Issue networks are an alliance of various interest groups and individuals who unite in order to promote a common cause or agenda in a way that influences government policy. Issue networks can be either domestic or international in scope depending on their collective goal. With the rise of the internet, many interest groups have turned to online resources, such as blogs and social media, to promote and spread their cause because of its low cost and high efficiency in outreach. An issue network's tactics vary depending on their goals and purpose. In developed countries, issue networks often push for a change in policy within the government bureaucracy. An example includes the wide-ranging network of environmental groups and individuals who push for more environmental regulation in government policy.[1] Other issue networks may revolve around such controversial issues as abortion, gun ownership rights, and drug laws. In the most extreme circumstances, issue networks may seek to achieve their means through violence, such as terrorist organizations looking to overthrow existing governments altogether. In the U.S, the most common tactic of effective issue networks is the role they play in what is called Iron Triangles. This is the three-way back-and-forth communication process between Congress, Bureaucracies, and the interest groups that make up an issue network where they discuss policy and agendas in order to compromise on solutions to satisfy each other's agendas.
In this table, subjects are categorized from high to low complexity and salience. Salience, meaning how high something affects a large number of people, and complexity meaning how much training and knowledge is needed for someone to answer the questions that can be asked about the subject. The typography below is by William T. Gormley[2]
| Salience | Complexity | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low | High | |
| Zoning Regulation | Nuclear Licensing | ||
| Affirmative Action Regulation | Electric Utility Regulation | ||
| Minimum Wage Regulation | Gas Utility Regulation | ||
| Gun Control | Hazardous Waste Regulation | ||
| Sale of Pornography | Water Quality Regulation | ||
| Nude Dancing | Occupational Safety | ||
| Video Arcade | Health Regulation | ||
| Hiring of Illegals | Drug Licensing | ||
| Truth-in-Labeling | Power Plant Siting | ||
| Fair Advertising | Strip Mining Regulation | ||
| Generic Research | |||
| Low | Building Inspections | Cable Television Regulations | |
| Housing Inspections | Antitrust Regulation | ||
| Nursing Home Inspections | Securities Regulations | ||
| Liquor Licensing | Insurance Regulation | ||
| Blue Laws | Banking Regulation | ||
| Billboard Regulations | Telephone Regulation | ||
| Restaurant Inspections | Transportation Regulation | ||
| Election Regulation | Hospital Rate Regulation | ||
| Motor Vehicle Inspections | Patent Regulation | ||
| Broadcast Regulation | |||
Issue networks may be confused with the related concept of Iron triangles, but have several key differences. One of these is that issue networks are generally free-forming groups of people in the public sector who form a coalition together, not through a congressional committee, or a federal agency but are bound together to work on a current issue. Therefore, issue networks are often temporary, breaking up when their goals are accomplished, unlike iron triangles. Another difference between iron triangles and issue networks is that issue networks can oppose each other. For instance, an issue network based around supporting the construction of a pipeline can cause another issue network to form that opposes it. The members of an issue network may support or oppose it for various reasons, but what brings them together is their shared opinions.[3]
From a stable policy community, through a period of substantial change under firm government control, to a densely populated and competitive environment composed of issue networks. In countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, government is returning to a more interactive strategy regarding issue networks.[4] In other countries, group input is a vital component of the policy-making process, through that process bureaucratic expertise is built-up and maintained. The existence of knowledgeable government agencies is necessary to balance the demands of competing groups and thereby ensure greater stability of policy outcomes. For example, in Australia, higher education is a good example of how the government is listening to clientele groups (issue networks) less than they were in the past due to the complexity of universities and the higher education system.[5]