Public Choice

, Volume 123, Issue 1–2, pp 95–113 | Cite as

The Political Determinants of Federal Expenditure at the State Level

  • Gary A. Hoover
  • Paul Pecorino


It has been shown that states with higher per capita senate representation have higher federal spending per capita (Atlas, C. M., Gilligan, T. A., Hendershott, R. J. and Zupan, M. A. (1995). American Economic Review 85: 624–629). With a more recent data sample, more highly disaggregated data and a different set of political control variables, we are able to confirm the main result of Atlas et al. that per capita senate representation is positively related to federal expenditure. This effect is strongest for procurement expenditures. By contrast, we do not find support for their result that spending increases with per capita representation in the House of Representatives. Several other political variables are found to be significant in a subset of the expenditure equations.


Control Variable State Level Public Finance American Economic Review Political Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, G., & Tollison, R. D. (1991). Congressional influence and patterns of New Deal spending. Journal of Law and Economics, 34(April), 161–175.Google Scholar
  2. Arrington, L. J. (1969). The New Deal in the West: A preliminary statistical inquiry. Pacific Historical Review, 38(August), 311–316.Google Scholar
  3. Arrington, L. J. (1970). Western Agriculture and the New Deal. Agricultural History, 44(October), 337–53.Google Scholar
  4. Atlas, C. M., Gilligan, T. A., Hendershott, R. J., & Zupan, M. A. (1995). Slicing the federal government net spending pie: Who wins, who loses, and why. American Economic Review, 85, 624–629.Google Scholar
  5. Atlas, C. M., Hendershott, R. J., & Zupan, M. A. (1997). Optimal effort allocation by U.S. senators: The role of constituency size. Public Choice, 92, 221–229.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, J. T., & Mayberry, E. R. (1979). Federal tax burdens and grant benefits to states: The impact of imperfect representation. Public Choice, 34, 255–269.Google Scholar
  7. Bickers, K. N., & Stein, R. M. (1991). Federal domestic outlays, 1983–1990: A data book. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  8. Couch, J. F., & Shughart, W. F., II. (1998). The political economy of the New Deal. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. Fleck, R. K. (1999). The Value of the vote: A model and test of the effects of turnout on distributive policy. Economic Inquiry, 37, 609–623.Google Scholar
  10. Fleck, R. K. (2001a). Population, land, economic conditions, and the allocation of New Deal spending. Explorations in Economic History, 38, 296–304.Google Scholar
  11. Fleck, R. K. (2001b). Inter-party competition, intra-party competition, and distributive policy: A model and test using New Deal data. Public Choice, 108, 77–100.Google Scholar
  12. Knight, B. (2003). Legislative representation, bargaining power, and the distribution of federal funds: Evidence from the U.S. senate. (Manuscript). Brown University.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, F. E. (1998). Representation and public policy: The consequences of senate apportionment for the geographic distribution of federal funds. Journal of Politics, 60, 34–62.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, F. E. (2000). Senate representation and coalition building in distributive politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 59–72.Google Scholar
  15. Levitt, S. D., & Poterba, J. M. (1999). Congressional distributive politics and state economic performance. Public Choice, 99, 185–216.Google Scholar
  16. Levitt, S. D., & Snyder, J. M., Jr. (1995). Political parties and the distribution of outlays. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 958–980.Google Scholar
  17. McGillivray, A. V., Scammon, R. M., & Cook, R. (2001). America at the polls 1960–2000. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, J. L., Preimesberger, J. P., & Tarr, D. R. (2001). Congressional quarterly’s guide to U.S. elections. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  19. Reading, D. C. (1973). New Deal activity and the states. Journal of Economic History, 36, 792–810.Google Scholar
  20. Wallis, J. J. (1998). The political economy of New Deal spending revisited, again: With and without Nevada. Explorations in Economic History, 35, 140–170.Google Scholar
  21. Wallis, J. J. (2001). The political economy of New Deal spending, yet again: A reply to Fleck. Explorations in Economic History, 38, 305–314.Google Scholar
  22. Wright, G. (1974). The political economy of New Deal spending: An econometric analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 30–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, Finance and Legal StudiesUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosa

Personalised recommendations