The "power" of Wal-Mart

Reading this passage by Steve Chapman referenced by Dan Drezner:

If Chicagoans loathe everything Wal-Mart represents, of course, they can easily defend themselves by declining to shop there. But the people in the neighborhoods where the stores are planned (one on the South Side and one on the West Side) bear an uncanny resemblance to other Americans in (a) their desire for a bargain and (b) their preference not to have to travel far to get it. The danger, from the standpoint of the critics, is not that Chicagoans will detest Wal-Mart but that they'll like it.

reminds me of Thomas Sowell's discussion of the different visions of "power" in his book "A Conflict of Visions." According to Sowell, adherents to the "unconstrained" and the "constrained" vision tend to view power very differently. In the first case, power is seen as the ability to influence, whether by coercion or persuasion—so I have "power" over you if I can convince you to buy from me by offering a better deal than the next guy. But those with the "constrained" vision view power in a fundamentally different way: it is the application of force, not simply offering a compelling choice. By offering you a better deal I haven’t eliminated options for you, only added them, so this is not "power" that we should be concerned with. Those with the constrained vision tend to be concerned more with process—and in the case of Wal-Mart offering better prices there is not force being exerted on consumers. Whereas those with the unconstrained vision tend to worry less about process and ore about outcomes: regardless of how they do it, Wal-Mart is influencing behavior (i.e. they sell tons of stuff!) and that is power. This is why when liberals and conservatives discuss the "power" of corporations, they often aren’t even talking about the same fundamental concept.