [[government]]al authority. In the [[United States]], for instance, there is a prevailing belief that the political system as instituted by the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]] should accord the populace as much freedom as reasonable; that government should limit its authority accordingly, known as [[limited government]].

[[Philosophical anarchism|Political anarchism]] is a philosophy which rejects the legitimacy of political authority and adherence to any form of sovereign rule or autonomy of a nation-state.<ref name=":0" /> An argument for political anarchy is made by [[Michael Huemer]] in his book ''[[The Problem of Political Authority]]''. On the other side, one of the main arguments for the legitimacy of the state is some form of the [[Social contract|social contract theory]] developed by Thomas Hobbes in his 1668 book, [[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|''Leviathan'']], or by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his political writings on [[The Social Contract|the social contract]].

== Sociology ==
[[File:Cleric-Knight-Workman.jpg|thumb|An inhabited initial from a 13th-century French text representing the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages: the ōrātōrēs (those who pray – clerics), bellātōrēs (those who fight – knights, that is, the nobility), and labōrātōrēs (those who work – peasants and members of the lower middle class).]]

In [[sociology]], '''authority''' is the [[legitimacy (political)|legitimate]] or socially approved power which one person or a group possesses and practices over another. The element of legitimacy is vital to the notion of authority and is the main means by which authority is distinguished from the more general concept of [[Power (social and political)|power]].

Power can be exerted by the use of force or [[violence]]. Authority, by contrast, depends on the acceptance by [[subordinate]]s of the right of those above them to give them orders or [[Wiktionary: directive|directive]]s.<ref>Anthony Giddens, Sociology. London: Polity Press, 1997:581</ref><ref>Max Weber in "Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations for the 21st Century", translated and edited by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters.  pp. 137-138.</ref><ref>C. Naomi Osorio-Kupferblum: "Conceptualising ‘Authority’". In: International Journal of Philosophical Studies. Vol. 23, No. 2, 13 March 2015, pp. 223–236, doi:10.1080/09672559.2015.1020828</ref>

The definition of authority in contemporary social science remains a matter of debate. [[Max Weber]] in his essay "[[Politics as a Vocation]]" (1919) divided legitimate authority into [[Authority (sociology)|three types]]. Others, like [[Howard Bloom]], suggest a parallel between authority and [[Veneration of the dead|respect/reverence for ancestors]].<ref>{{cite book |last1            = Bloom
 |first1           = Howard
 |author-link1     = Howard Bloom
 |title            = The Genius of the Beast: a radical re-vision of capitalism
 |location         = Amherst, New York
 |publisher        = Prometheus Books
 |date = 2010
 |page             = [https://archive.org/details/geniusofbeastrad0000bloo/page/186 186]
 |isbn             = 978-1-59102-754-6
 |quote            = To validate an argument, we refer back to our ancestors – or to someone who, while still alive, has already garnered the sort of authority only ancestors normally have.
 |url-access       = registration
 |url              = https://archive.org/details/geniusofbeastrad0000bloo/page/186
}}
</ref>

===Max Weber on authority===<!-- [[Herrschaft (sociology)]] redirects here -->
{{See also|Monopoly on violence}}
[[Max Weber]], in his sociological and philosophical work, identified and distinguished three types of legitimate domination (''Herrschaft'' in German, which generally means 'domination' or 'rule'), that have sometimes been rendered in English translation as types of authority, because English-speakers do not see [[Dominance (ethology)|domination]] as a political concept.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}} Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of people.  Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled. Legitimated rule results in what Weber called the monopoly over the use of coercive violence in a given territory.<ref>Max Weber in Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society, translated and edited by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, Palgrave Books 2015, pp. 136 {{ISBN?}}</ref>  In the modern world, such authority is typically delegated to the police and the court system.

{{Main|Tripartite classification of authority|The Three Types of Legitimate Rule}}
Weber divided legitimate authority into three types:

*The first type discussed by Weber is ''[[legal-rational authority]]''. It is that form of authority which depends for its [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy]] on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down and are often complex.<ref>TY  - CHAP

AU  - Guzman, Sebastian

PY  - 2007/02/01

SP  - 1

EP  - 2

N2  - Rational legal authority is a concept developed by Max Weber (1864–1920) to explain the stability of domination in modern times, especially in bureaucracies and democracies. A ruler is or has rational-legal authority when she is perceived as legitimate by her subjects on the grounds that she has been given right to issue commands by formal rules or laws. This entry defines the concept in relation to Weber's more general understanding of domination and other types of legitimate domination, explains the usefulness of the concept from a Weberian perspective, and presents some of the main criticisms of the concept.

T1  - Rational Legal Authority

DO  - 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosr026.pub2

ER  -</ref>
A [[constitution]] may define the extent of the power of rational-legal authority. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority. Government officials are the best example of this form of authority, which is prevalent all over the world.
{{Conservatism sidebar}}
*The second type of authority, ''[[traditional authority]]'', derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another, it is known as traditional authority. The rule of hereditary [[Monarchy|monarchs]] furnishes an obvious example. The [[Tudor dynasty]] in England and the ruling families of [[Mewar]] in [[Rajasthan]] (India) are examples of traditional authority. In ''[[Economy and Society]]'' (1921) Weber clarifies a distinction among three terms (as he defined them): [[Patriarchy]], [[Patrimonialism]] depending on the sole authority of an [[Absolute Monarch]] (Emperor, Empress, King, Queen) and Patrimonialism where the [[Divine right of kings|divine right]] of the sole ruler is somewhat modified by [[feudal]] aristocratic legitimate authority (e.g. feudal barons in England). The feudal variant of Patrimonial legitimate authority is characteristic of Tudor England. But the earlier variant of Patrimonial legitimate authority is the most widespread form of traditional authority structures ("systems") in world history. Reinhard Bendix discusses these distinctions. [citation below].
* The third form of authority is ''[[charismatic authority]]''. Here, the [[charisma]] of an individual or of a [[leader]] plays an important role. Charismatic authority is authority which is derived from the leader's claims to a higher power or inspiration that is supported by his or her followers. An example in this regard can be [[NT Rama Rao]], a [[matinée idol]] who became one of the most powerful Chief Ministers of [[Andhra Pradesh]]. Charismatic authority is also attributed to religious innovators like [[Siddharta Gautama]] (as the "Buddha") and [[Yeshua of Nazareth]] (as a or the Masiach-[[Messiah]].)

History has witnessed several [[social movement]]s or [[revolution]]s against a system of traditional or legal-rational authority started by charismatic authorities. According to Weber, what distinguishes authority from [[coercion]], [[Force (law)|force]] and [[Coercion|power]] on the one hand, and [[leadership]], [[persuasion]] and [[Social influence|influence]] on the other hand, is legitimacy. Superiors, he states, feel that they have a right to issue commands; subordinates perceive an obligation to obey (see also [[Milgram experiment]]). Social scientists{{who|date=November 2010}} agree that authority is but one of several resources available to incumbents in formal positions.{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}} For example, a Head of State is dependent upon a similar nesting of authority. His legitimacy must be acknowledged, not just by citizens, but by those who control other valued resources: his immediate staff, his cabinet, military leaders and in the long run, the administration and political apparatus of the entire society.

Authority can be created expressly when public entities act publicly, using the same means to communicate the grant of authority to their agents that they use to communicate this to third parties, apparent authority describes the situation when a principal has placed restrictions on an agent that are not known to a third party, and restrictions on government agents are accomplished in the open, through laws and regulations. In this setting, all parties concerned are assumed or supposed to know the laws and regulations of the government.

Recently the concept of authority has also been discussed as a guiding principle in human-machine interaction design.<ref>Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., & Beller, J. (2011). [https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10111-011-0191-6 Towards a Dynamic Balance between Humans and Automation: Authority, Ability, Responsibility and Control in Cooperative Control Situations]. ''Cognition, Technology and Work''. Advance online publication. {{doi|10.1007/s10111-011-0191-6}}</ref>

Genetic research indicates that obedience to authority may be a heritable factor.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ludeke |first1=Steven |last2=Johnson |first2=Wendy |last3=Bouchard |first3=Thomas J. |date=2013-08-01 |title="Obedience to traditional authority:" A heritable factor underlying authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913001384 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=55 |issue=4 |pages=375–380 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.018 |issn=0191-8869|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Children and authority attributes ===
Authority and its attributes have been identified as of particular relevance to children as they regard their parents and teachers. The three attributes of authority have been described as ''status'', ''specialist skills'' or ''knowledge'', and ''social position''. Children consider the type of command, the characteristics of the authority figure, and the social context when making authority conclusions.<ref>Laupa, 1991.</ref>

Although children regard these three types of authority attributes, they first assess the legitimacy of the authority figure in question using the nature of the commands they give. For example, a teacher who does not appear to have legitimate power from the child's perspective (perhaps because she or he cannot control the class well) will not be obeyed. Regarding parenting, authoritative parents who are warm and high in behavioral control but low in psychological control are more likely to be seen as having legitimate authority over the child, and will believe themselves that they have a duty to obey them and internalize their values. While the study of children in modern capitalist societies does look at the psychological aspects of children's understanding of legitimate authority at the level of symbolic interaction it is also true that is an extrapolated assumption based on one interpretation of a broad Comparative Historical Sociological (CHS) analysis of legitimate authority in multiple societies over a long duration, not the micro-social psychological study of children per se. There is nothing in Weber's published work in the Max Weber Gesamtausgabe that directly deals with children's perceptions in "formations" with traditional legitimate authority, prior to the emergence of modern capitalism .<ref>Reinhard. Bendix. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1960.</ref>

=== In social science ===
''Hofstede Insights'' details "Power Distance" as: "Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally", which can be interpreted as respect for authority. Generally, ex-communist countries, poor countries, and non-Protestant countries have the highest power distance (respect for inequality in the distribution of power). According to ''Hofstede Insights'' 2021 country comparison, all countries with power distance below 50 are Western Protestant democracies, except for Austria.<ref name="Hofstede Insights 2021">{{cite web | title=Country Comparison | website=Hofstede Insights | date=21 Jun 2021 | url=https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/ | access-date=3 Nov 2021}}</ref> Such studies are attempts to apply ideas found in Weber that he himself did not postulate directly and they assume the nation-state as a basic unit of "countries" rather than look at all of the various political-economic "formations" in which Weber himself was most directly interested.

== United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms ==
The political authority in the British context can be traced to [[James VI and I|James VI and I of Scotland]] who wrote two political treatises called ''[[Basilikon Doron]]'' and ''[[The True Law of Free Monarchies|The True Law of Free Monarchies: Or, The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Between a Free King and His Natural Subjects]]'' which advocated his right to rule on the basis of the concept of the [[divine right of kings]], a theological concept that has a basis in multiple religions, but in this case, Christianity, tracing this right to the [[apostolic succession]].

Sovereign kings and queens in the United Kingdom and the [[Commonwealth realm]]s are considered the foundations of judicial, legislative and executive authority.

== United States ==
The foundation of American legitimate authority rests on the [[consent of the governed]]. This understanding of political authority and the exercise of [[Political power in the United States over time|political powers]] in the American context traces back to the writings of the [[Founding Fathers of the United States|Founding Fathers]], including the arguments put forward in ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'' by [[James Madison]], [[Alexander Hamilton]] and the first chief justice of the United States [[John Jay]], and was referenced in the unanimous [[United States Declaration of Independence]]:<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm |title=The Declaration of Independence |access-date=2009-07-27 |archive-date=2009-08-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090802210214/http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm |url-status=live }}{{full citation needed|date=November 2012}}</ref>

<blockquote>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that [[all men are created equal]], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [[Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness]].--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the {{em|consent of the governed}}, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.</blockquote>

Later, speeches by the 16th [[president of the United States]] [[Abraham Lincoln]] would reiterate this fundamental source of legitimacy. "Our government rests in public opinion," Lincoln said in 1856.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Guelzo |first=Allen C. |title=Lincoln Speeches |publisher=Penguin Books |year=2012 |location=New York |page=}}</ref>{{rp|21}} In his 1854 speech at [[Peoria, Illinois]], Lincoln espoused the proposition “that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own," a principle existing "at the foundation of the sense of justice."<ref name=":1" />{{rp|47}} This sense of personal ownership and stewardship was integral to the practice of self-government as Lincoln saw it by a [[Republicanism|Republican]] nation and its people. This was because, as Lincoln also declared, "No man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent."<ref name=":1" />{{rp|48}}

The U.S. president is called to give account to the legislature for the conduct of the whole government, including that of regulatory agencies. The president influences the appointments, and the budgeting process and has the right and capacity to review regulatory rules on a case-by-case basis. Since the time of the [[Reagan administration scandals|Reagan administration]] the president was informed with a [[cost–benefit analysis]] of the regulation.<ref name="Droit et économie de la régulation" /> The creation of a [[regulatory agency]] requires an [[Act of Congress]] which specifies its jurisdiction, the related authority and delegated powers. Regulatory authorities can be qualified as independent agencies or executive branch agencies, a choice which is the reason of struggle between congress and the president as well as with the American courts. The latter's role is limited by the authorities' power to regulate [[property rights]] without the [[Substantive due process|due process]] rights mandatorily applied by the courts.<ref name="Droit et économie de la régulation">{{cite book | first = John | last = Ferejohn | author-link = John Ferejohn | url = https://www.cairn.info/droit-et-economie-de-la-regulation-1--9782247056965-page-35.htm?contenu=resume# | chapter = The Authority of Regulation and the Control of Regulators | language = en | title = Droit et économie de la régulation | oclc =7292576035| isbn =9782724686463| year = 2004 | pages = 35–37 | publisher= [[Cairn.info]] |via=archive.today/IA9DF archive.is| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201003145258/https://www.cairn.info/droit-et-economie-de-la-regulation-1--9782247056965-page-35.htm?contenu=resume | archive-date = October 3, 2020 | url-status = live | editor = Marie-Anne Frison-Roche }}</ref>

== See also ==
{{cols|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Anti-authoritarianism]]
* [[Appeal to authority]]
* ''[[Auctoritas]]''
* [[Authoritarianism]]
* [[Authority (management)]]
* [[Authority bias]]
* [[Discipline]]
* [[Feudalism]]
* [[Fidelity]]
* [[Legitimacy (political)|Legitimacy]]
* [[List of sociology topics]]
* [[Milgram experiment]] (sociological experiments measuring obedience to authority figures)
* [[Morale]]
* [[Patriarchy]]
* [[Patrimonialism]]
* [[Petty authority]]
* [[Political theology]]
* [[Power distance]]
* [[Protection]]
* [[Question authority]]
* [[Sociology]]
* [[Soft power]]
* [[Tripartite classification of authority]]
{{colend}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* [[Noh]], ''State of Exception'' (2005)
* [[Hannah Arendt]], "Authority in the Twentieth Century." ''[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-politics Review of Politics]'' (1956)
* [[Hannah Arendt]], ''On Violence'' (1970)
* [[Józef Maria Bocheński]], ''{{lang|de|Was ist Autorität}}?'' (1974)
* Renato Cristi, ''Hegel on Freedom and Authority'' (2005)
* [[Carl Joachim Friedrich]], ''Authority''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1958)
* [[Carl Joachim Friedrich]], ''An Introduction to Political Theory: Twelve Lectures at Harvard.'' New York: Harper & Row (1967)
* [[Carl Joachim Friedrich]], ''Tradition and Authority''. London: Macmillan (1972)
* [[Robert E. Goodin]] (ed), ''[http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456 The Oxford Handbook of Political Science]'' (2011) 
* Sebastian De Grazia. (1959). "[[doi:10.2307/1952150|What Authority Is Not]]". ''American Political Science Review'' 53(2): 321–331.
* Patrick Hayden, ''Hannah Arendt: Key Concepts'' (2014), esp. Chapter 8
* [[Alexandre Kojève]], "The Notion of Authority" (2014)
* C. Naomi Osorio-Kupferblum: "[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09672559.2015.1020828?scroll=top&needAccess=true Conceptualising ‘Authority’]".  In: ''International Journal of Philosophical Studies.'' Vol. 23, No. 2, 13 March 2015, pp. 223–236, doi:10.1080/09672559.2015.1020828 
* Gail Radford, ''The Rise of the Public Authority: Statebuilding and Economic Development in Twentieth-Century America'' (2013)
* Rosen, Arie (2023). "[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article/political-reasons-and-the-limits-of-political-authority/3582E6CED0B260249FD2A0316FCF4F8E Political Reasons and the Limits of Political Authority]." ''Legal Theory'' '''29''' (1): 63–88.
* [[Carl Schmitt]], ''Der Begriff des Politischen'' [''[[The Concept of the Political]]''] (1932) 
* [[Max Weber]], ''[[Economy and Society]]'' (1922)
* [[Max Weber]], ''[[Politics as a Vocation]]'' (1919)

== External links ==
{{Subject bar|auto=y|d=y}}
* {{cite IEP|poli-obl|Political Obligation}}
* {{cite SEP |url-id=authority |title=Authority |last=Christiano |first=Tom}}
* Four essays published in the ''[[International Journal of Philosophical Studies]]'' from the [https://web.archive.org/web/20170326140310/http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/ah/international-journal-of-philosophical-studies#2014 Robert Papazian Essay Prize Competition on Authority]

{{Political philosophy}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Authority| ]]
[[Category:Group processes]]
[[Category:Philosophy of law]]
[[Category:Political concepts]]
[[Category:Social concepts]]
[[Category:Social ethics]]