The Political Economy of Pork: Project Selection at The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- 1 June 1991
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Political Science Review
- Vol. 85 (2) , 429-456
- https://doi.org/10.2307/1963168
Abstract
In previous studies of distributive politics scholars have investigated legislative influence without accounting for the policies' independent merits. As a result, they have failed to include a plausible explanation of the counterfactual (i.e., which projects would have been funded in the absence of congressional committee influence), which has led to invalid inferences regarding legislative influence. The model of distributive politics is reformulated to account for an assumed efficient and/or equitable project allocation in the absence of legislative influence. Using data from proposed Army Corps of Engineers' projects and the funding recommendations of three institutions, the findings indicate that pork barrel politics indeed exists and imposes significant efficiency costs but that both equity and economic efficiency play prominent roles in the decision-making process as well. Cost-benefit analysis is seen to play a constructive role by improving the efficiency of project choice; and the corps's cost-benefit analysis guidelines are beneficial from the agency's organizational perspective, as well.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bureaucratic Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal Trade CommissionJournal of Political Economy, 1983
- The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive PoliticsJournal of Political Economy, 1981
- Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel: A GeneralizationAmerican Journal of Political Science, 1981
- Military Committee Membership and Defense-Related Benefits in the House of RepresentativesThe Western Political Quarterly, 1972
- The Logic of Collective ActionPublished by Harvard University Press ,1965
- Muddy WatersPublished by Harvard University Press ,1951