Political resources reduce to coercion, capital, and commitment.

Evidence

Political resources divide broadly into coercion, capital, and commitment. The term “coercion” includes all concerted means of action that commonly cause loss or damage to the persons, possessions, or sustaining social relations of social actors. … Capital refers to tangible, transferable resources that in combination with effort can produce increases in use value, plus enforceable claims on such resources. … Commitment means relations among social sites (persons, groups, structures, or positions) that promote their taking account of each other. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 127

Categorization

• DEFINE: Tilly’s trichotomy of political resources — coercion, capital, commitment — is the elemental taxonomy he reuses throughout.
• XREF: The reader’s rights-regime question maps here: institutionalized rights absorption effectively converts coercion (a regime suppressing challengers) into commitment (a regime binding challengers into routinized relation) — worth testing. — connects to: Coercive government power depends on voluntary cooperation from many; Capital is both a tool and a coercive force over others; Political resources comprise coercion, capital, and commitment — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 127

Broader Connections

• Capital is both a tool and a coercive force over others #expands (0.85)
• Coercive government power depends on voluntary cooperation from many #complicates (0.80)