The term "power" is one that can be deemed as an “essentially contested concept.” On the basest of levels, power is being able to achieve your objectives and as such is everywhere. Due to the broad nature of power which “includes everything from the ability to keep oneself alive to the ability of government to promote economic growth” (Andrew Heywood, 2007), measuring the exercise of power could be said to be a fundamentally flawed quest. In trying to narrow the meaning of power, it can be split into two categories: de jure which deals with theoretical power and de facto which is subjective. De jure power seems more measurable because it covers units of measure such as money, influence and army size and thus allows for us to make statements like Britain is more powerful than countries like Somalia because they have more assets to strengthen them. This links with the definition given by Bachrach et al (1970) which states that “power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B”. On a global scale this kind of power could be seen to be exercised through Barclays’ “decision to stop trading with remittance companies in Somalia” (Gander 2013) which led to many Somalis cut off from funds. This demonstrates how A (Barclays) made decisions directly impacting B and subsequently showing the company as having powers over their Somali customers. So with de jure power it isn’t so difficult to measure the exercise of power because there are assets that a party can possess which gives them the upper-hand over others. However, this doesn’t mean de jure power doesn’t pose difficulties when measuring power; it’s just not as difficult as de facto for instance. Moreover, there is de facto power which, as established, is subjective and therefore cannot be measured credibly like de jure power which tends to have tangible components. Because power is somewhat relative, de facto power tends to change; ran