Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5, 812-819 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 14 February 2025; Revised: 8 April 2025; Accepted: 11 April 2025; Published: 9 May 2025 * Correspondence: namov@hub.edu.vn Knowledge as power: A critical analysis of Alvin Toffler’s perspective and its implications for developing economies Ong Van Nam1* 1Department of Testing and Quality Assurance, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; namov@hub.edu.vn (O.V.N.). Abstract: In the contemporary global landscape, knowledge has emerged as a fundamental source of economic and political power, distinct from traditional power bases of violence and wealth. This study critically analyzes Alvin Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge power and examines how it transforms social, economic, and political relationships during the transition to what Toffler termed the “Third Wave” civilization. Using a methodological framework grounded in dialectical materialism and textual analysis of Toffler’s key works, particularly Future Shock, The Third Wave, and Powershift, this research explores the evolution of his thinking on knowledge as the highest quality form of power. The findings indicate that Toffler’s perspective on knowledge power offers significant insights for developing economies like Vietnam, where the transition to a knowledge-based economy presents both opportunities and challenges. The study concludes that Toffler’s framework provides valuable theoretical foundations for understanding how developing nations can leverage knowledge power to accelerate economic development, though this requires strategic investments in education, information technology infrastructure, and research capabilities. This analysis contributes to both the theoretical discourse on power dynamics in the information age and practical policy considerations for countries navigating the transition to knowledge-based economies. Keywords: Alvin Toffler; Developing economies, Information age, Knowledge economy, Knowledge power; Third Wave, Vietnam. 1. Introduction In the 21st century, humanity is witnessing a profound transformation as we enter what Alvin Toffler termed the “Third Wave” - a new civilization emerging on the foundation of information and scientific knowledge. Unlike previous historical periods where power was primarily derived from violence or wealth, knowledge and information have become the new bases of economic and political power. The robustness of a nation’s information infrastructure and knowledge capabilities increasingly determines its prosperity and global influence. This transformation presents both opportunities and challenges for developing countries like Vietnam. The ability to harness knowledge as power could potentially allow such nations to accelerate their development trajectories. This might enable them to bypass certain stages that developed nations had to traverse. However, failure to adapt to this new paradigm risks widening the gap between “fast” and “slow” countries, as Toffler characterized them. The Communist Party of Vietnam has recognized this imperative, emphasizing in the political report of the 10th Party Central Committee at the 11th National Party Congress: “Developing a knowledge-based economy on the basis of education, training and technology development; synchronously building science and technology infrastructure, first of all information technology, communication and automation technology, improving research and application capacity in association with the development of high-quality human resources” [1]. Despite this recognition, Vietnam https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9929-4214 813 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 812-819, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate continues to face significant challenges in developing the high-quality human resources necessary to compete in the global knowledge economy. As Vietnam continues to navigate the complexities of the third industrial revolution, developed nations have already embraced the fourth industrial revolution. This growing disparity highlights the urgency for Vietnam to develop effective strategies for knowledge acquisition, creation, and application. The window of opportunity for closing this gap may be narrowing as the pace of technological change accelerates. This research aims to provide a deeper understanding of knowledge as power by critically analyzing Alvin Toffler’s perspective on this subject. As one of the most influential futurists of the 20th century, Toffler [2]; Toffler [3] and Toffler [4] - offers valuable insights into the changing nature of power in the information age. By examining Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge power and its implications for developing economies, this study seeks to contribute to both theoretical discourse and practical policy considerations. The paper addresses the following research questions: 1. How does Toffler conceptualize knowledge as a form of power distinct from traditional power bases? 2. What are the key characteristics of knowledge power that make it particularly significant in the contemporary global context? 3. What implications does Toffler’s framework have for developing economies like Vietnam in their transition to knowledge-based economies? The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: First, we outline the theoretical basis and methodology employed in this study. Next, we present the main findings regarding Toffler’s perspectives on knowledge, power, and knowledge power. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for developing economies and offer conclusions about the significance of knowledge power in the contemporary global landscape. 2. Material and Methods 2.1. Theoretical Framework This study is grounded in the worldview and methodology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, which provide a systematic framework for analyzing the evolution of knowledge and power relationships throughout human history. This theoretical approach enables an examination of how changes in the material conditions of society-particularly the shift from industrial to information-based economies-transform power dynamics and social relationships. Additionally, the research is informed by the Communist Party of Vietnam’s perspective on developing high-quality human resources and building a knowledge economy, providing a contextual lens for interpreting the implications of Toffler’s ideas for developing nations. 2.2. Research Methods This study employs a qualitative research design utilizing multiple complementary methods to analyze Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge power: 1. Historical-Logical Analysis: This method examines the historical development of Toffler’s thinking across his trilogy of works (Future Shock, The Third Wave, and Powershift). It traces the evolution and refinement of his ideas about knowledge and power over two decades (1970-1990). The logical analysis component allows for the identification of the internal coherence and theoretical consistency of his arguments. 2. Comparative Analysis: Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge power is compared with other theoretical frameworks of power, including traditional Marxist perspectives, Michel Foucault’s discourse theory, and Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power. This comparative approach highlights the distinctive features of Toffler’s contribution while situating it within broader theoretical discussions. 814 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 812-819, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate 3. Textual Analysis: A systematic examination of Toffler’s primary texts was conducted, focusing particularly on his treatment of knowledge, power, and their interrelationship. Key passages were identified, coded, and analyzed to extract the essential elements of his theoretical framework. 4. Synthesis: The findings from these analytical approaches were synthesized to develop a comprehensive understanding of Toffler’s perspective on knowledge power and to identify its implications for developing economies in the contemporary global context. 2.3. Data Sources The primary data sources for this study include: 1. Toffler’s major works, with particular emphasis on: • Toffler [2] • Toffler [3] • Toffler [4] 2. Secondary literature analyzing Toffler’s contributions to futurism and social theory 3. Policy documents from the Communist Party of Vietnam related to knowledge economy development 4. Comparative theoretical literature on power in the information age The analysis concentrated on identifying Toffler’s core concepts related to knowledge, power, and their interrelationship, as well as extracting implications for developing economies transitioning to knowledge-based economic models. 3. Main Results and Findings 3.1. Perspectives on Knowledge Knowledge is a multifaceted concept that has been interpreted in various ways across different disciplines and theoretical frameworks. Before examining Toffler’s specific conceptualization, it is important to situate his understanding within broader philosophical and sociological discussions of knowledge. Traditional philosophical approaches have often defined knowledge as justified true belief- systematic understanding obtained through rigorous intellectual activity. In the philosophical dictionary of the Moscow Progressive Publishing House, knowledge is described as “the product of social activity and human thought, reproduced in thought, in the form of language, objective relationships are being transformed in reality” [5]. Similarly, the Dictionary of Simplified Philosophy defines knowledge as “the result of man’s process of perceiving the real world, reproducing in his mind the attributes and laws of that world, and expressing them in the form of language or other forms of signs” [6]. Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge, however, is notably broader and more inclusive than traditional definitions. He defines knowledge as “information, data, drawings, fantasies, attitudes, values and other symbolic products of society” [7]. This definition reflects Toffler’s understanding of knowledge as encompassing not only formal scientific understanding but also the full spectrum of symbolic representations that humans use to make sense of and interact with their environment. He further elaborates that scientific knowledge consists of “conditions such as assumptions, values, images, agitation along with precise technical ability” [8]. This expansive definition is significant because it recognizes the diverse forms that knowledge can take in contemporary society, from codified scientific principles to tacit cultural understandings. It also acknowledges the subjective elements of knowledge-the values, assumptions, and frameworks that shape how information is interpreted and applied. Toffler’s approach can be contrasted with postmodern perspectives, such as that of Jean-François Lyotard, who conceptualizes knowledge as an ability expressed through various types of “language games” [9]. Lyotard distinguishes between narrative knowledge (embedded in cultural stories and 815 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 812-819, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate traditions) and scientific knowledge (formalized through technical discourse). While this perspective has influenced certain academic circles, particularly in the context of digital communication, it has not achieved the widespread recognition of more traditional definitions. From these various definitions and concepts, we can understand scientific knowledge as the result of cognitive processes that engage with reality, validated through historical and social practices, and conforming to logical principles. What distinguishes Toffler’s approach is its emphasis on knowledge as a dynamic resource that can be leveraged for social, economic, and political purposes-in other words, as a form of power. 3.2. Perspectives on Power Power is a fundamental aspect of human social organization, reflecting the reality that humans, as social beings, cannot live in isolation or exercise absolute freedom in their social activities. As Marx observed, human nature is constituted through social relations, necessitating life within organizations and communities where individuals inevitably influence and are influenced by others [10]. This characteristic distinguishes humans from other species; while some animals live in organized groups, their organization is primarily instinctual rather than self-conscious. In any organized community, activities require coordination through command and obedience relationships. Power manifests as the ability of one person or group to influence the behavior of others. Those who exercise power require objects of that power-power is inherently relational. Power has been a central concern of political philosophy throughout history, profoundly affecting all aspects of social life. Toffler acknowledges the ambivalence many feel toward power, noting: “When it comes to power, we cannot help but have a bad impression in our minds, because humanity tends to abuse power, but power itself is neither good nor bad. On the contrary, man has a close relationship with power and cannot escape it” [8]. Historical perspectives on power have varied considerably. Aristotle, in ancient Greece, viewed power as inherent in both organic and inorganic nature [11]. Medieval theologians conceptualized all earthly power as derivative of “divine power.” Renaissance thinkers emphasized state power as the “kingdom of reason.” These diverse perspectives highlight power as a universal social relation-an objective necessity that affects all members of society. No one exists outside power relationships; if not engaged in one context, individuals participate in power dynamics elsewhere. Despite extensive research, political scientists have not reached consensus on a definitive definition of power. In its most basic sense, power involves the strong dominating the weak. American political scientist K. Dantra defined power as forcing others to obey [12] while Leslie Lipson described it as the ability to achieve results through coordinated action Lipson [13]. Nye [14] conceptualized power as “the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the results you want” (p. 153). Toffler himself did not provide a single comprehensive definition of power. He described it as “the rules relating to the individual and the state” [8] and elsewhere as “the domination between man and man. The form of power that exposes, of course, includes violence, wealth and knowledge to force others to act according to my will” [8]. From these statements, we can understand Toffler’s conception of power as the rules governing individual-state relations and interpersonal control-the ability to compel others to act according to one’s wishes. Several key insights about power emerge from this analysis: 1. Power manifests in social relationships where individuals or groups can compel others to obey-it is the ability to control others’ behavior for one’s benefit. 2. From a class perspective, political power represents the capacity of a class, class alliance, or social group to realize its objective interests. As Engels noted, political power in its purest form is “the organized violence of one class to oppress another” [15]. 3. Power is multifaceted and necessary for community organization. Throughout human history, command-subordination relationships have been essential for coordinated action, though the person giving commands is not always superior in financial or social status. 816 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 812-819, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate 4. From a Marxist perspective, the diversity of command-submission relationships reflects the diversity of social existence across different community forms. Power manifests in generational relationships, economic disparities, political hierarchies, and even family dynamics based on gender, strength, or economic contribution. 5. Power can manifest in unexpected ways, such as the historical influence of female beauty in political and social contexts. Throughout history, there are numerous examples of how beauty has been leveraged to influence political outcomes, from preventing wars to securing national advantages. 3.3. Perspectives on Knowledge Power Toffler’s conception of knowledge power evolved throughout his major works. While he introduced the concept in Toffler [2] and developed it further in Toffler [3] it was in Toffler [4] that he fully articulated his theory of knowledge as a distinct and superior form of power. In Powershift, Toffler [2] identifies three fundamental types of power that structure command-and- subordination relationships: the power of violence, the power of wealth (money), and the power of knowledge. Toffler argues that these three forms of power can be evaluated qualitatively, with violence having the lowest quality (lacking elasticity), money having medium quality (offering flexibility), and knowledge having the highest quality. Toffler positions knowledge power as the power of the future, stating: “knowledge can replace other sources of material, it is something that can never be taken, and used forever. Knowledge is a substitute for all” [8]. Recognizing the practical significance of scientific knowledge, Toffler proposed a new theory of social power that examines transformations in economics, politics, and international relations. Toffler observed a historical progression in the basis of social power: from violence to money, and now to knowledge. While knowledge does not eliminate the power of violence and money, it has become not only the highest quality source of power but also a crucial factor in the effectiveness of the other two forms. The democratization processes in developed countries, according to Toffler, are associated with the ascendancy of knowledge as the foundation of new power structures. Unlike violence and wealth, which are the prerogatives of the strong and rich, knowledge has a revolutionary attribute-it can be acquired by even the weakest and poorest members of society, making knowledge power inherently more democratic. Toffler argues that the political struggle in industrialized countries has shifted from the distribution of wealth (“Who gets what?”) to the distribution of knowledge and the ability to acquire it. In the global power struggle, knowledge acquisition and mastery have become decisive factors. Nations that master knowledge, information, creative ideas, and advanced technologies gain dominant positions in the international system. The creation of material wealth remains a purposeful human activity, but a new system of wealth creation has emerged. The powerful individual in contemporary and future society, according to Toffler, is neither the blue-collar worker nor the financier or manager, but the innovator who combines knowledge with action. Toffler emphasizes that the most important form of property today is intangible-symbolic or meta- symbolic wealth in the form of knowledge. Unlike physical resources, the same knowledge can be used simultaneously by multiple individuals to create wealth and generate more knowledge, particularly through electronic communication networks. While factories and fields are finite, knowledge “stretches to infinity.” Toffler concludes that the most important global revolution is the development of “Third Wave civilization,” which brings a fundamentally new wealth-creation system. Any movement or state that restricts knowledge condemns its citizens to backwardness. Although Toffler does not directly address developing nations, his discussion of “fast countries and slow countries” has significant implications for the developing world. Toffler argues that the traditional divisions of the world (capitalism/communism, North/South) are losing relevance, replaced by a new division between fast and slow economies. Fast economies accelerate production through rapid 817 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 812-819, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate information, communication, and knowledge circulation, while agrarian societies stagnate. To overcome backwardness, slow countries must prioritize the time factor, using knowledge to bridge temporal gaps. Toffler suggests that traditional advantages like abundant raw materials and cheap labor are becoming increasingly ineffective. The 21st century’s wealth creation system, based on rapid exchange of materials, initiatives, and symbolic meanings, is creating what he calls the “symbolic economy” or “super-symbolic economy.” As he states elsewhere: “We must realize that wisdom is the source of new wealth. It is not land, money, materials, or technology, but the minds and skills of people” [16]. For developing countries, Toffler emphasizes that agriculture need not be a “backward” sector but can become a spearhead of economic development when infused with informatics, genetics, and new technologies. However, this requires participation in the global economy at a rapid pace, particularly in telecommunications and computerization. Developing countries have the potential to leapfrog from First Wave to Third Wave information and communication systems, filling the “gap” through informatics and electronics. This gap is not between North and South but between fast and slow countries. While Toffler is generally optimistic about the Third Wave’s prospects, he acknowledges factors of randomness and uncertainty in human development. Toffler recognizes that violence has not disappeared as a power source but argues that “the highest quality of power is to apply knowledge” [8]. Knowledge transforms geography-dependent money and violence, becoming the essential role of power and extending the supremacy of the other two power forms. Toffler asserts that “New knowledge is the key to opening the gates of economic hegemony in the 21st century” [8]. Toffler highlights knowledge’s unique characteristics compared to violence and wealth. Violence and wealth are finite-a gun can only be used by one person at a time, and money spent by one person cannot simultaneously be spent by another. Knowledge, however, can be used by multiple people simultaneously, can stimulate the creation of new knowledge, and is inexhaustible. Toffler concludes that “Knowledge has the nature of taking never to be exhausted” and is “the most democratic source of power” [8]. This democratizing potential has profound implications for social and political development, stimulating millions of young people to cultivate knowledge while also encouraging governments to implement processes of social democratization. 3.4. Critical Perspectives on Toffler’s Knowledge Power Theory While Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge power offers valuable insights, it is important to critically examine its limitations and contextual factors that may affect its applicability. First, Toffler’s optimistic view of knowledge as a democratizing force may underestimate the persistent structural inequalities that affect access to education, information technology, and research opportunities. Even as knowledge becomes more widely available through digital technologies, significant disparities remain in the capacity to produce, interpret, and apply knowledge effectively. These disparities exist both within and between nations, potentially reinforcing rather than diminishing existing power hierarchies. Second, Toffler’s framework may not fully account for the ways in which knowledge itself is socially constructed and influenced by existing power structures. Knowledge production and dissemination occur within institutional contexts shaped by political and economic interests. The question of whose knowledge counts and how it is validated remains deeply political, as feminist, postcolonial, and critical race theorists have demonstrated. Third, the relationship between knowledge and other forms of power may be more complex than Toffler’s somewhat linear progression suggests. Rather than simply replacing violence and wealth, knowledge often operates in tandem with these traditional power bases. Military power continues to shape international relations, while economic resources significantly determine who can access advanced education and information technologies. Finally, Toffler’s emphasis on technological advancement as the primary driver of social change may not adequately address the role of social movements, cultural factors, and political agency in 818 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 812-819, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate shaping how knowledge is developed and deployed. The transition to knowledge-based economies involves not only technological innovation but also social innovation and institutional transformation. Despite these limitations, Toffler’s framework remains valuable for understanding the increasing importance of knowledge in contemporary power dynamics, particularly for developing economies seeking to accelerate their development trajectories. By recognizing both the potential and the limitations of knowledge power, policymakers can develop more nuanced strategies for leveraging knowledge resources while addressing persistent structural inequalities. 4. Conclusion In modern times, knowledge has emerged as a fundamental source of power in economic and political spheres, transforming traditional power dynamics and creating new opportunities for development. This study has critically analyzed Alvin Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge power, examining its characteristics, evolution, and implications for developing economies. Toffler’s framework identifies three primary forms of power-violence, wealth, and knowledge-with knowledge representing the highest quality power due to its unique characteristics. Unlike violence and wealth, which are finite and exclusive resources, knowledge can be shared simultaneously among multiple users, stimulates the creation of new knowledge, and cannot be depleted through use. These properties make knowledge power inherently more democratic and accessible than traditional power bases, offering potential pathways for developing nations to accelerate their development trajectories. The transition from industrial to information-based societies has shifted the focus of political struggle from the distribution of wealth to the distribution of knowledge and the capacity to acquire it. In this context, Toffler’s distinction between “fast” and “slow” countries provides a valuable framework for understanding contemporary global disparities. Fast economies accelerate production through rapid information circulation and knowledge application, while slow economies remain trapped in outdated production models. This perspective suggests that developing countries must prioritize knowledge acquisition and application to bridge development gaps, potentially leapfrogging certain stages of industrial development. For Vietnam and similar developing economies, Toffler’s analysis offers several important implications. First, the development of high-quality human resources through education and training becomes not merely a social good but a strategic imperative for national development. Second, investments in information technology infrastructure and research capabilities are essential for participating in the global knowledge economy. Third, traditional advantages such as abundant natural resources and low-cost labor are diminishing in importance relative to knowledge resources and innovation capacity. The Communist Party of Vietnam has recognized these imperatives in its policy directives, emphasizing the development of a knowledge-based economy through investments in education, science, and technology. However, significant challenges remain in translating these aspirations into effective implementation. The quality of human resources in Vietnam continues to lag behind global standards, and the gap between Vietnam and developed nations in technological capabilities is widening as advanced economies embrace the fourth industrial revolution. While Toffler’s framework provides valuable insights, this analysis has also identified several limitations in his approach. His optimistic view of knowledge as a democratizing force may underestimate persistent structural inequalities in access to education and information technologies. The relationship between knowledge and traditional power bases is more complex than a linear progression, with military and economic power continuing to shape how knowledge is produced and applied. Additionally, Toffler’s emphasis on technological advancement may not adequately address the role of social movements, cultural factors, and political agency in shaping knowledge development and deployment. Despite these limitations, Toffler’s conceptualization of knowledge power offers a compelling theoretical foundation for understanding contemporary power dynamics and developing strategies for 819 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 5: 812-819, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v9i5.7007 © 2025 by the author; licensee Learning Gate knowledge-based development. By recognizing knowledge as “the most democratic source of power,” Toffler provides inspiration for individuals seeking to improve their circumstances through education. His framework also offers guidance for governments implementing more inclusive development policies. Future research should explore how developing nations can effectively navigate the transition to knowledge-based economies while addressing structural inequalities in knowledge access and application. Comparative studies of successful knowledge-based development strategies across different cultural and political contexts would be particularly valuable. Additionally, research examining the intersection of knowledge power with other forms of power in specific institutional settings could enhance our understanding of how knowledge transforms social, economic, and political relationships. In conclusion, Toffler’s perspective on knowledge power provides valuable theoretical and practical insights for developing economies navigating the transition to information-based societies. Through strategic investment in knowledge resources and creating institutional frameworks that facilitate knowledge creation, dissemination, and application, countries like Vietnam can potentially accelerate their development trajectories and improve their positions in the global knowledge economy. Realizing this potential, however, requires not only technological advancement but also social innovation and institutional transformation to ensure that the benefits of knowledge power are widely shared across society. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] Communist Party of Vietnam, Document of the 11th national congress of deputies. Hanoi: National Politics Publishing House, 2011. [2] A. Toffler, Future shock. New York: Random House, 1970. [3] A. Toffler, The third wave. New York: William Morrow, 1980. [4] A. Toffler, Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and Violence at the edge of the 21st Century. New York: Bantam Books, 1990. [5] M. M. Rodentan, Philosophical dictionary. Moscow: Progress Publishing House, 1986. [6] N. Huu, Simplified philosophical dictionary. Hanoi: University and Professional High School Publishing House, 1987. [7] T. N. Truoc, The age of knowledge economy (Tran Duc Cung & Nguyen Huu Duc, Trans.). Hanoi: National Politics Publishing House, 2001. [8] A. Toffler, Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 21st century (2 vols.) (Khong Duc, Trans.). Ho Chi Minh City: Youth Publishing House, 2006. [9] J. F. Lyotard, The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. [10] K. Marx, Theses on Feuerbach. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978. [11] Aristotle, Politics (C. Lord, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. [12] K. Dantra, Power and influence in political systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. [13] L. Lipson, The democratic civilization. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. [14] J. Nye, "Soft power," Foreign Policy, vol. 80, pp. 153-171, 1990. https://doi.org/10.2307/1148580 [15] F. Engels, The origin of the family, private property and the state. In R. C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978. [16] R. Gibson, Rethinking the future (Vu Phuc Tien et al., Trans.). Ho Chi Minh City: Young Publishing House - Saigon Economic Times - Asia Pacific Economic Center, 2006. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.2307/1148580