Practitioners and observers of political behavior commonly suppose that the geographical distribution of governmentally generated benefits is an electorally salient issue. This paper examines relationships between the geographical patterns of US Federal outlays and popular voting for incumbent US Representatives as a means of testing the hypothesis that incumbent Representatives enhance their reelection prospects by ‘bringing home the bacon’ to their districts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherJ C, 1978“Incrementalism and Federal outlays among states” paper presented at the 1978 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, New Orleans, La, 9–12 April 1978; forthcoming in (1979) Geographical Perspectives44.
2.
ArcherJ CReynoldsD R, 1976“Locational logrolling and citizen support of municipal bond proposals”Public Choice2721–39
3.
BickleyJ M, 1976“An empirical econometric analysis of voters' preferences”Public Finance Quarterly4465–477
4.
BuchananJ MTullockJ, 1962The Calculus of Consent (Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.)
5.
CobbS, 1976“Defense spending and defense voting in the House”American Journal of Sociology82163–182
6.
Community Services Administration, 1976Federal Outlays in (state name): Fiscal Year 1976 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
7.
Congressional Directory, 93rd Congress, First Session, 1973 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
8.
Congressional Directory, 94th Congress, First Session, 1975 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
9.
Congressional Directory, 95th Congress, First Session, 1977 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
10.
CranorJ DWestphalJ W, 1978“Congressional District Offices, Federal programs and electoral benefits” paper presented at the 1978 Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill. 1978 April 20–22, available from J D Cranor, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind.
11.
DownsA, 1957An Economic Theory of Democracy (Harper and Row, New York)
12.
EhrenhaltA, 1976“GOP stunned by showing in House races”Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report343159–3160
13.
EricksonR S, 1971“The advantage of incumbency in Congressional elections”Polity3395–405
14.
FennoR F, 1977“U.S. House members and their constituencies”American Political Science Review71883–917
15.
FerejohnJ A, 1977“On the decline of competition in Congressional elections”American Political Science Review71166–176
16.
FiorinaM P, 1977“The case of the vanishing marginals: The bureaucracy did it!”American Political Science Review71177–181
17.
GrayC HGregoryG W, 1968“Military spending and senate voting: A correlational study”Journal of Peace Research544–55
18.
JohnstonR J, 1978a“Political spending in the United States: Analyses of political influences on the allocation of Federal money to local environments”Environment and Planning A10691–704
19.
JohnstonR J, 1978bMultivariate Statistical Analysis in Geography (Longman, Harlow, Essex)
20.
KeyV O, 1958Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups4th edition (Crowell, New York)
21.
KramerG H, 1971“Short term fluctuations in U.S. voting behavior, 1896–1964”American Political Science Review65131–143
22.
LepperS, 1974“Voting behavior and aggregate policy targets”Public Choice1867–82
23.
MayhewD R, 1974aCongress: The Electoral Connection (Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.)
24.
MayhewD R, 1974b“Congressional elections: The case of the vanishing marginals”Polity3295–317
25.
Office of Economic Opportunity, 1972Federal Outlays in (state name): Fiscal Year 1972 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
26.
Office of Economic Opportunity, 1974Federal Outlays in (state name): Fiscal Year 1974 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
27.
PetersonG E, 1975“Voter demand for public school expenditures” in Public Needs and Private Behavior in Metropolitan Areas Ed. JacksonJ E, (Ballinger, Boston) pp 99–120
28.
RayB A, 1976“Investigating the myth of Congressional influence: The geographic distribution of Federal spending” paper presented at the 1976 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill., 2–5 September 1976; forthcoming in (1980) Political Benefits Ed. RundquistB S, (Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass)
29.
RundquistB SGriffithD E, 1976“Interrupted time-series test of the distributive theory of military policymaking”Western Political Quarterly29620–626
30.
SchultzeC L, 1976“Federal spending: Past, present, and future” in Setting National Priorities: The Next Ten Years Eds OwenHSchultzeCL, (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC) pp 323–370
