Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:42:38.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pass the Pork: Measuring Legislator Shares in Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2008

Benjamin E. Lauderdale
Benjamin E. Lauderdale*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, Princeton University, Corwin Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Linear regression models are frequently used to analyze distributive politics in the U.S. Congress; however, authors have used a variety of specifications with different implicit assumptions about how bicameralism shapes legislative bargaining. I derive a model that describes district or state spending authorizations as the aggregation of spending secured by multiple legislators working on behalf of overlapping constituencies. This bicameral shares model allows the disaggregation of House and Senate influence through simultaneous estimation of the relative bargaining power of the two chambers and the advantages that accrue to legislators holding partisan, committee, and other relevant affiliations. In the 2005 transportation bill, the model better predicts the functional form of small state advantage than recently employed specifications in the literature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , Summer 2008 , pp. 235 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H., and Phillips Shively, W. 1995. Cross-level inference. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Balla, Steven J., Lawrence, Eric D., Maltzman, Forrest, and Sigelman, Lee. 2002. Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. American Journal of Political Science 46: 515–25.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John F. 1987. Bargaining and agenda formation in legislatures. The American Economic Review 77: 303–9.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Myerson, Roger B. 1999. Bicameralism and its consequences for the internal organization of legislatures. The American Economic Review 89: 1182–96.Google Scholar
Evans, Diana. 2004. Greasing the wheels: Using pork barrel projects to build majority coalitions in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hauk, William R., and Wacziarg, Romain. 2007. Small states, big pork. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2: 95–106.Google Scholar
Knight, Brian G. 2004. Parochial interests and the centralized provision of local public goods: Evidence from congressional voting on transportation projects. Journal of Public Economics 88: 845–66.Google Scholar
Larcinese, Valentino, Rizzo, Leonzio, and Testa, Cecilia. 2006. Allocating the US federal budget to the states: The impact of the president. Journal of Politics 68: 447.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2000. Senate representation and coalition building in distributional politics. American Political Science Review 94: 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 2003. Geographic politics in the U.S. house of representatives: Coalition building and distribution of benefits. American Journal of Political Science. 47: 714–28.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E., and Oppenheimer, Bruce I. 1999. Sizing up the Senate: The unequal consequences of equal representation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2000. Proposal rights, veto rights, and political bargaining. American Journal of Political Science 44: 506–22.Google Scholar