PORK BARREL POLITICS REVISITED

This study examines during the 1970's period of congressional reform the continuing validity of the hypotheses examined by John Ferejohn in Pork Barrel Politics. Specifically, the two hypotheses examined are: (1) Is the Corps of Engineers treated more favorably by the Congress in the appropriations process than other federal agencies? (2) Is the distribution of corps projects influenced by the institutional distribution of influence over the corps program in the Congress?; The study compares the success of the Corps in the appropriations process with that of thirty-six bureaus examined by Richard Fenno in Power of the Purse. The period of time covered by the study is 1966-1976 (FY 1967-1977). Each year of the period is examined separately to test Ferejohn's influence hypothesis. Two regression models of Ferejohn's hypothesis are tested using different demand control variables. The relative influences of subcommittees, party, leadership, and seniority are examined for the House Public Works Committee and House Appropriations Committee. Intercommittee influence is also examined. Separately, a simultaneous equation model of the interaction of supply and demand for water projects is examined in order to assess the influence of demand for projects on their distribution. This reexamination of Ferejohn's study provides support for Ferejohn's hypothesis that members of Congress who are in a position of influence over the Corps program receive a disproportionate share of the program benefits. However, this study refines Ferejohn's findings in that while the ability of various influence groups to obtain new starts was found to be very substantial in some years, group influence varied considerably from year to year. Furthermore, while the Corps continues to receive favored treatment in the appropriations process, evidence was found that the budget cutting norm of the Appropriations Committee has eroded in general to a great extent since 1970. The study did not produce any evidence to support the hypothesis that water projects are provided to those with a need and demand for such projects.