Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:29:22.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Senate Representation and Coalition Building in Distributive Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2000

Frances E. Lee
Frances E. Lee*
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Senate's equal representation of states shapes coalition building in distributive politics. The great variation in state population means that some states have far greater need for federal funds than others, but all senators have equal voting weight. As a result, even though all senators' votes are of equal value to the coalition builder, they are not of equal “price.” Coalition builders can include benefits for small states at considerably less expense to program budgets than comparable benefits for more populous states. Building on formal models of coalition building, two hypotheses are developed and tested. First, coalition builders will seek out less costly members to build supportive coalitions efficiently. Second, the final outcomes of distributive policy will more closely reflect the preferences of small-state senators than large-state senators. The hypotheses are tested by examining the 1991 and 1997–98 reauthorizations of federal surface transportation programs. The findings support both hypotheses.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 94 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 59 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2000

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

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1995. Characteristics of Federal Grant-in-Aid Programs to State and Local Governments: Grants Funded FY 1995. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1979. Congress and the Bureaucracy: A Theory of Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Atlas, Cary M., Gilligan, Thomas W., Hendershott, Robert J., and Zupan, Mark A.. 1995. “Slicing the Federal Government Net Spending Pie: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why.” American Economic Review 85 (06): 624–9.Google Scholar
Baron, David P. 1989. “A Noncooperative Theory of Legislative Coalitions.” American Journal of Political Science 33 (11): 1048–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P. 1991. “Majoritarian Incentives, Pork Barrel Programs and Procedural Control.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (02): 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P. 1995. “A Sequential Choice Theory on Legislative Organization.” In Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions, ed. Shepsle, Kenneth A. and Weingast, Barry R.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pp. 71–100.Google Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John. 1989a. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 83 (12): 1181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, David P., and Ferejohn, John. 1989b. “The Power to Propose.” In Models of Strategic Choice in Politics, ed. Ordeshook, Peter C.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Pp. 343–66.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A., and Smith, Steven S.. 1997. Politics or Principle: Filibustering in the United States Senate. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Brown, William S. 1991. Introducing Econometrics. New York: West.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M., and Tullock, Gordon. 1967. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Rundquist, Barry. 1999a. “Party and Committee in Distributive Politics: Evidence from Defense Spending.” Journal of Politics 61 (11):1156–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, Thomas M., and Rundquist, Barry. 1999b. “The Reciprocal Relationship between State Defense Interest and Committee Representation in Congress.” Public Choice 99 (06): 455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congressional Record. 1991. 102d Cong., 1st sess., vol. 137, nos. 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1997. 105th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 143, nos. 121, 140.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 1998. 105th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 144, nos. 20, 26, 67.Google Scholar
Dilger, Robert Jay. 1998. “TEA-21: Transportation Policy, Pork Barrel Politics and American Federalism.” Publius 28 (Winter): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Diana. 1994. “Policy and Pork: The Use of Pork Barrel Projects to Build Policy Coalitions in the House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 38 (11): 894–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John A. 1974. Pork Barrel Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review 90 (06): 303–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Grofman, Bernard. 1990. “The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias.” American Political Science Review 84 (12): 1149–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 1976. “Hollow Victory: The Minimum Winning Coalition.” American Political Science Review 70 (12): 1202–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosansky, David. 1997. “ISTEA Reauthorization Stalls over Highway Funding.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 05 10, pp. 1066–8.Google Scholar
Koehler, David. 1984. “Ordinal Preference Games: An Analysis of Legislative Coalition Formation without Transferable Utility.” American Political Science Review 78 (09): 750–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 1997. “The Enduring Consequences of the Great Compromise: Senate Apportionment and Congressional Policymaking.” Ph.D. diss. Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Lee, Frances E. 1998. “Representation and Public Policy: The Consequences of Senate Apportionment for the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds.” Journal of Politics 60 (02): 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Frances E., and Oppenheimer, Bruce I.. 1999. Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1995. “Political Parties and the Distribution of Federal Outlays.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (11): 958–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D. 1976. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models.” Journal of Economic Theory 12 (06): 472–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Mike. 1991a. “Highway Bill Debate Becomes War Between the States.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 06 8, pp. 1487–9.Google Scholar
Mills, Mike. 1991b. “Senate Endorsement Paves Way for a New Highway System.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 06 15, pp. 1575–7.Google Scholar
Mills, Mike. 1991c. “Senate Panel Passes Overhaul of Federal Highway Policy.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 05 25, pp. 1366–8.Google Scholar
Mills, Mike. 1991d. “States Get More Road Money, New Leeway in Senate Bill.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 06 22, pp. 1653–5.Google Scholar
Morrow, James D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ota, Alan K. 1998a. “Growth States Stake Their Claims.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 03 14, p. 656.Google Scholar
Ota, Alan K. 1998b. “In Race to Meet April Deadline, Senate Passes Highway Bill.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 03 14, pp. 655–7.Google Scholar
Ota, Alan K. 1998c. “Senate's Solution to Road Wars: Deliver More Money.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 03 7, pp. 554–6.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles R. 1967. “A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility under Majority Rule.” American Economic Review 57 (09): 787–806.Google Scholar
Rich, Michael J. 1989. “Distributive Politics and the Allocation of Federal Grants.” American Political Science Review 83 (03): 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H. 1962. The Theory of Political Coalitions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Rundquist, Barry S., and Griffith, David E.. 1976. “An Interrupted Time-Series Test of the Distributive Theory of Military Policy-Making.” Western Political Quarterly 29 (12): 620–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1974. “On the Size of Winning Coalitions.” American Political Science Review 68 (06): 505–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Weingast, Barry R.. 1994. “Positive Theories of Congressional Institutions.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (05): 149–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert M., and Bickers, Kenneth N.. 1995. Perpetuating the Pork Barrel: Policy Subsystems and American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, Gerald S. 1975. “Congressional Policy Making: A Test of a Theory.” Journal of Politics 37 (08): 711–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Congress. Conference Committee. 1998. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. 105th Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 105–550.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1995. Highway Funding: Alternatives for Distributing Federal Funds: Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. 1991. Intermodal Surface Transportation Infrastructure Act of 1991. 102d Cong., 1st sess. H. Rept. 171, pt. 1.Google Scholar
Weisman, Jonathan. 1997a. “Battle over Highway Funding Ends with Stopgap Bill.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 11 15, pp. 2838–9.Google Scholar
Weisman, Jonathan. 1997b. “In Both Chambers, Shuster's Battle Is Turning into All-Out War.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 09 13, pp. 2138–9.Google Scholar
Wilson, Rick K. 1986a. “An Empirical Test of Preferences for the Pork Barrel: District Level Appropriations for Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1889–1913.” American Journal of Political Science 30 (4): 729–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Rick K. 1986b. “What Was It Worth to Be on a Committee in the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 11 (1): 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar