Pork-barrel effects are discussed using a specific program of Portuguese investment expenditures (PIDDAC) that has been observed since 1997. My framework adds new insight to this important branch of economics literature. First, my analysis is the first to be based on sequential dictators games, which are more appropriate for studying the strategies of the agents involved in pork-barrel practices. Second, I examine the role of ‘irrelevance effects’, which limit or offset the pork-barrel effect even if the recipient municipality and the Portuguese government are ruled by the same political wing. My empirical estimations confirm that the Portuguese government tends to increase PIDDAC transfers to the municipalities that are being ruled by the same political wing. Municipalities with fewer residents or fewer parishes tend to suffer the most significant irrelevance effects. PIDDAC transfers to all municipalities were found to be more generous during election years.
AidtT.VeigaF.VeigaL., 2011, “Election results and opportunistic policies: A new test of the rational political business cycle model”Public Choice14821–44
2.
BaronD., 1991, “Majoritarian incentives, pork barrel programs, and procedural control”American Journal of Political Science3557–90
3.
BatteseG.CorraG., 1977, “Estimation of a production frontier model: With application to the pastoral zone of eastern Australia”Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics21169–179
4.
BatteseG.CoelliT., 1995, “A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data”Empirical Economics20325–332
5.
BratsisP., 2003, “Corrupt compared to what? Greece, capitalist interests, and the specular purity of the State”, DP 8, Hellenic Observatory, London School of Economics and Political Science
6.
CadotO.RöllerL.StephanA., 2006, “Contribution to productivity of pork barrel: The two faces of infrastructure investment”Journal of Public Economics901133–1153
7.
Costa-FontJ.Rodriguez-OreggiaE., 2006, “Path dependency and the allocation of public investment in Mexico”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24297–311
8.
Costa-I-FontJ.Rodriguez-OreggiaE.LunaplaD., 2003, “Political competition and pork-barrel politics in the allocation of public investment in Mexico”Public Choice116185–204
9.
CoxG.McCubbinsM., 1986, “Electoral politics as a redistributive game”Journal of Politics48370–389
10.
DeBackerJ., 2011, “The price of pork: The seniority trap in the US House”Journal of Public Economics95 (1–2), 63–78
11.
DelRossiA.InmanR., 1999, “Changing the price of pork: The impact of local cost sharing on legislators' demand for redistributive public goods”Journal of Public Economics71247–273
DiekmannA., 2004, “The power of reciprocity: Fairness, reciprocity, and stakes in variants of the dictator game”Journal of Conflict Resolution48487–505
14.
DixitA.LondreganJ., 1998, “Fiscal federalism and redistributive politics”Journal of Public Economics68295–303
15.
DrazenA., 2000Political Economy in Macroeconomics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
16.
FeltonR., 2006, “Poker and the pork barrel”Metal Powder Report61 page 3
17.
FerejohnJ A, 1974Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947–1968 (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
18.
FernandesM., 1984PIDDAC/84 Ministério da Educação, Gabinete de Estudos e Planeamento, Lisboa
19.
GrootL., 2000, “Roger Caillois, games of chance and the superstar”Diogenes4833–42
20.
HoareA G, 1984, “Pork-barrelling in Britain: A review”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy1413–438
21.
JohnstonR J, 1983, “The feedback component of the pork barrel: Tests using the results of the 1983 General Election in Britain”Environment and Planning A151691–1696
22.
KaplanT.RuffleB., 2009, “In search of welfare-improving gifts”European Economic Review53445–460
23.
KhemaniS., 2007, “Can information campaigns overcome political obstacles to serving the poor?”, in The Politics of Service Delivery in Democracies: Better Access for the Poor Eds DevarajanS.WidlundI. (EGDI Secretariat Edita, Stockholm) pp 56–69
24.
LancasterT.PattersonW., 1990, “Comparative pork barrel politics: Perceptions from the West German Bundestag”Comparative Political Studies22458–477
25.
LeighA.NeillC., 2011, “Can national infrastructure spending reduce local unemployment? Evidence from an Australian roads program”Economics Letters113150–153
26.
LevyM., 2012, “Co-monotonicity: Toward a utility function capturing envy”Economics Letters11416–19
27.
LimosaniM.NavarraP., 2001, “Local pork-barrel politics in national pre-election dates: The case of Italy”Public Choice106317–326
28.
McMenemyJ., 2001The Language of Canadian Politics: A Guide to Important Terms and Concepts3rd edition (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, ON)
29.
MitrutA.NordblomK., 2010, “Social norms and gift behavior: Theory and evidence from Romania”European Economic Review54998–1015
30.
MouraoP., 2011, “Distribution matters: The case of Portuguese municipalities”, 9th Workshop APDR ‘Descentralização Financeira e Desorçamentação’, Universidade do Minho
31.
MouraoP.CunhaE., 2012, “Políticas pork-barrel: Um estudo sobre o caso português do PIDDAC”Econômica1373–93
32.
NiskanenW., 1998, “A vote for Perot was a vote for the status quo”Cato Journal1885–91
33.
MartinsOliveira G.MartinsOliveira G.MartinsOliveira M., 2007A Lei do Enquadramento Orçamental: Anotada e Comentada (Almedina, Coimbra)
34.
OlsonM., 1965The Logic of Collective Action (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
35.
QuellerD., 1985, “Kinship, reciprocity and synergism in the evolution of social behavior”Nature318366–367
36.
RuffleB., 1999, “Gift giving with emotions”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization39399–420
37.
SegalI.WhinstonM., 2000, “Exclusive contracts and protection of investments”RAND Journal of Economics31603–633
38.
VeigaL.VeigaF., 2013, “Intergovernmental fiscal transfers as pork barrel”Public Choice55335–353
39.
WeingastB., 1981, “Regulation, reregulation, and deregulation: The political foundations of agency clientele relationships”Law and Contemporary Problems44147–177
40.
WeingastB., 1984, “The congressional–bureaucratic system: A principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC)”Public Choice44147–191
41.
WeingastB.ShepsleK.JohnsenC., 1981, “The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics”Journal of Political Economy89642–664
42.
ZakP., 2011, “Moral markets”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization77212–233 Portuguese legislation
