🧱 The Myth of the Flexible Network 

At first glance, policy networks appear to be open systems where multiple voices contribute to shaping decisions. Scholars have used diagrams to map these networks, identifying “primary,” “secondary,” and “tertiary” actors in relation to each other. 

But in practice, these networks are often locked into patterns formed decades ago. Why? I propose three interconnected reasons: 

1. The Legacy of Statecraft 
   Past decisions by governments—often made with little public input—have established precedents that still shape today’s policy environment. These precedents create a kind of institutional inertia. 

2. The Power of Exclusive Relationships 
   Known as “iron triangles,” these tight-knit alliances between government departments, industry, and regulators dominate decision-making. They limit the influence of outsiders or newer voices. 

3. Technological Barriers to Change 
   Infrastructure systems like sewer networks are not easy to replace. The technical and financial hurdles reinforce the existing system, making reform both risky and expensive. 

Together, these three forces create a structure that is self-reinforcing. They form what I call a three-dimensional path dependency, where history, politics, and technology mutually support each other, making meaningful change very difficult. 

When Networks Reflect Old Power, Not New Ideas 

Even scholars who support the policy network model acknowledge its shortcomings. Hessing, Howlett, and Summerville point out that while these networks classify roles effectively, they fail to account for two critical realities: 

• The persistent influence of political power 

• The dominance of specialized technical knowledge 

In other words, even if people have good ideas or want to change policies for the better, they often can’t. Why? Because they lack the resources—money, expertise, legal authority, and political support—to challenge the entrenched status quo. 

🧠 Path Dependence: More Than Just Technology 

One of the most important contributions of this research is the argument that technological path dependence—the idea that past technical choices constrain future options—should be expanded to include ideological path dependence. This means recognizing that political ideas and power structures also get “locked in,” just like pipes underground. 

Take the example of the long-standing pollution of Halifax Harbour. It wasn’t just an engineering problem. It was also a political one, rooted in decades of decisions that prioritized some voices over others and ignored ecological realities. The system wasn’t just resistant to change because it was technically complicated—it was ideologically entrenched. 

Conclusion: Why This Matters 

Policy networks may look like neutral, rational systems. But in reality, they reflect historical power structures that resist change. To solve complex problems like environmental degradation or infrastructure renewal, we must not only rethink the pipes and pumps—we must also confront the deeper political and ideological systems that hold them in place. 

By naming and analyzing these hidden forces, we stand a better chance of creating more just, responsive, and forward-thinking policy.