Introduction
Policy-making is a complicated and severe process that may involve both official and non-official institutions. Since their general task is to expand and hold their power, strengthen their influence and the image of the country, and shape policy development, the work of these agencies needs to be coordinated. The way to do that is to make a mutually dependent connection between several influential government groups and organize them in a way that each group party services and benefits from the others. In the U.S., such unity is called the Iron Triangle. It is noticeable that this is a concept rather than a separate institution, and this is also a unique dynamic of policy-making between the three significant agencies. The purpose of this paper is to show this specific connection, examine how each group depends on others and serves them, and define if this is how public policy is created in America.
The Concept Behind the Iron Triangle
Before talking about the significance and impact of the Iron Triangle, as well as discussing the role and dependence of each agency involved in this concept, it is vital to analyze the idea behind it and the creation of the Triangle. Overall, as stated by Adams (1981), “political scientists describe an ‘iron triangle’ as a political relationship that brings together three key participants in a delineated area of policy-making” (p. 24). As mentioned in the introduction, these participants are the key members and committees of Congress, the Federal bureaucracy, and the private interest groups. It is intended that the role of the Triangle is to act in the community’s best interests, but actually, their interrelationship results in the three participants’ focus on their own needs. Adams (1981) mentions that “the creation of an ‘iron triangle’ takes time and active efforts of its participants” (p. 25). For instance, these efforts require proper intercommunication, adaptation to the changing economic circumstances, and isolation from outside opinions.
Explaining How the Relationship Works
As mentioned above, the relationship between the three participants is based on their mutual interest in each other. This unique political connection can be compared with symbiotic relationships between living creatures in nature when two or more benefit one another (Gais et al., 1984). If the Triangle is not created, each participant’s impact and power are much weaker because they fail to receive support and benefit from the other two parties. Consequently, the unbreakable and lasting bond between the agencies is defined by their input, which is discussed further.
Congress
Congress is the U.S. government’s legislative branch that holds great power and can be rather beneficial for interest groups and bureaucracy. Congress must enact legislation, provide and raise public money, and provide political support. What Congress members may need from various interest groups is to receive electoral support through donations or political action committees (PACs) (Mitnick, n.d.). At the same time, they also require policy choices and the execution of these choices from the federal bureaucracy.
Interest Groups
These participants of the Iron Triangle also provide great benefits and have some requirements from the other two parties. As noticed by (Gormandy White, n.d.), interest groups require proper oversight and positive legislation from Congress members. Additionally, the way the federal bureaucracy can help them is by delivering unique favors and low regulation (U.S. History, n.d.). Overall, this may be challenging to apply to a real-life situation, but several examples will be provided further to better explain the way interest groups benefit from the two other participants.
Bureaucracy
Finally, it is also essential to review how bureaucracy can use the power and impacts of the interest groups and Congress. Considering that the federal bureaucracy is quite helpful when supporting the two other participants, one may suggest that the benefits received by this member of the Triangle are also significant. When referring to interest groups, they use lobbying Congress to provide the federal bureaucracy with congressional support (U.S. History, n.d.). Further, as stated by Adams (1981), congressmen make sure that this participant has political support and funding.
Examples of the Interconnection
To completely understand how Iron Triangles work, it is essential to provide several examples. First of all, one real-life situation of a triangle’s creation is related to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Recently, several pharmaceutical companies “have had undue influence in the decisions of the FDA, resulting in the marketing of drugs whose sometimes dangerous side effects have not been tracked by the FDA” (Mitnick, n.d., p. 1). Their impact was supported by Congress, and it is evident that the three parties, focused on their interests, forgot about the safety and needs of the community.
Another case describes the Iron Triangle that involves the Christian Coalition of America. According to Gormandy White (n.d.), this interest group promotes severe restrictions placed on abortion and protects conservatism. By providing votes and political support to specific congressmen, the coalition makes them pass restrictive laws even though the community is against them (Gormandy White, n.d.). Further, several bureaucratic agencies also offer the coalition with low regulations, receiving congressional approval.
Is this Actually How Public Policy Is Created in the U.S.?
As mentioned above, the members of the Iron Triangle do their best to become isolated from the outside impacts and opinions affecting their views. While this may be beneficial, such isolation also leads to a negative consequence for the community: the Triangle’s participants forget about their need to address people’s interests. Considering this fact, one may ask themselves whether iron triangles actually control public policy-making, or does the society also hold power? Generally speaking, ordinary people need to have control over public policy creation because only society knows what is best for it. However, as proved in the examples provided earlier in the paper, the interconnection between the three participants of Iron Triangles allows them to forget about public interests and focus on their aims, which are usually negative for the community. Therefore, one may state that this is actually how public policy is created in America, and ordinary citizens cannot control it.
Conclusion
To conclude, one may say that the Iron Triangle is a unique and rather powerful concept that simultaneously benefits all its participants, ensuring a strong bond between them. By mutually supporting each other, the three members of the Iron Triangle achieve higher political power and effects on the community, which allows each agency to act in their interests. Overall, such triangles have both advantages and disadvantages, and the main negative aspect is that they limit the impact of external opinion and forget about their initial mission to serve the needs of people. However, if they do remember this responsibility, Iron Triangles can become rather positive.
References
Adams, G. (1981). The iron triangle. Transaction Publishers.
Gais, T. L., Peterson, M. A., & Walker, J. L. (1984). Interest groups, iron triangles and representative institutions in the American national government. British Journal of Political Science, 14(2), 161-185. Web.
Gormandy White, M. (n.d.). Iron triangle examples in US government. Your Dictionary. Web.
Mitnick, B. M. (n.d.). Iron triangles [PDF document]. Web.
U.S. History. (n.d.). The bureaucracy: The real government. Web.