Gay, Claudine 2017. A Room for One’s Own? The Partisan Allocation of Affordable Housing. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 53, Issue. 1, p. 40.
Chiou, Fang-Yi and Rothenberg, Lawrence S. 2016. Presidential unilateral action: partisan influence and presidential power. Public Choice, Vol. 167, Issue. 1-2, p. 145.
Christenson, Dino P. Kriner, Douglas L. and Reeves, Andrew 2016. All the President's Senators: Presidential Copartisans and the Allocation of Federal Grants. Legislative Studies Quarterly,
Einstein, Katherine Levine Trump, Kris-Stella and Williamson, Vanessa 2016. The Polarizing Effect of the Stimulus: Partisanship and Voter Responsiveness to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 46, Issue. 2, p. 264.
Garand, James C. Myers, Rebekah and Renegar, Renee 2016. Seniority, political experience, and support for government spending in the US House: a culture of spending?. Public Choice, Vol. 168, Issue. 3-4, p. 217.
González, Lucas 2016. Presidential Popularity and the Politics of Distributing Federal Funds in Argentina. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Vol. 46, Issue. 2, p. 199.
Matakos, Konstantinos and Xefteris, Dimitrios 2016. Citizens or Clients? Evidence on Opportunistic Voting from a Natural Experiment in Greece. Political Science Research and Methods, Vol. 4, Issue. 03, p. 493.
Miller, Susan M. 2016. Public Support for Sale. American Politics Research, Vol. 44, Issue. 3, p. 523.
Minchin, Timothy J. 2016. A pivotal role? The AFL–CIO and the 2008 presidential election. Labor History, Vol. 57, Issue. 3, p. 299.
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, Vol. 109, Issue. 01, p. 172.
González, Lucas I. and Mamone, Ignacio 2015. Distributive Politics in Developing Federal Democracies: Compensating Governors for Their Territorial Support. Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 57, Issue. 3, p. 50.
Kang, Woo Chang 2015. Electoral cycles in pork barrel politics: Evidence from South Korea 1989–2008. Electoral Studies, Vol. 38, p. 46.
Kriner, Douglas L. and Reeves, Andrew 2015. Presidential Particularism in Disaster Declarations and Military Base Closures. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue. 4, p. 679.
KRINER, DOUGLAS L. and REEVES, ANDREW 2015. Presidential Particularism and Divide-the-Dollar Politics. American Political Science Review, Vol. 109, Issue. 01, p. 155.
Reeves, Andrew and Rogowski, Jon C. 2015. Public Opinion Toward Presidential Power. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue. 4, p. 742.
Enikolopov, Ruben 2014. Politicians, bureaucrats and targeted redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 120, p. 74.
Lacy, D. 2014. Moochers and Makers in the Voting Booth: Who Benefits from Federal Spending and How Did They Vote in the 2012 Presidential Election?. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 78, Issue. S1, p. 255.
Healy, Andrew and Malhotra, Neil 2013. Retrospective Voting Reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 285.
Stramp, Nicholas R. 2013. The Contemporary Presidency: Presidents Profiting from Disasters: Evidence of Presidential Distributive Politics. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 43, Issue. 4, p. 839.
BROLLO, FERNANDA and NANNICINI, TOMMASO 2012. Tying Your Enemy's Hands in Close Races: The Politics of Federal Transfers in Brazil. American Political Science Review, Vol. 106, Issue. 04, p. 742.
Do voters reward presidents for increased federal spending in their local constituencies? Previous research on the electoral consequences of federal spending has focused almost exclusively on Congress, mostly with null results. However, in a county- and individual-level study of presidential elections from 1988 to 2008, we present evidence that voters reward incumbent presidents (or their party's nominee) for increased federal spending in their communities. This relationship is stronger in battleground states. Furthermore, we show that federal grants are an electoral currency whose value depends on both the clarity of partisan responsibility for its provision and the characteristics of the recipients. Presidents enjoy increased support from spending in counties represented by co-partisan members of Congress. At the individual level, we also find that ideology conditions the response of constituents to spending; liberal and moderate voters reward presidents for federal spending at higher levels than conservatives. Our results suggest that, although voters may claim to favor deficit reduction, presidents who deliver such benefits are rewarded at the ballot box.
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th May 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.