How do networks affect entrepreneurship?

Can you consolidate raw political power by intentionally destroying your own monopoly on information? In the arena of political entrepreneurship, the answer is a resounding yes. While the market broker (*tertius gaudens*) thrives on keeping competitors divided, the political entrepreneur acts as a *tertius iungens*—a strategic actor who builds power not by policing boundaries, but by actively collapsing them to forge durable coalitions. In political science, a political entrepreneur is an individual who catalyzes collective action, coordinates disparate interests, and couples previously disconnected ideas to alter policy or build institutions. By applying David Obstfeld’s concept of the *tertius iungens* (the third who joins) to this domain, we expose a sophisticated mechanism of institutional creation: the deliberate conversion of informational social capital into structured, institutional power. ## Coupling the Streams: The Kingdon Framework In his seminal work, [*Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies*](https://www.pearson.com/), political scientist John Kingdon explains how policy change occurs through the alignment of three independent streams: problems, policies, and politics. > "Political entrepreneurs do not just perceive windows of opportunity; they bend streams together to force those windows open." This "bending together" is the classic *tertius iungens* orientation in action. Where a traditional broker would profit from keeping policy experts (the policy stream) isolated from campaigning politicians (the politics stream), the political entrepreneur deliberately couples them. By introducing these disconnected factions, the entrepreneur closes the structural hole. In doing so, they sacrifice their temporary position as an information gatekeeper to become the indispensable architect of a new legislative or regulatory reality. ## Polycentric Governance and the Ostrom Paradigm This network-joining mechanism is essential for resolving complex collective action dilemmas. In her Nobel Prize-winning research on [polycentric governance](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/ostrom/biographical/), Elinor Ostrom demonstrated that managing common-pool resources requires self-governing coalitions of diverse stakeholders. In [*Governing the Commons*](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/governing-the-commons/A8BB63AF214E10BA008F4972637209FA), Ostrom details how successful local actors navigate conflicting interests by establishing shared norms and monitoring systems. The political entrepreneur acts as the vital *tertius iungens* spark in these systems. They connect fishermen, local authorities, and scientists into a single communicative network. While this connectivity destroys the broker's informational arbitrage, it yields a far more valuable asset: **institutional capital**. By formalizing the connections between these groups, the entrepreneur establishes a new, resilient governance structure—and secures a central, highly legitimate leadership role within it. ## The Temporal Transition: From Broker to Bureaucrat This network dynamic reveals a fundamental paradox in political entrepreneurship: 1. **Phase I (Brokerage):** The entrepreneur exploits a structural hole, operating as a *tertius gaudens* to gather intelligence and build trust across disconnected factions. 2. **Phase II (Union):** Sensing a policy window, the entrepreneur shifts to a *tertius iungens* orientation, connecting these factions to draft legislation or build an alliance. 3. **Phase III (Institutionalization):** The structural hole is permanently closed. The entrepreneur's social capital is successfully institutionalized, transforming a transient network position into permanent administrative or bureaucratic authority. Ultimately, political entrepreneurship is the art of network self-destruction. The most successful political actors do not hoard structural holes; they trade them for empires.