🔺 Are Policy Networks Really Networks? Rethinking the Shapes of Power 

Policy networks are supposed to be complex webs of influence—messy, dynamic systems where governments, experts, interest groups, and citizens all interact. But if we take a closer look, these networks might not be as flexible or democratic as they appear. In fact, many still resemble something much older and more rigid: the triangle. 

In my research, I explore how today’s policy networks—despite being mapped out with sophisticated graphics and new terminology—still carry the structural DNA of statecraft and iron triangles. These historical forms of governance haven’t disappeared. They’ve simply been reshaped and embedded within modern policy-making, especially in areas like environmental management and infrastructure. 

📐 Triangles in Disguise 

One particularly insightful example comes from G. Enticott’s study of bovine tuberculosis. His ecological network maps not just cattle and disease but also climate, topography, and agricultural practices. At first glance, it seems radically holistic—a broad, open system. But when viewed through an epistemological lens, certain triangular patterns emerge, ones that segment and constrain the network. 

These internal triangles, I argue, prioritize certain ways of knowing and certain actors—often human, scientific, and institutional—at the expense of others, like local knowledge or non-human agencies. The triangle structure focuses decision-making around state power, scientific authority, and expert management. These shapes are not accidental; they reflect the ongoing influence of what I call the Modern episteme—a worldview grounded in control, classification, and hierarchy. 

🧠 Visualizing Power: It’s Not Just About Aesthetics 

Network visualizations—those diagrams of nodes and links—aren’t just pretty pictures. They shape how we understand relationships. As U. Brandes and others have shown, visualizing networks helps researchers, policy makers, and the public grasp who matters, who’s connected, and who’s missing. 

But the form of those visualizations also carries meaning. For instance, older two-dimensional diagrams from the 1930s might look simple, but that simplicity often reflects more than just technological limitations. It reflects a worldview that saw networks as exclusive and hierarchical—only a few actors were considered legitimate participants. 

Today’s networks may look more complex, but if they are filled with overlapping triangles—structures of control, authority, and expert dominance—then their complexity masks a deeper rigidity. Adding more actors into the mix doesn’t automatically make a system more democratic. It may just replicate old hierarchies on a broader scale. 

🔄 From Statecraft to Networked Control 

By tracing these patterns from early statecraft (x1) to policy science (x2) to today’s network models (x3), we begin to see a three-dimensional path dependence. That is, modern policy networks are not free-floating. They are historically and structurally shaped by ideas and institutions that have resisted change for decades—even centuries. 

This matters deeply when we consider issues like environmental degradation, urban inequality, or public health. In Halifax, for instance, the historical forms of decision-making around the harbour’s sewage infrastructure or the marginalization of Africville residents weren’t just policy mistakes. They were structured outcomes of a system that privileged certain actors and excluded others. 

🔍 Why This Matters 

We often hear calls for more inclusive or collaborative policy processes. But before we can build those, we need to critically examine the shapes and histories of the networks we already have. 

If our systems are still dominated by triangular structures of state power, scientific authority, and expert control, then simply inviting more participants won’t change the game. It might just reinforce the old rules under a new name. 

Conclusion: 

Policy networks are not inherently democratic. Their shape matters. Their history matters. And unless we examine the forms they take—who sits at the center, who holds the edges, and who gets left out—we’ll continue to reproduce the very power structures we hope to dismantle. 

The challenge isn’t just to redraw our policy diagrams. It’s to reimagine the systems they represent.