Incidence of Pork Barrel Politics and its Consequences PMCb1113 Money and Politics National, Regional or Worldwide? • •A complex phenomenon in a complex world • •Various political systems with different institutional framework • •Different currencies • •But the same human nature • • Spread of Research •Initial dominance of research in USA • •Pork Barrel Politics as an ‘American phenomenon’ • •Change in recent decades • •Factors: new data, new approaches, comparative research aims Once in 20th Century https://scontent-prg1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/s2048x2048/54526050_1092166500962598_880473931965 5825408_n.png?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent-prg1-1.xx&oh=dd491dc97d2caf831698bc8f690b61c9&oe=5D17E60F And now https://scontent-prg1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.15752-9/s2048x2048/55557310_2060162347615983_853407200967 0262784_n.png?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-prg1-1.xx&oh=aaec6d1dde07340c478fbfafa0563884&oe=5D4FB59B Consequences of Pork Barrel Politics •Important questions •Is the distribution of public money based on political interests meaningful? •Does it lead to expected outcomes? •Or is it just a waste of time (and money)? • •Consequences depend on type of pork barrel politics • • Bill Clinton and NAFTA •NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) • •Aim of president Clinton to pursue this agenda in Congress in 1993 • •Important case of pork barrel politics with crucial consequences • •Congress approved NAFTA in November 1993 Background •Clinton as a president who used pork barrel politics before • •Tradition established by previous presidents (Roosevelt, Reagan etc.) • •Exception – Jimmy Carter • •Members of Congress often expect something in return by default Background •Strong opposition against NAFTA: •Trade unions (lower wages, export of jobs abroad) •Environmentalists (lower environmental limits) • •Split in Democratic party: •Initiative to delay the whole NAFTA project • •Republicans leaning more to support NAFTA: •Previous term of George Bush •Free trade as a value Pork Barrel Politics and NAFTA •Negotiations and proclaimed compromises without substantial effect • •Pork barrel politics as the only choice: •Massive launch of deals with members of Congress •Lasted until final day of vote in Congress • •Various deals: •Guarantees for agricultural sector in Florida •Governmental purchases of airplanes from Texas •Promise to block subsidized wheat from Canada •Money on customs agents (textile) one day before the vote • Vote in Congress •Perspective of a clear defeat in October 1993 • •November 1993 – 234 : 200 in favor of NAFTA • •Impact of pork barrel politics? Vote in House on NAFTA Vote on NAFTA Members who did not receive benefit Members who received benefit Yes 47.5 84.2 No 52.5 15.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Probability of supporting NAFTA Democrat Republican No benefit received .275 .688 Benefit received .684 .927 Change .409 .239 Bill Clinton and NAFTA •Main aim fulfilled - Congress approved NAFTA • •Bringing home pork as a way how to increase support for NAFTA • •Successfully applied on members of both parties • •Pork barrel politics as a way of changing voting patterns of elected representatives • • What About Voters? •Pork Barrel Politics as a vote-buying mechanism • •The main logic: •1. grants are sent to a specific area •2. a representative of the area claims the credit •3. voters respond to income of public money and support the local representative • •Does it work in reality? Potential Limits (Bickers and Stein 1994) •Critical points: • •Do all political representatives seek public money to same extent? • •Do local representatives claim credit for pork despite their real role in securing the money? • •Do all voters recognize income of money? • •Do voters reward local representatives by supporting them in elections? Potential Limits (Bickers and Stein 1994) •Critical points: • •It depends on the amount of risk of losing in election • •Yes, by all means (accounts for political representatives regardless of whether they played any role in securing the money) • •No, it depends on the level of information and interest of people in politics • •Yes, but it depends on their attitude to incumbent and on their knowledge Does Pork Barrel Politics Affect Voters? •Every 100-dollar per capita increases the vote shares of candidates of the majority party in Canada by 1.5–2.5 % points (Evans 2006) • •Each additional 100 dollars per capita to a district leads to a 2 % increase in the incumbent’s vote share in US House of Representatives elections (Levitt and Snyder 1997) • •Indirect relationship (Klingensmith 2019): •Pork-barrel grants >> more fundraising >> higher vote share Does Pork Barrel Politics Affect Voters? •Depends on the context • •What might be important? •Pure fact of obtaining grants •Number of obtained grants •Timing of grants •Value of grants Touch of Grants Výsledek obrázku pro graph decline Výsledek obrázku pro new school building Impact of Grants on Local Elections •Case of Slovakia • •Grants as a further benefit for local elected representatives – part of incumbency advantage • •Mayors in Slovakia: •Highest municipal representatives •Directly elected for four years (FPTP) •High rate of reelection in general • •Do grants affect the prospects of mayors when seeking reelection? • • Impact of Grants on Local Elections •Local elections 2006-2018 • •Included municipalities: •Mayor in office during the whole term •Mayor runs in election (seeks reelection) •Mayor has at least one challenger (competitive election) • •More than 7,300 competitive local elections • •More than 9,700 grants Findings •In general, grants are helpful for local incumbents but only to some extent • •Likelihood of reelection increases with: •More awarded grants •Grants awarded in the end of term • •The picture is however more complex • Any Difference? Rural Dialogues | Smart Villages – Turning Momentum into Support for Local Action | ARC2020 The Different Local City Government Positions EP Elections and Incumbent Parties •Henceroth and Oganesyan (2019) • •EU Structural Funds affect the results of EP elections • •Analysis of nine EU countries on regional level • •Higher amount of SIF provided more support to gov parties