Misshapen Triangles: Why Policy Networks Aren’t as Democratic as They Seem
When we talk about how public policy is shaped—who gets a seat at the table and who doesn’t—we often use the term “policy networks.” These networks supposedly bring together elected officials, experts, businesses, NGOs, and citizens in a shared process of decision-making. On the surface, this sounds like democracy in action. But what if the shape of these networks is more skewed than we realize?
In my research, I challenge the idea that today’s policy networks are neutral or inclusive. Instead, I argue that they are deeply shaped by historical structures of statecraft and iron triangles—rigid, hierarchical relationships that date back to an earlier era of public administration. These structures still cast a long shadow over how policy is made today.
🔁 History Repeating Itself: The Triangle Returns
One of the key illustrations in policy analysis comes from researchers Pappi and Henning, who describe how governments, interest groups, and citizens interact through a set of resource exchanges. In their model:
- Governments monitor and control interest groups
- Interest groups provide expertise and political support to governments
- Citizens, while described as the “demand source” for policy, are placed in a subordinate position
This triangular model, though modern in appearance, closely mirrors older structures of statecraft—specifically what I call the inverted iron triangle. In both, citizens are not central actors but supporting players. They provide legitimacy or votes, but they do not exert equal influence over decisions.
🧠 Why Shape Matters: Networks vs. Triangles
Policy networks are often thought of as webs—flexible, decentralized, and interactive. But when we dig into how they function, we find that many of them still behave like triangles, where power flows downward from the top.
These older shapes—triangles rather than networks—matter because they reveal a persistent power imbalance:
- Elected officials and technical experts exchange control and knowledge
- Citizens are invited to participate, but only within tightly controlled channels
In my research into Halifax’s policy history, particularly around environmental governance, I found that even modern policy processes reproduce these unequal shapes. Whether it’s city council working with engineers or mayors negotiating with regulators, citizens remain on the receiving end rather than being active participants.
🧬 Why We Need to Rethink Participation
The real danger of these misshapen triangles is that they mask inequality behind the appearance of inclusion. Policy networks promise collaboration, but the structure often favors established players—those with technical knowledge, institutional roles, or insider access.
This isn’t just an abstract problem. It has real-world consequences. For example, in environmental initiatives like the cleanup of Halifax Harbour, the lack of meaningful citizen input helped entrench decisions that were slow, expensive, and often politically contested.
🔍 What Needs to Change?
We need to:
- Recognize the historical foundations of policy structures—statecraft isn’t dead, it’s embedded
- Challenge the idea that all policy actors participate on equal footing
- Design better models of engagement where citizens are co-creators, not just supporters of predetermined agendas
The legacy of statecraft and the persistence of iron triangles reveal that our systems are not as open or participatory as they claim. But by understanding the shape of influence, we can begin to reshape policy—making it more democratic, more inclusive, and more accountable.
