Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Do Small States Get More Federal Monies? Myth and Reality about the US Senate Malapportionment

Contents:

Author Info

  • Valentino Larcinese

    (London School of Economics and STICERD)

  • Leonzio Rizzo

    (University of Ferrara and Catholic University, Milan)

  • Cecilia Testa

    ()
    (Department of Economics, Royal Holloway, University of London)

Abstract

We 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 Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/economics/Research/WorkingPapers/pdf/dpe0701.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper 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.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: May 2007
Date of revision: May 2007
Handle: RePEc:hol:holodi:0701

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/

Order Information:
Postal: Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
Email:

Related research

Keywords: federal budget; malapportionment; small state advantage; overrepresentation;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Atlas, Cary M, et al, 1995. "Slicing the Federal Government Net Spending Pie: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 624-29, June.
  2. 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.
  3. Robert Moffitt, 1988. "Has State Redistribution Policy Grown More Conservative?," NBER Working Papers 2516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Valentino Larcinese & Leonzio Rizzo & Cecilia Testa, 2005. "Allocating the US federal budget to the states: the impact of the President," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3611, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  5. 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.
  6. Brian Knight, 2005. "Estimating the Value of Proposal Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1639-1652, December.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Robert A. Moffitt, 2003. "Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number moff03-1, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Albert Solé-Ollé, 2009. "Inter-regional redistribution through infrastructure investment: tactical or programmatic?," Working Papers XREAP2009-13, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised Nov 2009.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hol:holodi:0701. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Claire Blackman).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.