IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v137y2008i1p279-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bringing home the bacon: an empirical analysis of the extent and effects of pork-barreling in Australian politics

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Leigh

    ()

Abstract

Which electorates receive targeted funding, and does targeted funding swing votes? To answer these questions, I analyze four discretionary programs funded by the Australian federal government during the 2001-2004 election cycle. Controlling for relevant demographic characteristics of the electorate, those electorates held by the governing coalition received a larger share of discretionary funding, and a larger number of program grants. Among government seats, funding does not appear to have been directed towards those that were more marginal. More discretionary funding – particularly on road-building – was associated with a larger swing towards the government in the 2004 election.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Leigh, 2008. "Bringing home the bacon: an empirical analysis of the extent and effects of pork-barreling in Australian politics," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 279-299, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:137:y:2008:i:1:p:279-299
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-008-9327-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11127-008-9327-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mikael Elinder & Henrik Jordahl & Panu Poutvaara, 2008. "Selfish and Prospective: Theory and Evidence of Pocketbook Voting," CESifo Working Paper Series 2489, CESifo Group Munich.
    2. Guccio, Calogero & Mazza, Isidoro, 2014. "On the political determinants of the allocation of funds to heritage authorities," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 18-38.
    3. Leigh, Andrew & Neill, Christine, 2011. "Can national infrastructure spending reduce local unemployment? Evidence from an Australian roads program," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 150-153.
    4. Muraközy, Balázs & Telegdy, Álmos, 2016. "Political incentives and state subsidy allocation: Evidence from Hungarian municipalities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 324-344.
    5. repec:eee:exehis:v:67:y:2018:i:c:p:18-39 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. Cinnirella, Francesco & Schueler, Ruth M., 2016. "Nation Building: The Role of Central Spending in Education," CEPR Discussion Papers 11621, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. John Considine & Justin Doran, 2016. "Evaluation of an informal rule for the allocation of sports capital funding," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 43-54, July.
    9. Monica Nagpal & Michael A. Kortt & Brian Dollery, 2013. "Bang for the Buck? An Evaluation of the Roads to Recovery Program," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 32(2), pages 239-248, June.
    10. Dettmer, Bianka & Sauer, Thomas, 2016. "Implementation of European cohesion policy at the sub-national level: Evidence from beneficiary data in Eastern Germany," Jena Contributions to Economic Research 2016/1, University of Applied Sciences Jena, Department of Business Administration.
    11. Elinder, Mikael & Jordahl, Henrik & Poutvaara, Panu, 2015. "Promises, policies and pocketbook voting," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 177-194.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Elections; Local expenditure; Voting; Targeted funding; Pork barreling; D72; R58;

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    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:pubcho:v:137:y:2008:i:1:p:279-299. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.