The Asymmetric power model, a theoretical model explaining how British politics works, was proposed by David Marsh, David Richards and Martin Smith^[1]. The asymmetric power model aimed to critique a proposed model by R.A.W. Rhodes called differentiated polity^[2] and to expand on the lack of modelling in British Politics. The asymmetric power model specifically argued that there to be a structured inequality within the British political system, not only within the government but also socio-economically.

The origins of the asymmetric power model came from a book written by British political scientist David Marsh^[3]. David Marsh's model started as a critique for Rhodes' differentiated polity and as a different model for explaining British Politics. He agreed with Rhodes in that the core executive in British politics was segmented, he goes on to comment on the asymmetries in government in that, not all power lies with the prime minister but instead, power is spread through governmental departments and works based on exchange relationships. He states that Margaret Thatcher is an example of this segmentation of the executive due to her lack of involvement in areas such as the 'Department of social security which left ministers to deal with the complex and technical issues surrounding the department' showing an exchange relationship between these actors yet Marsh does stress that these relationships are usually asymmetric. He also proposes in his model that British political tradition along with structural inequality lead to asymmetries of power in British politics^[4]. He argues that there is a top-down approach to democracy seeing institutions and processes in British politics being supported by a concept of democracy created by British political tradition, he uses the phrase 'government knows best' stating that there is a lack of emphasis on wider representation in British politics with little influence on ministers representing the views of their constituents and referendums only being used to settle irreparable differences within a party. He does believe, however, that the core executive retains most of the power in this model.

The theoretical model of British politics, the asymmetric power model proposed by Marsh, Richards and Smith did receive discourse from Rhodes and Bevir as an article was written in response to Marsh's critique of the differentiated polity theory proposed by Rhodes. Within this article, Rhodes and Bevir differentiate between the two models^[5] explain that 'the differentiated polity is not a model but a narrative', Rhodes and Bevir continue the discourse by critiquing Marsh's model such as through questioning the level of power that the core executive actually holds. David Marsh responds to the discussion by accepting the discourse between the two models and further explaining how the model he proposed differs from the differentiated polity^[6]. He analyses the discourse from Rhodes and Bevir and expresses his worry that the differentiated polity 'is becoming the new orthodoxy' without considering the alternatives such as the Asymmetric power model.