The Iron Triangle: Interest Groups, Subcommittees, and Bureaucrats in US Policy Making, Study notes of Law

Download The Iron Triangle: Interest Groups, Subcommittees, and Bureaucrats in US Policy Making and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! The Iron Triangle Observers of the modern American government often point to an iron triangle that best demonstrates who really does the work of government. The iron triangle, sometimes called a subgovernment, consists of interest groups, members of congressional subcommittees, and agency bureaucrats. Who really governs the United States? Many political analysts believe policy is set by the participants in the "Iron Triangle" rather than elected officials. According to the theory, agencies and departments usually keep close contacts with interest group lobbyists who want to influence their actions. Interest groups may provide valuable statistics to government agencies, and they are motivated to have their point of view heard. Both lobbyists and bureaucrats value contact with congressional subcommittees that shape the laws that govern their interests. Working together, these three groups set most government policies. An example of such an iron triangle would be the American Association for Retired People (AARP), the House Subcommittee on Aging, and the Social Security Administration all working together to set government policy on Social Security. Bureaucratic Iron Triangles An iron triangle is defined as a three-sided, mutually advantageous relationship between members of Congressional Committees, Bureaucrats, and interest groups. Most of the Congressional Committees and Subcommittees have relationships with the agencies whose programs they authorize and appropriate money for. The committees and the bureaucrats from the agencies have close relationships with interest groups that want to influence policy. The literal components of an iron triangle such as one involving agriculture, includes key members of the House and Senate committees on Agriculture (such as a committee chairman), officials from the US Department of Agriculture (such as a director of a division), and lobbyists who represent an interest group such as the American Farm Bureau Federation. The relationship is simple. The USDA does what the committees want because the (House)committees have the "power of the purse" and in return the USDA gets political support and budget appropriations. The Committees do what the AFBF wants in return for votes and campaign contributions. These iron triangles exist at the local and state levels as well. For example, one could exist between the North Carolina Farm Bureau, the North Carolina Congressional committees on Agriculture and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture. This iron triangle may ensure that hog farmers receive state money from the "Rainy Day Fund" to create sanitary means of hog waste disposal. The iron triangle is a form of client politics, that is, it is only beneficial to few, but a large part of society will pay the cost. They are also very difficult to penetrate or influence from outside of the iron triangle. Even presidents have a great deal of difficulty penetrating them. This is, for the most part, not democratic. The voters only have influence over the members of Congress involved. The essential control of the law lies with the interest group. The people can do nothing to control the interest group as long as it is not breaking the law. The same is true with the Bureaucracy. It is almost impossible to fire a bureaucrat. This has a negative effect on democracy, but it is part of American politics. American political ideology derives from the idea of the power of the majority without stepping on the feet of the minority. The Pharmaceutical “Iron Triangle” Professor Paul Johnson describes iron triangles as “closed, mutually supportive relationships between government agencies, special interest lobbying organizations, and the legislative committees or subcommittees with jurisdiction over a particular functional area of government policy.