Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-q5qzn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-11T00:11:29.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Do Legislators Pass on Pork? The Role of Political Parties in Determining Legislator Effort

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

PHILIP KEEFER  and
STUTI KHEMANI
PHILIP KEEFER*
Affiliation:
The World Bank
STUTI KHEMANI*
Affiliation:
The World Bank
*
Philip Keefer is Lead Research Economist, Development Research Group, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20422 (pkeefer@worldbank.org).
Stuti Khemani is Senior Economist, Development Research Group, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20422 (skhemani@worldbank.org).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A central challenge in political economy is to identify the conditions under which legislators seek to “bring home the pork” to constituents. We conduct the first systematic analysis of one determinant of constituency service, voter attachment to political parties, holding constant electoral and political institutions. Our analysis takes advantage of data from a unique type of public spending program that is proliferating across developing countries, the constituency development fund (CDF), which offers more precise measures of legislator effort than are common in the literature. Examining the CDF in India, we find that legislator effort is significantly lower in constituencies that are party strongholds. This result, which is robust to controls for alternate explanations, implies that legislators pass on pork when voters are more attached to political parties. It has implications not only for understanding political incentives and the dynamics of party formation, but also for evaluating the impact of CDFs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 103 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 99 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

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

REFERENCES

Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America, ed. Page, B. I.. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A., Baqir, R. and Easterly, W.. 1999. “Public Goods and Ethnic Divisions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics (November): 1243–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ames, Barry. 1995. “Electoral Strategy under Open-List Proportional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (2): 406–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Scott. 2005. “Reputational Dynamics and Political Careers.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 21 (2): 441–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan. 2006. “Delivering the Goods: Legislative Particularism in Different Electoral and Institutional Settings.” The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 168–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, Abhijit, and Somanathan, Rohini. 2007. “The Political Economy Of Public Goods: Some Evidence from India.” Journal of Development Economics 82 (2): 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baqir, Reza. 2002. “Districting and Government Overspending.” Journal of Political Economy 110 (6): 1318–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardhan, Pranab, and Mookherjee, Dilip. 2005. “Political Economy of Land Reforms in West Bengal, 1978–1998.” Mimeo, Boston University.Google Scholar
Baron, David, and Ferejohn, John. 1987. “Bargaining and Agenda Formation in Legislatures.” American Economic Review 77 (2): 303–9.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, and Burgess, Robin. 2002. “The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (4):1415–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betancourt, R., and Gleason, S. 2000. “The Allocation of Publicly Provided Goods to Rural Households in India: On Some Consequences of Caste, Religion and Democracy.” World Development 28 (12): 2169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillaud, Bernard, and Tirole, Jean. 2002. “Parties as Political Intermediaries.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics November: 1453–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., Ferejohn, John A. and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M. 1996. Term Limits and Legislative Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas,” Electoral Studies 14: 417–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Shawn. 2008. “Fixing Market Failures or Fixing Elections? Agricultural Credit in India.” Working Paper No. 09-001, July, Harvard Business School.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian F., Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C., Jones, Bradford S., Jones, Mark P. and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle M.. 2004. “Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies.” Journal of Politics 66 (3): 823–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, Avinash, and Londregan, John. 1996. “The Determinants of Success of Special Interests in Redistributive Politics.” Journal of Politics 58: 1132–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterly, W., and Levine, R.. 1997. “Africa's Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 1203–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. 1974. Pork Barrel Politics; Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947–1968. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris, and Rivers, Douglas. 1989. “Constituency Service, Reputation, and the Incumbency Advantage,” In Fiorina, eds. Morris and Rohde, David. Home Style and Washington Work, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, Miriam A., and Picci, Lucio. 2007. “Pork Barrel Politics in Postwar Italy, 1953–1994,” http://ssrn.com/abstract=1011736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of India. 1998. Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on MPLADS. http://www.cag.gov.in/reports/civil/2001_book3a/mplads.pdf (accessed January 15, 2009)Google Scholar
Heitshusen, Valerie, Young, Garry and Wood, David M.. 2005. “Electoral Context and MP Constituency Focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindu Business Line. 1999. “MP Area Development Scheme in for Review.” November 18.Google Scholar
Iyer, Lakshmi, and Mani, Anandi. 2008. “Travelling Agents: Political Change and Bureaucratic Turnover in India.” Working Paper No. 09-006, July, Harvard Business School.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, Philip. 2006. “Programmatic Parties: Where Do They Come from and Do They Matter?” Mimeo, World Bank Development Research Group.Google Scholar
Keefer, Philip, and Vlaicu, Razvan. 2008. “Democracy, Credibility and Clientelism.” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 24 (2): 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khemani, Stuti. 2007a. “Does Delegation of Fiscal Policy to an Independent Agency Make a Difference? Evidence from Intergovernmental Transfers in India.” Journal of Development Economics 82 (2): 464–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khemani, Stuti. 2007b. “Party Politics and Fiscal Discipline in a Federation: Evidence from the States of India.”Comparative Political Studies 40 (6): 691–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1991. “Constituency Service and Incumbency Advantage,” British Journal of Political Science 21 (1): 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Wilkinson, Steven, eds. 2007 Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Brian. 2004. “Parochial Interests and the Centralized Provision of Local Public Goods: Evidence from Congressional Voting on Transportation Projects.” Journal of Public Economics 88 (3): 845–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Steven, and Snyder, James. 1997. “The Impact of Federal Spending on House Election Outcomes,” Journal of Political Economy 105: 30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Gilat. 2004. “A Model of Political Parties.” Journal of Economic Theory 115:225–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lizzeri, Alessandro, and Persico, Nicola. 2001. “The Provision of Public Goods under Alternative Electoral Incentives.” American Economic Review 91 (1): 225–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mejía-Acosta, A., Liñán, A. Pérez, and Saiegh, S.M.. 2008. “The Partisan Foundations of Legislative Particularism in Latin America.” Mimeo, Institute for Development Studies, Sussex University. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1018099.Google Scholar
Morelli, Massimo. 2004. “Party Formation and Policy Outcomes under Different Electoral Systems.” Review of Economic Studies 71: 829–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nooruddin, Irfan, and Chhibber, Pradeep. 2008. “Unstable Politics: Fiscal Space and Electoral Volatility in the Indian States.” Comparative Political Studies 41 (8): 1069–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padro’ i Miguel, Gerard, and Snyder, James M.. 2004. “Legislative Effectiveness and Legislative Life.” Mimeo, MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, R. 2003. “Can Mandated Political Representation Provide Disadvantaged Minorities Policy Influence? Theory and Evidence from India.” American Economic Review 93 (4): 1132–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2000. Political Economics: Explaining Public Policy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1981. “Political Preferences for the Pork Barrel: A Generalization.” American Journal of Political Science 25 (1): 96–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiller, Wendy J. 1995. “Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas.” American Journal of Political Science 39: 123–35.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr., and Ting, Michael M.. 2002. “An Informational Rationale for Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas, and Baur, Martin. 2002. “Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork Barrel Differ Across Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (3): 506–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Times of India. 1997. “Government Falls, Crucial Policy Decisions in Limbo.” November 30.Google Scholar
Uniyal, Mahesh. 1994. “India: Pampered Parliamentarians Want More Perks.” Inter Press Service Global Information Network. February 1.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory. 2002. Legislative Entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.