Steven Lukes stated in 1974 that one should study power as having three ‘faces’ or dimensions. The first dimension concerns the power of political leaders to fight observable conflicts in the decision-making process; power is winning the political battle. The second dimension is the power to control agendas; what is discussed and what is excluded. Previous discussions on the concept of power had been limited to those forms of power that could be seen, that is, these two first dimensions, and the overt use of power in political decision-making processes. It is not sufficient, however, to study concrete, observable behaviour. Therefore, Lukes argued, that the third ‘criticial’ dimension of power should be considered in political analysis (Lukes 1974). Lobbying belongs to this third dimension. It is not obviously measurable as it often takes place behind the scenes and hidden from public scrutiny. Therefore, the third dimension deals with the hidden use of power. Overt and also covert observable conflicts should be included in political analysis. Such ‘latent’ conflict ‘consists in a contradiction between the interests of those exercising power and the real interests of those they exclude’ (Lukes 1974, 24–5). Furthermore, ‘The conflict is latent in the sense that it is assumed that there would be a conflict of wants or preferences between those exercising power and those subject to it, were the latter to become aware of their interests’ (ibid., 25). Because not all conflicts are measurable, we must infer their existence.