IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/copoec/v30y2019i1d10.1007_s10602-018-9269-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using tax dollars for re-election: the impact of pork-barrel spending on electoral success

Author

Listed:
  • J. Zachary Klingensmith

    (Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, Black School of Business)

Abstract

Pork-barrel spending is the appropriation of federal money for use in projects that only benefit narrowly defined groups. In the past, researchers have attempted to show that pork-barrel spending increases the likelihood of an incumbent being reelected but empirical evidence has been hard to find. I hypothesize that pork-barrel spending does not directly increase the likelihood of reelection; instead, pork-barrel spending can be used to increase fundraising and the additional campaign funds are then used to increase the likelihood of being reelected. I find that a $10 million increase in pork-barrel spending will lead to a 0.10% increase in the share of the vote in an election. While this may not seem like a major advantage to some, several elections over the past few years have been decided by

Suggested Citation

  • J. Zachary Klingensmith, 2019. "Using tax dollars for re-election: the impact of pork-barrel spending on electoral success," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 31-49, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:copoec:v:30:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10602-018-9269-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10602-018-9269-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10602-018-9269-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10602-018-9269-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Born, Richard, 1979. "Generational Replacement and the Growth of Incumbent Reelection Margins in the U.S. House," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 811-817, September.
    2. Pastine, Ivan & Pastine, Tuvana, 2012. "Incumbency advantage and political campaign spending limits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 20-32.
    3. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    4. Stratmann, Thomas, 2013. "The effects of earmarks on the likelihood of reelection," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 341-355.
    5. Collie, Melissa P., 1981. "Incumbency, Electoral Safety, and Turnover in the House of Representatives, 1952–76," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 119-131, March.
    6. Kenneth Shepsle & Barry Weingast, 1981. "Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 503-519, January.
    7. Rogers, James R, 2002. "Free Riding in State Legislatures," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 113(1-2), pages 59-76, October.
    8. Keefer, Philip & Khemani, Stuti, 2009. "When Do Legislators Pass on Pork? The Role of Political Parties in Determining Legislator Effort," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 99-112, February.
    9. Levitt, Steven D & Snyder, James M, Jr, 1997. "The Impact of Federal Spending on House Election Outcomes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(1), pages 30-53, February.
    10. Fiorina, Morris P., 1977. "The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 177-181, March.
    11. J. Zachary Klingensmith, 2016. "Pork-Barrel Spending and State Employment Levels: Do Targeted National Expenditures Increase State Employment in the Long Run?," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 257-279, Winter.
    12. Burton A. Abrams & Russell F. Settle, 2004. "Campaign-Finance Reform: A Public Choice Perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 120(3_4), pages 379-400, September.
    13. Palda, Kristian S, 1975. "The Effect of Expenditure on Political Success," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 745-771, December.
    14. Garand, James C. & Gross, Donald A., 1984. "Changes in the Vote Margins for Congressional Candidates: A Specification of Historical Trends," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 78(1), pages 17-30, March.
    15. William Welch, 1974. "The economics of campaign funds," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 83-97, December.
    16. Chris W. Bonneau, 2007. "Campaign Fundraising in State Supreme Court Elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 88(1), pages 68-85, March.
    17. Erikson, Robert S. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2000. "Equilibria in Campaign Spending Games: Theory and Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 595-609, September.
    18. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Snyder, James M, Jr, 2000. "Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Election Models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 103(3-4), pages 327-336, June.
    19. Erikson, Robert S., 1972. "Malapportionment, Gerrymandering, and Party Fortunes in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(4), pages 1234-1245, December.
    20. repec:wvu:wpaper:09-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Jacobson, Gary C., 1978. "The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 469-491, June.
    22. Ferejohn, John A., 1977. "On the Decline of Competition in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 166-176, March.
    23. Palda, Kristian S, 1975. "The Effect of Expenditure on Political Success: Reply," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 779-780, December.
    24. Roger Congleton, 2006. "The story of Katrina: New Orleans and the political economy of catastrophe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 5-30, April.
    25. Inman, Robert P & Fitts, Michael A, 1990. "Political Institutions and Fiscal Policy: Evidence from the U.S. Historical Record," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(0), pages 79-132.
    26. Weingast, Barry R & Shepsle, Kenneth A & Johnsen, Christopher, 1981. "The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(4), pages 642-664, August.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Peter Spáč, 2021. "Pork barrel politics and electoral returns at the local level," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(3), pages 479-501, September.
    2. Savu, A., 2021. "Reverse Political Coattails under a Technocratic Government: New Evidence on the National Electoral Benefits of Local Party Incumbency," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2121, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stratmann, Thomas, 2013. "The effects of earmarks on the likelihood of reelection," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 341-355.
    2. J. Zachary Klingensmith, 2019. "Political Entrepreneurs and Pork-Barrel Spending," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Enrique García Viñuela & Joaquín Artés Caselles, 2008. "Reforming campaign finance in the nineties: a case study of Spain," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 177-190, June.
    4. Douglas Hart & Michael Munger, 1989. "Declining electoral competitiveness in the House of Representatives: The differential impact of improved transportation technology," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 217-228, June.
    5. Dimitrios Xefteris, 2018. "Candidate valence in a spatial model with entry," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 341-359, September.
    6. Enriqueta Aragonès & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2017. "Imperfectly Informed Voters And Strategic Extremism," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 58(2), pages 439-471, May.
    7. Larry Samuelson, 1984. "Electoral equilibria with restricted strategies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 307-327, January.
    8. Filip Palda & Kristian Palda, 1998. "The impact of campaign expenditures on political competition in the French legislative elections of 1993," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 157-174, January.
    9. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Marsh, 2008. "The Campaign Value of Incumbency: A New Solution to the Puzzle of Less Effective Incumbent Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 874-890, October.
    10. Matthew T. Cole & Ivan Pastine & Tuvana Pastine, 2018. "Incumbency Advantage in an Electoral Contest," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 49(4), pages 419-436.
    11. Dharmapala, Dhammika, 2006. "The Congressional budget process, aggregate spending, and statutory budget rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-2), pages 119-141, January.
    12. de Gorter, Harry & Rausser, Gordon C., 1989. "Endogenizing U.S. milk price supports," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt4f58t530, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    13. Yogesh Uppal, 2010. "Estimating Incumbency Effects In U.S. State Legislatures: A Quasi‐Experimental Study," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 180-199, July.
    14. Sung-Kyu Lee, 2013. "The Effects of Election Advertising Spending and Incumbency on the General Election Results in Great Britain," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 3, pages 97-118, May.
    15. Dmitry Shapiro & Arthur Zillante, 2017. "Contribution Limits and Transparency in a Campaign Finance Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 98-119, July.
    16. Aragonès, Enriqueta & Xefteris, Dimitrios, 2017. "Voters' private valuation of candidates' quality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 121-130.
    17. Jean-Francois Maystadt & Muhammad Kabir Salihu, 2015. "National or political cake?," Working Papers 100756558, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    18. Robert P. Inman & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 1997. "Rethinking Federalism," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 43-64, Fall.
    19. Firpo, Sergio & Ponczek, Vladimir & Sanfelice, Viviane, 2015. "The relationship between federal budget amendments and local electoral power," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 186-198.
    20. David M. Primo & James M. Snyder, Jr., 2010. "Party Strength, the Personal Vote, and Government Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 354-370, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pork-barrel spending; Incumbency advantage; Elections; Campaign fundraising;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • H59 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:copoec:v:30:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10602-018-9269-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.