The Iron Triangle

Pluralism, a term used to characterize the idea that the presence of rivalry among different organized interests will result in equilibrium because these interests will control each other, is a key component of American politics. According to pluralism, the allocation of authority and power in political systems is an ongoing phase involving a confrontation between opposing parties. Inequalities sometimes occur as a result of the diversity of these competing interests, but these seem to level out over time, resulting in political equilibrium. Since all players in pluralist setups seek to maximize their own interests, it becomes necessary for them to form symbiotic relationships known as iron triangles that can help to achieve this goal (Kiraly). However, an iron triangle ultimately defeats the pluralist idea because it typically leads to the creation of policy cartels, elitism, and the pursuit of power and resources thus hindering the principle of open competition that underlies pluralism.

A typical iron triangle entails a collaboration between the three players involved in policy formulation in the United States. This three-way alliance comprises of bureaucrats, legislators, and interest groups with the three working together formally or informally to craft policies that serve their respective interests (Bardes, et al. 431). For example, powerful interest groups lobby Congressmen to formulate policies that are favorable to their interests in exchange for voter support and campaign contributions. During the implementation stage of these policies, Congressmen work with the bureaucrats to ensure that any rules formulated are favorable to the interest groups that pushed for the policies. In return, Congressmen support policies that expand bureaucrats’ powers and budgets. Thus, a mutually beneficial relationship results for all three parties.

Whereas this relationship is apparently perfect, it may end up limiting pluralism. One of the central tenets of pluralism is that resources and thus potential power are widely distributed throughout society ("Pluralism"). However, this is not entirely accurate because some sections of society have more resources than others do. Consequently, this means that when these dominant individuals form an interest group, they have a greater opportunity to collaborate with the other two players since they simply have more to offer. For example, the interest group that can offer a Congressman more campaign funds is more likely to receive that individual’s support thus locking out less financially disadvantaged groups and in the process defeating the purpose of pluralism, which is meant to ensure balanced representation.

Iron triangles also potentially lead to elitism thus leading to discontent among some sections of the society and subverting the pluralist idea. This situation may arise where a particular interest group, which has access to a wide variety of resources, conspires to influence policy decisions across a range of sectors (Hague, et al. 156). For example, this group may have interests in different sectors of the economy such as healthcare, agriculture, and energy. Because such a group has access to vast resources, they can convince the other two parties to pass policies that are favorable to their interests in all three sectors. Consequently, a small group of individuals ends up wielding a massive amount of power and operating like a cartel pulling all the strings. Thus, instead of the having a range of competing interests, the system ends up serving the private interests of a few powerful individuals or institutions thus going against the pluralist idea.



Pluralism ideally seeks to ensure that policymaking is open and competitive and thus that policies formulated are in the public interest, but an iron triangle potentially leads to the opposite. Iron triangles encourage government agencies to seek for more funding and power as opposed to pursuing the common good. At times, the existence of iron triangles even leads to the sacrificing of the public interest in return for a greater amount of power. An example of such a situation arises where Congress lowers environmental protection standards for oil companies in exchange for campaign fund donations that are of no benefit to the public. Here, the public ends up losing because the lower standards mean potentially greater levels of environmental degradation but the selfish interests of the other parties prevail. In such situations, the media serves as an effective check by calling attention to such poor decisions leading to their reversal. However, sometimes even the media is unaware of the issue and fails to draw attention to it, which means that pluralism and the public good end up suffering.

Conclusively, it is evident that policy formulation in the USA is a rather complex web of activities. The primary guiding principle in policy formulation is pluralism, which seeks to ensure the existence of a democratic equilibrium through the existence of competing interests. However, the formation of iron triangles, which is a natural consequence of this process, does tend to inhibit pluralism. Iron triangles encourage the radical pursuit of power and money, which means that everything else, public interest included, takes a backseat. Additionally, where the same interest groups are involved in several sectors, elitism may arise, and these groups may operate as a cartel thus denying others equal representation and defeating the essence of pluralism.



Works Cited

Bardes, Barbara A., et al. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials. 16th ed., Cengage Learning, 2012.

Hague, Rod, et al. Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction. 9th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Kiraly, Mike. "Presidency." YouTube, 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LE8WYXYmJ4. Accessed 16 July 2017.

"Pluralism." University of Delaware, www1.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/pluralism.html. Accessed 16 July 2017.