Pork Barrel Logic of Real Politics PMCb1113 Money and Politics Many Faces of Pork Barrel Politics • •Context dependency • •What are the main aims? • •What are the procedures? • •In other words, why and how is pork barrel politics performed • • The Flag of Georgia Flag of the State of Georgia (1956–2001).svg undefined Georgia •Power division in USA • •State level framework resembles the federal level • •Strong role of governors in pursuing legislative agenda • •State legislature typically follows the ideas of governor • •This works especially when the same party has the governor and controls the majority in House and Senate • • Georgia •To follow the governor is comfortable when the agenda fits the public opinion • •But what happens when the governor pursues an agenda that is sharply in contrast to the will of voters? • •Dilemma for members of the legislature from constituencies where voters disagree with such agenda • Georgia •Dominance of governors over General Assembly • •Very long tradition of Democratic governors • •Roy Barnes (elected in 1998): •125 years of Democrats in office •Showed strong position over General Assembly •94 per cent acceptance of his agenda in the assembly The Flag of Georgia •Georgia adopted a new flag in 1956 including the St. Andrew’s cross (a reminiscence on the Confederation) • •Several initiatives to drop the cross from the flag • •2001 – Governor Barnes initiated a change of the flag and adoption of a new one without the Confederate battle cross • • • A highly polarizing agenda •No middle ground • •African Americans: •Dominantly voting for Democrats •More than 75 per cent for the change of the flag • •White population: •Democrats – 21 per cent for the change and 58 for keeping the flag •Republicans – two thirds for keeping the flag • General Assembly •House: •102 Dem (66 W, 36 AfAm) - 74 Rep • •Senate: •32 Dem (21 W, 11 AfAm) - 24 Rep • •True dilemma for part of Democrats – supporting the change of flag and risking a political suicide • •Governor Barnes forced to seek support across party lines Branch Tree Leaves - Free vector graphic on Pixabay How to Secure Votes? •Carrot and stick • •Inducements: •Positive – help in campaign, fundraising, media influence •Negative – loss of offices, redistricting of constituencies • •Negative inducements mostly applicable only on members of own party (opposition does not hold offices) Solution for Barnes •Additional funding for new classrooms in 2001 budget worth 562 mil. USD • •Main tool in persuading members of assembly to support the agenda • •Time restraints allowed to effectively use pork to affect the vote in Senate • • The Effect of Pork (Bullock and Hood 2005) Aftermath •General Assembly voted for the change of the flag • •In the upcoming election Barnes lost to his Republican challenger Sonny Perdue • •First Republican governor of Georgia since 1872 • •Referendum in 2004 supported a modified version of the flag (73 per cent voters for the flag) The Flag of Georgia Výsledek obrázku pro usa georgia flag The Flag of Georgia •What was the aim of pork barrel politics? • •What was the procedure? Sports Grants Výsledek obrázku pro football Výsledek obrázku pro volleyball Výsledek obrázku pro tennis Sports Grants in Slovakia •In 2015 a single-party government in Slovakia launched a Support of Sport Development (SoSD) funding program • •Grants for establishment of sport facilities for (at least) football and volleyball • •A total of 4 million EUR • •Expected support of 40 thousand EUR for each facility SoSD program – basic rules •Official aim to provide support for sport facilities for young people • •Organization: •Directly organized by national government •Executive management by governmental representative and also a gov MP •Selection committee (members appointed by the government) • •Who could apply: •Municipalities, regions, civic associations, foundations, Church, schools etc. •A formal request required SoSD program – the selection process •Officially an anonymous evaluation of requests • •Criteria (each score 0 – 5 points): •Relevancy of the project and its aims •Quality and excellence •Tradition and continuity •Sporting and societal importance •Target groups •Feasibility of the budget • •Each request could score up to 30 points • • • SoSD program – results •524 municipalities filed a formal request for grants • •95 (out of 100) grants given to municipalities • •429 requests from municipalities refused (due to low score) • •Mean success rate of 18 per cent • • • SoSD program – political background •Mayors as highest municipal representatives •Directly elected for four years (FPTP) • •Partisan background of mayors: •GOV – nominated only by gov party •MIX – nominated by gov party and opp parties •OPP – nominated only by opp parties •IND – independent candidate • •Any impact on the distribution? • • • • Unsuccessful requests (N = 429) Successful requests (N = 95) Total requests (N = 524) Mayor GOV 97 (74.0 %) 34 (26.0 %) 131 Mayor MIX 40 (62.3 %) 24 (37.5 %) 64 Mayor IND 189 (84.8 %) 34 (15.2 %) 223 Mayor OPP 103 (97.1 %) 3 (2.9 %) 106 SoSD program •What was the aim of pork barrel politics? • •What was the procedure? • Sports Grants in Australia Výsledek obrázku pro kangaroo Political Background of Australia •Parliamentary democracy • •Three party system – ALP vs. National/Liberal coalition • •Strong parties and partisan loyalty • •‘European’ incentives for pork barrel politics – collective centralized goals over individual interests of representatives Sports Grants in Australia •The Community Recreational and Sporting Facilities Program (CRSFP) •Established in 1988 by Labor government (ALP) • •Distribution of money in four waves •Total of 1,447 grants worth more than 60 mil. AUS dollars • •Two waves realized before federal elections in 1990 and 1993 •Opportunity for pork barrel politics CRFSP - rules •The program aimed at supporting local area projects especially in weaker socioeconomic environment (high unemployment) •Organized by Ministry of Sport • •Criteria: •Population distribution, availability of sporting facilities in region •Project size, speed of implementation, employment potential •Impact on priority groups and disadvantaged groups (youth, rural areas, Aboriginal communities, high unemployment, high share of migrants) • CRFSP – Distribution of Grants •Overrepresentation of grants awarded to ALP held districts: •1990 – ALP held 52.7 % of districts and gained 70 % of resources •1993 – ALP held 54.4 % of districts and gained 67 % of resources • •Mean sum of grants awarded to ALP districts around twice the size the grants awarded to Coalition districts • • The question of marginal seats Aftermath •In 1993 the Auditor-General made an audit with important findings • •Audit showed that Ministry of Sport was unable to explain part of the grants • •Minister Kelly resigned but refused any pork barrel practices • •ALP defended the distribution by claiming that targeted localities fit the characteristics of regions with higher ALP support Grants in Canada •Similar story as in Australia • •Analyzed grants: •Regional grants in Canada in 1988-2001 •42 thousand grants •Each year grants worth several hundred millions CAD • •Confirmed marginal seat theory and special attention given to high ranked officials and new MPs • Výsledek obrázku pro canada flag Per Capita Spending (Milligan and Smart 2005) Per Capita Spending (Milligan and Smart 2005) Grants in Australia and Canada •What was the aim of pork barrel politics? • •What was the procedure? • Local Favoritism in Norway Výsledek obrázku pro norway Main theories of Pork Barrel Politics •Main motives of pork barrel politics lie in reelection of elected representatives • •Electoral systems produce various incentives to realize pork barrel spending • •What if the electoral rules do not contain such incentives? • •Norway as an example (Fiva and Halse 2016) Regional Government in Norway •Unitary state with three gov levels (national, regional, local) • •Regions as a strong player in terms of GDP and employment • •Regional councils of 35-85 members who elect the governor • •Governor is almost always the top candidate of majority party • • • • Electoral System to Regions in Norway •Proportional representation •Each region represents a single electoral district • •1975 – 1999 – closed list system •Since 2003 – flexible lists but without any real effect • •Who gets a seat completely depends on votes for parties •Voters can not reward individual candidates Grants in Norway •Analysis of 1976 – 2011 found that members of regional councils provide more money to their hometowns • •Why would they do that? • •1. sympathy for their hometowns •2. they expect something (electoral support) in return • •Career paths in Norwegian politics support the former option How Many Types of Pork Barrel Politics? •Flag of Georgia – carrot and stick (compensation) • •Sport grants in Slovakia – support for allies, punishment for rivals • •Sport grants in Australia – marginal seat (collective victory) • •Regional grants in Canada – marginal seat, high rank officials • •Local grants in Norway – hometown favoritism without electoral interests