IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v54y2010i1p34-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Party Government and the “Cohesive Power of Public Plunder”

Author

Listed:
  • Royce Carroll
  • Henry A. Kim

Abstract

We argue that party government in the U.S. House of Representatives rests on two pillars: the pursuit of policy goals and the disbursement of particularistic benefits. Existing theories of party government argue that the majority party in the House is often successful in biasing policy outcomes in its favor. In the process, it creates “policy losers” among its own members who nevertheless support their party on procedural votes. We posit that the majority party creates an incentive for even the policy losers to support a procedural coalition through judicious distribution of particularistic benefits that compensates policy losers at a rate commensurate with the policy losses that they suffer. We evaluate our theory empirically using the concept of “roll rates” in conjunction with federal domestic outlays data for the period 1983–96. We find that, within the majority party, policy losers are favored in the distribution of “pork barrel” spending throughout this period.

Suggested Citation

  • Royce Carroll & Henry A. Kim, 2010. "Party Government and the “Cohesive Power of Public Plunder”," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 34-44, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:54:y:2010:i:1:p:34-44
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00416.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00416.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00416.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Frances E., 2000. "Senate Representation and Coalition Building in Distributive Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(1), pages 59-72, March.
    2. Paul S. Martin, 2003. "Voting's Rewards: Voter Turnout, Attentive Publics, and Congressional Allocation of Federal Money," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 110-127, January.
    3. Alvarez, R Michael & Saving, Jason L, 1997. "Congressional Committees and the Political Economy of Federal Outlays," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 92(1-2), pages 55-73, July.
    4. Popkin, Samuel & Gorman, John W. & Phillips, Charles & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1976. "Comment: What Have You Done for Me Lately? Toward An Investment Theory of Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(3), pages 779-805, September.
    5. Frances E. Lee, 2003. "Geographic Politics in the U.S. House of Representatives: Coalition Building and Distribution of Benefits," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 714-728, October.
    6. Riker, William H., 1980. "Implications from the Disequilibrium of Majority Rule for the Study of Institutions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 432-446, June.
    7. Mann, Thomas E. & Wolfinger, Raymond E., 1980. "Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 617-632, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Jackson, Matthew O. & Moselle, Boaz, 2002. "Coalition and Party Formation in a Legislative Voting Game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 49-87, March.
    10. Groseclose, Tim & Snyder, James M., 1996. "Buying Supermajorities," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 303-315, June.
    11. Bickers, Kenneth N & Stein, Robert M, 1997. "Building Majority Coalitions for Sub-Majority Benefit Distributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 91(3-4), pages 229-249, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yaniv Reingewertz & Thushyanthan Baskaran, 2020. "Distributive spending and presidential partisan politics," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 65-85, October.
    2. Viktor Slavtchev & Simon Wiederhold, 2011. "The Impact of Government Procurement Composition on Private R&D Activities," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-036, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Simon Wiederhold, 2012. "The Role of Public Procurement in Innovation: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 43.
    4. Stuart Kasdin & Luona Lin, 2015. "Strategic behavior by federal agencies in the allocation of public resources," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 309-329, September.
    5. Batzilis, Dimitris, 2020. "The political determinants of government spending allocation and growth," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 213-220.
    6. Andersen, Jørgen Juel & Fiva, Jon H. & Natvik, Gisle James, 2014. "Voting when the stakes are high," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 157-166.
    7. 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.
    8. Iaryczower, Matias & Oliveros, Santiago, 2016. "Power brokers: Middlemen in legislative bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 209-236.
    9. Bowen, T. Renee & Zahran, Zaki, 2012. "On dynamic compromise," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 391-419.
    10. Hymel, Kent, 2019. "If you build it, they will drive: Measuring induced demand for vehicle travel in urban areas," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 57-66.
    11. DeBacker, Jason, 2011. "The price of pork: The seniority trap in the U.S. House," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(1-2), pages 63-78, February.
    12. Tiberiu Dragu & Jonathan Rodden, 2010. "Representation and regional redistribution in federations," Working Papers 2010/16, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    13. Oskar Nupia, 2007. "Bargaining In Legislature: Number Of Parties And Ideological Polarization," Documentos CEDE 4282, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    14. Hyun‐A Kim & Dongwon Lee & Sangwon Park, 2020. "Budget Committee And Intergovernmental Transfer: Evidence From South Korea," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1894-1906, October.
    15. Jeremy L. Hall, 2010. "The Distribution of Federal Economic Development Grant Funds: A Consideration of Need and the Urban/Rural Divide," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 24(4), pages 311-324, November.
    16. Fowler, Anthony & Hall, Andrew B., 2015. "Congressional seniority and pork: A pig fat myth?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PA), pages 42-56.
    17. Jeffrey Lazarus, 2010. "Giving the People What They Want? The Distribution of Earmarks in the U.S. House of Representatives," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 338-353, April.
    18. Jowei Chen, 2010. "The Effect of Electoral Geography on Pork Barreling in Bicameral Legislatures," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 301-322, April.
    19. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2010. "Generosity in bargaining: Fair or fear?," MPRA Paper 27444, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. David Albouy, 2013. "Partisan Representation in Congress and the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 127-141, March.

    More about this item

    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:wly:amposc:v:54:y:2010:i:1:p:34-44. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.