Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An iron triangle relationship can result in regulatory capture, the passing of very narrow, pork-barrel policies that benefit a small segment of the population. The interests of the agency's constituency (the interest groups) are met, while the needs of consumers (which may be the general public) are passed over.
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 ...
The project management triangle. The project management triangle (called also the triple constraint, iron triangle and project triangle) is a model of the constraints of project management. While its origins are unclear, it has been used since at least the 1950s. [1] It contends that:
Iron Triangle (Korea), a Korean War term referring to an area between Cheorwon County and Kimhwa in the south and Pyonggang in the north of Gangwon Province Iron Triangle (Vietnam), the name U.S. forces in the Vietnam War gave to the Communist stronghold region northwest of Saigon
The Iron Triangle (Vietnamese:Tam Giác Sắt) was a 120 square miles (310 km 2) area in the Bình Dương Province of Vietnam, so named due to it being a stronghold of Viet Minh activity during the war.
Conceptually, it is closely related to the ideas of the iron triangle (the three-sided relationship between Congress, the executive branch bureaucracy, and interest groups) and the defense industrial base (the network of organizations, facilities, and resources that supplies governments with defense-related goods and services). [10] [11]
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Other approaches identify categories based on distinct patterns of state-interest group relations. Patterns include corporatism and pluralism, iron triangles, subgovernment and clientelism while the differentiation is based on membership, stability and sectorality. [5]