Do Small States Get More Federal Monies? Myth and Reality about the US Senate Malapportionment
AbstractWe analyze the relationship between senate malapportionment and the allocation of the US federal budget to the states during the period 1978-2002. A substantial literature originating from the influential paper by Atlas et al (1995, using a within estimation methodology finds that small and overrepresented states get significantly larger shares of federal funds. Revisiting the econometric specification used by the current empirical research, we show that the number of senators percapita is inappropriate to capture malapportionement in regressions using broad federal programs, and that the results obtained with this indicator are extremely non-robust to reasonable specification changes. In particular, senators percapita have a significant impact on federal spending only in regressions containing state fixed effects. Furthermore, the coefficients estimated using the within methodology are statistically different across states and, therefore, cannot be used to assess spending differentials between states. The magnitude and significance of those coefficients suggest a within state-specific inverse relationship between broad spending categories and population which is not systematically related to the size of the states and seems more compatible with incrementalist theories of budget allocation.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London in its series Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics with number 07/01.
Date of creation: May 2007
Date of revision: May 2007
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
Phone: +44 1784-414228
Fax: +44 1784-439534
Web page: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/economics/
Postal: Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
Other versions of this item:
- Valentino Larcinese & Leonzio Rizzo & Cecilia Testa, 2009. "Do Small States Get More Federal Monies?Myth and Reality About the US SenateMalapportionment," STICERD - Economic Organisation and Public Policy Discussion Papers Series 007, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
- Cecilia Testa, 2009. "Do Small States Get More Federal Monies? Myth and Reality About the US Senate Malapportionment," Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics 09/04, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London.
- Larcinese, Valentino & Rizzo, Leonzio & Testa, Cecilia, 2007. "Do Small States Get More Federal Monies? Myth and Reality about the US Senate Malapportionment," MPRA Paper 5339, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- H60 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - General
- H61 - Public Economics - - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt - - - Budget; Budget Systems
- H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Brian Knight, 2004. "Legislative Representation, Bargaining Power, and the Distribution of Federal Funds: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," NBER Working Papers 10385, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Valentino Larcinese & Leonzio Rizzo & Cecilia Testa, 2005. "Allocating the US Federal Budget to the States: the Impact of the President," STICERD - Political Economy and Public Policy Paper Series 03, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
- Hauk, William R. & Wacziarg, Romain, 2007. "Small States, Big Pork," International Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 2(1), pages 95-106, March.
- Robert A. Moffitt, 2003. "Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number moff03-1.
- Brian Knight, 2005. "Estimating the Value of Proposal Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1639-1652, December.
- Gary Hoover & Paul Pecorino, 2005. "The Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 95-113, April.
- Wright, Gavin, 1974. "The Political Economy of New Deal Spending: An Econometric Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(1), pages 30-38, February.
- Wallis, John Joseph, 1998. "The Political Economy of New Deal Spending Revisited, Again: With and without Nevada," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 140-170, April.
- Albert Solé-Ollé, 2009.
"Inter-regional redistribution through infrastructure investment: tactical or programmatic?,"
XREAP2009-13, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Nov 2009.
- Albert Solé-Ollé, 2009. "Inter-Regional redistribution through infrastructure investment: tactical or programmatic?," Working Papers 2009/32, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Claire Blackman).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.