Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-hd9dq Total loading time: 0.35 Render date: 2022-09-25T11:46:06.959Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The Birth of Pork: Local Appropriations in America’s First Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2018

SANFORD C. GORDON*
Affiliation:
New York University
HANNAH K. SIMPSON*
Affiliation:
Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse
*
Sanford C. Gordon is Professor of Politics, New York University, 19 West 4th Street, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10011 (sanford.gordon@nyu.edu).
Hannah K. Simpson is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, 21 Allé de Brienne, 31015 Toulouse Cedex 6, France (hannah.simpson@iast.fr).

Abstract

After describing a newly assembled dataset consisting of almost 9,000 local appropriations made by the U.S. Congress between 1789 and 1882, we test competing accounts of the politics surrounding them before offering a more nuanced, historically contingent view of the emergence of the pork barrel. We demonstrate that for most of this historical period—despite contemporary accusations of crass electoral motives—the pattern of appropriations is largely inconsistent with accounts of distributive politics grounded in a logic of legislative credit-claiming. Instead, support for appropriations in the House mapped cleanly onto the partisan/ideological structure of Congress for most of this period, and only in the 1870s produced the universalistic coalitions commonly associated with pork-barrel spending. We trace this shift to two historical factors: the emergence of a solid Democratic South, and growth in the fraction of appropriations funding recurrent expenditures on extant projects rather than new starts.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

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

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at Princeton University, MIT, Emory University, the University of Mississippi, the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse, and the annual meetings of the Midwest and Southern Political Science Associations, where the authors received valuable feedback. We also gratefully acknowledge Scott James, Dimitri Landa, Jon Rogowski, Howard Rosenthal, Charles Stewart, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments and assistance. Gordon also thanks the NYU School of Law, where he is a scholar in residence for 2017–18. Replication files are available at the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SAPQYS.

References

REFERENCES

Albouy, David. 2013. “Partisan Representation in Congress and the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds.” Review of Economics and Statistics 95 (1): 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle 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 (3): 515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensel, Richard F. 1984. Sectionalism and American Political Development, 1880–1980. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., and Fowler, Anthony. 2016. “Cardinals or Clerics? Congressional Committees and the Distribution of Pork.” American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 692708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., Burden, Barry C., and Howell, William G.. 2010. “The President and the Distribution of Federal Spending.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 783–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianco, William T., Spence, David B., and Wilkerson, John D.. 1996. “The Electoral Connection in the Early Congress: The Case of the Compensation Act of 1816.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickers, Kenneth N., and Stein, Robert M.. 1996. “The Electoral Dynamics of the Federal Pork Barrel.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (4): 1300–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David, and Morgan, Mark A.. 1987. “Reforming the Structure of the House Appropriations Process: The Effects of the 1885 and 1919–20 Reforms on Money Decisions.” In Congress: Structure and Policy, eds. McCubbins, Mathew D., and Sullivan, Terry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–34.Google Scholar
Bryce, Viscount James. 1995 [1888]. The American Commonwealth, Vol I. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Canon, David T., Nelson, Garrison, and Stewart, Charles. 1998. “Historical Congressional Standing Committees, 1st to 79th Congresses, 1789–1947.” Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/17.251/www/data_page.html#1 on September 26, 2016.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1989. Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J., and Volden, Craig. 2000. “Coalitional Politics and Logrolling in Legislative Institutions.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 261–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Engstrom, Erik J.. 2005. “Assessing the Electoral Connection: Evidence from the Early United States.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 746–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Jenkins, Jeffery A., Rohde, David W., and Souva, Mark A.. 2001. “The Impact of National Tides and District-Level Effects on Electoral Outcomes: The U.S. Congressional Elections of 1862–63.” American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 887–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Sievert, Joel. 2017. “Congressional Candidates in the Era of Party Ballots.” The Journal of Politics 79 (2): 534–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 206–61.Google Scholar
Crowe, B. M. 1969. “The History of the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Houston.Google Scholar
Dubin, Michael J. 1998. United States Congressional Elections, 1788–1997: The Official Results of the Elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar
Dynes, Adam M., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2015. “Partisanship and the Allocation of Federal Spending: Do Same-Party Legislators or Voters Benefit from Shared Party Affiliation with the President and House Majority?American Political Science Review 109 (1): 172–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Diana. 2004. Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Politics to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John. 1974. Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947–1968. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Formisano, Ronald P. 1974. “Deferential-Participant Politics: The Early Republic’s Political Culture, 1789–1840.” American Political Science Review 68 (2): 473–87.Google Scholar
Golden, Miriam, and Min, Brian. 2013. “Distributive Politics Around the World.” Annual Review of Political Science 16 (1): 7399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodrich, C. 1960. Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800–1890. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Sanford C., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2007. “The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Incumbent Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2): 107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review 90 (2): 303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Carl V. 1976. “Right Fork or Left Fork? The Section-Party Alignments of Southern Democrats in Congress, 1873–1897.” Journal of Southern History 42 (4): 471506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Albert Bushnell. 1887. “Biography of a River and Harbor Bill.” Papers of the American Historical Society III: 179–96.Google Scholar
Heniff, Bill Jr. 2012. “Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process.” CRS Report Number 7-5700. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
James, Scott C. 2007. “Timing and Sequence in Congressional Elections: Interstate Contagion and America’s Nineteenth-Century Scheduling Regime.” Studies in American Political Development 21 (2): 181202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Jeffery A., and Monroe, Nathan W.. 2012. “Buying Negative Agenda Control in the U.S. House.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 897–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jonathan N., and Sala, Brian R.. 1996. “Careerism, Committee Assignments, and the Electoral Connection.” American Political Science Review 90 (1): 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1977. “Toward Understanding 19th Century Congressional Careers: Ambition, Competition, and Rotation.” American Journal of Political Science 21 (4): 669–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, John Lauritz. 2001. Internal Improvement: National Public Works and the Promise of Popular Government in the Early United States. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., DeVine, Brandon, Pitcher, Lincoln, and Martis, Kenneth C.. 2013. “Digital Boundary Definitions of United States Congressional Districts, 1789-2012.” Data file and code book. Retrieved from http://cdmaps.polisci.ucla.edu on August 29, 2014.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory.” World Politics 16 (04): 677715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Meinig, Donald W. 1995. The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History. Vol. 2: Continental America, 1800-1867. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Minicucci, Stephen. 2004. “Internal Improvements and the Union, 1790–1860.” Studies in American Political Development 18 (2): 160–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niou, Emerson M. S., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1985. “Universalism in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (2): 246–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, McCarty, Nolan, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “Common Space DW-NOMINATE Scores with Bootstrapped Standard Errors (Joint House and Senate Scaling).” Retrieved from http://voteview.com/dwnomin_joint_house_and_senate.htm on March 13, 2015.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Price, H. Douglas. 1975. “Congress and the Evolution of Legislative ‘Professionalism.’” In Congress in Change: Evolution and Reform, ed. Ornstein, Norman J.. New York: Praeger Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Querubin, Pablo, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2013. “The Control of Politicians in Normal Times and Times of Crisis: Wealth Accumulation by U.S. Congressmen, 1850–1880.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8 (4): 409–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C. 2016. “Presidential Influence in an Era of Congressional Dominance.” American Political Science Review 110 (2): 325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seip, Terry L. 1983. The South Returns to Congress: Men, Economic Measures, and Intersectional Relationships, 1868–1879. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., Van Houweling, Robert P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Hanson, Peter C.. 2009. “The Senate Electoral Cycle and Bicameral Appropriations Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 343–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1981. “Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel: A Generalization.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (1): 96111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeen, C. Edward. 1986. “‘Vox Populi, Vox Dei’: The Compensation Act of 1816 and the Rise of Popular Politics.” Journal of the Early Republic 6 (3): 253–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Nile. 1974. “History and Practice of Executive Impoundment of Appropriated Funds.” Nebraska Law Review 53 (1): 130.Google Scholar
Stewart, Charles. 1989. Budget Reform Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, Elaine K., Brookshire, Robert G., Canon, David T., Fink, Evelyn C., Hibbing, John R., Humes, Brian D., Malbin, Michael J., and Martis, Kenneth C.. 2009. Database of Congressional Historical Statistics, 1789–1989 (ICPSR03371v2). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Treasury. 1886. Appropriations and Expenditures for Public Buildings, Rivers and Harbors, Forts, Arsenals, Armories, and Other Public Works from March 4, 1789 to June 30, 1882. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Wallis, John Joseph, and Weingast, Barry R.. 2005. “Equilibrium Impotence: Why the States and Not the American National Government Financed Economic Development in the Antebellum Era.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 11397.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R. 1979. “A Rational Choice Perspective on Congressional Norms.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (2): 245–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., and Marshall, William J.. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress; or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, Are Not Organized as Markets.” The Journal of Political Economy 96 (1): 132–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Rick K. 1986. “An Empirical Test of Preferences for the Political Pork Barrel: District Level Appropriations for River and Harbor Legislation, 1889–1913.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (4): 729–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, C. Vann. 1951. Reunion and Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2009. Intrroductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gordon and Simpson supplementary material

Appendix

Download Gordon and Simpson supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 102 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Gordon and Simpson Dataset

Link
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Birth of Pork: Local Appropriations in America’s First Century
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Birth of Pork: Local Appropriations in America’s First Century
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Birth of Pork: Local Appropriations in America’s First Century
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *