Title: Why Policy Networks Aren’t as Equal as They Seem — And Why That Matters
At first glance, policy networks—the complex webs of actors, organizations, and institutions that influence how policy is made—seem like a modern, democratic improvement over older, more rigid systems like “iron triangles” or state-centric governance. But dig a little deeper, and the reality is far more complicated.
Despite their decentralized appearance, policy networks often replicate the same power dynamics that characterized older governance models. Business, industry, and government remain at the core, while the public is pushed to the margins. In fact, as scholars Hessing, Howlett, and Summerville argue, network equality is largely an illusion. The public has little real power, often lacking the technical expertise or access needed to influence outcomes.
The Limits of Participation
Take employment, for example. Industry’s close ties to government often stem from shared economic interests and employment links—advantages the general public simply doesn’t have. This lopsided access is reinforced by technical knowledge barriers: policymaking is increasingly specialized, and without expert knowledge, many communities are effectively excluded from meaningful participation.
My research explores this exclusion through two case studies: the displaced Black community of Africville, and the Metro Coalition for Harbour Cleanup (MCHC). Both examples show how unequal networks reinforce existing power hierarchies—even when new actors manage to gain temporary influence.
Neo-Fordism and the Illusion of Progress
In the case of the MCHC, their advocacy for an engineered wetland treatment system is a striking example. Though the Coalition briefly held “enactor status”—a kind of insider influence based on their technical expertise—their proposals were ultimately sidelined. Their experience illustrates that even innovative actors, once absorbed into the policy network, often end up replicating the behaviour of the original core members rather than transforming the system.
This is what I refer to as the cyclical nature of Fordism and neo-Fordism: systems of power and production that reinforce themselves over time. Far from signaling a break from the past, today’s networks often mask the continuation of older paradigms within seemingly new structures.
A Cycle, Not a Line
Policy networks, it turns out, don’t move in a straight line from problem to solution. According to Hessing, Howlett, and Summerville, the policy process is better understood as cyclical. Problems are recognized, solutions proposed and implemented—but instead of closing the loop, the process repeats, often with little real change. New policies refer back to old ones, and historical patterns remain intact.
This cyclical nature is closely tied to what scholars call technological path dependence—the idea that past choices shape current possibilities. Sewerage systems, for instance, evolve in a way that locks in earlier designs, limiting innovation. The same is true for policy networks: once a particular structure is in place, it becomes harder to change direction.
Why It Matters
Understanding the rigidity of policy networks—and their resistance to truly democratic change—is essential for those who want to push for more equitable governance. My research argues that the intersection of network analysis and path dependence offers a clearer lens for understanding why certain communities, like Africville, continue to be excluded from decisions that affect their lives. It also highlights why innovative ideas, like the MCHC’s engineered wetlands, struggle to gain traction.
Policy may claim to be adaptive and participatory, but its structures often remain as resistant to change as the sewer systems beneath our cities. To build a more democratic future, we need to not only invite new voices into the room but also transform the structures that have historically kept them out.
