Prior studies search for evidence that distributive spending influences Congress members’ vote shares but find limited evidence. The authors argue that Democratic and Republican members each benefit from different types of distributive projects. Democrats benefit from delivering spending projects (what most people think of as “pork”) to their constituents, while many Republican members benefit from delivering contingent liabilities (in which the federal treasury underwrites a private entity’s financial risk). Empirical tests using data from U.S. House elections between 1984 and 2002 generally confirm these hypotheses, with one exception: only Republicans in relatively conservative districts gain from contingent liabilities. This result is further explored in the text.
Alvarez, R. Michael and Jason L. Saving.1997. Deficits, Democrats and distributive benefits: Congressional elections and the pork barrel in the 1980s. Political Research Quarterly50:809-31.
2.
Alvarez, R. Michael and Matthew M. Schousen.1993. Policy moderation or conflicting expectations? Testing the intentional models of split-ticket voting. American Politics Quarterly24:410-38.
3.
Anagnoson, J. Theodore.1980. Politics in the distribution of federal grants: The case of the economic development administration. In Political benefits , ed. Barry Rundquist, 61-91. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
4.
---. 1982. Federal grant agencies and congressional election campaigns . American Journal of Political Science26:547-61.
5.
Bickers, Kenneth N., and Robert M. Stein .1991. Federal domestic outlays: 1981-1990. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe .
6.
---. 1996. The electoral dynamics of the federal pork barrel. American Journal of Political Science40:1300-26.
7.
---. 2000. The congressional pork barrel in a Republican era. Journal of Politics62:1070-86.
8.
Cain, Bruce, John Ferejohn, and Morris Fiorina.1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, David W. Brady, and John F. Cogan .2002. Out of step, out of office: Electoral accountability and House members’ voting. American Political Science Review96:127-40.
10.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.2008 . Surety bond guarantees. http://12.46.245.173/pls/portal30/CATALOG.PROGRAM_TEXT_RPT.SHOW?p_arg_names=prog_nbr&p_arg_values=59.016.
11.
Chernick, Howard A.1979. An economic model of the distribution of project grants . In Fiscal federalism and grants-in-aid, ed. P. Mieszkowski and W. H. Oakland, 81-102. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
12.
Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman .1981. The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identification. American Journal of Political Science25:617-45.
13.
Ferejohn, John A.1974. Pork barrel politics: Rivers and harbors legislation, 1947-1968. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Johannes, John R., and John C. McAdams .1981. The congressional incumbency effect: Is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election. American Journal of Political Science25:512-42.
15.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins .1991. The logic of delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Levitt, Steven D., and James M. Snyder .1997. The impact of federal spending on House election outcomes. Journal of Political Economy105:30-53.
17.
Lowi, Theodore J.1979. The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United States. New York: Norton.
18.
Lowry, Robert, James Alt, and Karen Feree.1998. Fiscal policy outcomes and electoral accountability in the states. American Political Science Review92:759-74.
19.
Rundquist, Barry S.1978. On testing a military industrial complex theory. American Politics Quarterly6:29-53.
20.
Sellers, Patrick J.1997. Fiscal consistency and federal district spending in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science41:1024-41.
21.
Sidman, Andrew H., and Maxwell H. H. Mak .2006. Pork, awareness, and ideological consistency: The effects of distributive benefits on vote choice. Paper delivered at the 2006 annual meeting of theMidwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
22.
Stein, Robert M., and Kenneth N. Bickers .1994. Congressional elections and the pork barrel. Journal of Politics56:377-99.
23.
Tomz, Michael, Jason Wittenberg, and Gary King.2002. CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. http://gking.harvard.edu/stats.shtml .
