Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:17:48.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pork Barrel Spending—On the Wane?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Gary J. Andres*
Affiliation:
Dutko and Associates. Inc.

Extract

Is pork barrel spending on the wane? Many think it is, including reformers inside and outside of Congress. Citing the recent decline of earmarks in House appropriations bills for projects in members' districts, reformers suggest that a new era of congressional spending practices is dawning.

This article argues instead that the rise in number of earmarks in the last decade as well as the recent decline depends on whether Congress and the executive branch are controlled by the same or different parties. It further predicts that the Republican takeover of the House and Senate after the 1994 congressional elections could lead to a resurgence of earmarking, in a different form, as long as the Democrats control the White House.

Among scholars, pork barrel spending analysis represents a venerable specialty in the profession, generating some of the most engaging debates and finest research in recent years. This literature analyzes how members of Congress create institutions and use legislative rules to enhance their electoral goals. While not mutually exclusive, the two dominant approaches in recent years are the “distributive” and “informational” models of congressional policy making. (For a good review of the last two decades of scholarly research on the subject, see Krehbiel 1991).

Reformers in the 103rd Congress were emboldened by the success of groups such as the “pork busters,” an informal group led by Representative Harris Fawell (R-IL), who routinely offered amendments to cut pork and unnecessary directed spending in appropriations bills.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1995

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Barry Rundquist, Richard Munson, LeeAnn Petersen, and the anonymous reviewers who made many helpful suggestions for an earlier draft of this paper. I'd also like to thank Emaan Abdelbaki for production help with the graphics.

References

Austen-Smith, David, and Riker, William H.. 1987. “Asymmetric Information and the Coherence of Legislation.” American Political Science Review 81:897918.10.2307/1962682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Homestyle: Representatives in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Thomas W., and Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. “Organization of Informative Committees by a Rational Legislature.” American Journal of Political Science 34:531–64.10.2307/2111460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, Richard. 1993. The Cardinals of Capitol Hill. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1990. “Are Congressional Committees Composed of Preference Outliers?American Political Science Review 84:149–63.10.2307/1963634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Congressional Policymaking. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Savage, James D. 1992. Trends in the Distribution of Apparent Academic Earmarks in the Federal Government's FY 1980–92 Appropriations Bills. Washington: Congressional Research Service: The Library of Congress.Google Scholar
Wall Street Journal, December 13, 1994, A2.Google Scholar