This article seeks to determine the effect of rurality and need on per capita federal grant receipts in local areas over time, controlling for local and regional government capacities. In other words, are rural places treated differently than urban places in federal grant distributions? Kentucky is used as the case state, with 120 county areas considered over an 11-year period from 1993 to 2003. Factor analysis is used to explore the underlying capacity constructs, and a pooled cross-sectional analysis reveals differential effects of grant receipts per person according to a county’s position on the rural—urban continuum (aka Beale code) and need-based indicators. Whereas rurality significantly increases grant funding per capita, need has the opposite effect.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. ( 1998). The intergovernmental context of local economic development . State and Local Government Review, 30, 150-164.
2.
Aronson, J.R., & Hilley, J.L. ( 1986). Financing state and local governments (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
3.
Balla, S.J., Lawrence, E.D., Maltzman, F., & Sigelman, L. ( 2002). Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 515-525.
4.
Bowman, A.O.’M., & Kearney, R.C. ( 1988). Dimensions of state government capability. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 341-362.
5.
Brown, A. ( 1980). Technical assistance to rural communities: Stopgap or capacity building? Public Administration Review, 40, 18-23.
6.
Buss, T. ( 1999). To target or not to target, that’s the question: A response to Wiewel and Finkle. Economic Development Quarterly , 13, 365-370.
7.
Chicoine, D.L., Deller, S.C., & Walzer, N. ( 1989). The size efficiency of rural governments: The case of low-volume rural roads. Publius, 19, 127-138.
8.
Chubb, J.E. ( 1985). The political economy of federalism. American Political Science Review, 79, 994-1015.
9.
Collins, B.K., & Gerber, B.J. ( 2006). Redistributive policy and devolution: Is state administration a road block (grant) to equitable access to federal funds? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 613-632.
10.
Conlan, T.J. ( 1984). The politics of federal block grants: From Nixon to Reagan . Political Science Quarterly, 99, 247-270.
11.
Denemark, D. ( 2000). Partisan pork barrel in parliamentary systems: Australian constituency-level grants. Journal of Politics, 62, 896-915.
12.
Dewar, M.E. ( 1998). Why state and local economic development programs cause so little economic development. Economic Development Quarterly , 12, 68-87.
13.
Duffin, D.L. ( 1999). The influence of legislative oversight on discretionary authority: Allocating urban development action grants in HUD’s office of community planning and development. American Review of Public Administration, 29, 391-410.
14.
Finkle, J.A. ( 1999). The case against targeting might have been more . . . targeted. Economic Development Quarterly, 13, 361-364.
15.
Frederickson, P., & London, R. ( 2000). Disconnect in the hollow state: The pivotal role of organizational capacity in community-based development organizations. Public Administration Review, 60, 230-239.
16.
Gargan, J.J. ( 1981). Consideration of local government capacity. Public Administration Review, 41, 649-658.
17.
Greenbaum, R.T. ( 2004). Siting it right: Do states target economic distress when designating enterprise zones? Economic Development Quarterly , 18, 67-80.
18.
Hall, J.L. ( 2007). Developing historical 50-state indices of innovation capacity and commercialization capacity. Economic Development Quarterly, 21, 107-123.
19.
Hall, J.L. ( 2008a). The forgotten regional organizations: Creating capacity for economic development. Public Administration Review, 68, 110-125.
20.
Hall, J.L. ( 2008b). Assessing local capacity for grant-getting. American Review of Public Administration, 28, 463-479.
21.
Haughwout, A.F. ( 1999). New estimates of the impact of EDA Public Works Program investments on county labor markets. Economic Development Quarterly, 13, 371-382.
22.
Hill, E. ( 1998). Principles for rethinking the federal government’s role in economic development. Economic Development Quarterly , 12, 299-312.
23.
Honadle, B.W. ( 1981). A capacity-building framework: A search for concept and purpose. Public Administration Review, 41, 575-580.
24.
Hou, Y., Moynihan, D.P., & Ingraham, P.W. (2003). Capacity, management, and performance: Exploring the links. American Review of Public Administration, 33, 295-315.
25.
Howland, M., & Miller, T. ( 1990). UDAG grants to rural areas: A program that works. Economic Development Quarterly, 4, 128-136.
26.
Kentucky Council of Area Development Districts. (2005). Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.kycadd.org
27.
Leatherman, J., & Deller, S.C. ( 2001). Building local government capacity: The toolbox for outreach educators. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 31, 91-110.
28.
Lee, F.E. ( 2003). Geographic politics in the U.S. House of Representatives: Coalition building and distribution of benefits. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 714-728.
29.
Levine, C.H., & Posner, P.L. ( 1981). The centralizing effects of austerity on the intergovernmental system. Political Science Quarterly, 96, 67-85.
30.
Levitt, S.D., & Snyder, J.M. ( 1995). Political parties and the distribution of federal outlays . American Journal of Political Science, 39, 958-980.
31.
Levitt, S.D., & Snyder, J.M. ( 1997). The impact of federal spending on House election outcomes . Journal of Political Economy, 105, 30-53.
32.
Long, R.W. ( 1987). Rural development policy: Rationale and reality. Publius, 17, 15-31.
33.
Markusen, A., & Glasmeier, A. ( 2008a). Overhauling and revitalizing federal economic development programs. Economic Development Quarterly, 22, 83-91.
34.
Markusen, A., & Glasmeier, A. ( 2008b). Rejoinder: History, leadership, place prosperity, rationales, competitiveness, outcomes. A response to Drabenstott, Finkle, John, and Singerman. Economic Development Quarterly, 22, 115-118.
35.
McGuire, M., Rubin, B., Agranoff, R., & Richards, C. ( 1994). Building development capacity in nonmetropolitan communities . Public Administration Review, 54, 426-433.
36.
Mikesell, J.L. ( 2007). Fiscal administration: Analysis and applications in the public sector (7th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
37.
Montjoy, R., & O’Toole, L.J., Jr. (1991). Policy instruments and politics: Multiple regression and intergovernmental aid. State and Local Government Review, 23(2), 51-59.
38.
Morgan, D.R., & Shih, M.-C. ( 1991). Targeting state and federal aid to city needs. State and Local Government Review, 23(2), 60-68.
39.
Nathan, R.P. ( 1983). State and local governments under federal grants: Toward a predictive theory. Political Science Quarterly, 98, 47-57.
40.
Peterson, P. ( 1995). Functional and legislative theories of federalism. In P. Peterson (Ed.), The price of federalism (pp. 16-50). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
41.
Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R.Y., & Pavoncello, F. (1983). Explaining institutional success: The case of Italian regional government. American Political Science Review, 77, 55-74.
42.
Quigley, J.M., & Rubinfeld, D.L. (1986). Budget reform and the theory of fiscal federalism. American Economic Review, 76, 132-137.
43.
Reeder, R.J. ( 1989). Targeting state aid to distressed rural communities. Publius, 19, 143-160.
44.
Rich, M.J. ( 1989). Distributive politics and the allocation of federal grants . American Political Science Review, 83, 193-213.
45.
Rogers, C.L., & Tao, J.L. ( 2004). Quasi-experimental analysis of targeted economic development programs: Lessons from Florida. Economic Development Quarterly , 18, 269-285.
46.
Schneider, M., & Ji, B.M. ( 1990). The political economy on intergovernmental grant seeking: Targeting and suburbs 1977 and 1982. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 408-420.
47.
Scorsone, E.A. ( 2003). Economic progress in Appalachian Kentucky communities . Journal of Appalachian Studies, 9, 272-292.
48.
Sokolow, A.D. ( 1987). Introduction: Small governments as newcomers toAmerican federalism. Publius, 17, 1-13.
49.
Stein, R.M., & Bickers, K.N. ( 1994). Congressional elections and the pork barrel. Journal of Politics, 56, 377-399.
50.
Stein, R.M., & Bickers, K.N. ( 2000). The congressional pork barrel in a Republican era. Journal of Politics, 62, 1070-1086.
51.
Straub, C.J., Jr., & Robinson, K. ( 2000). Response to Thornburgh and Hill: The federal role in economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 14, 257-264.
52.
Swanstrom, T. ( 1988). Semisovereign cities: The politics of urban development . Polity, 21, 83-110.
53.
Tao, J.L., & Feiock, R.C. ( 1999). Directing the benefits to need: Evaluating the distributive consequences of urban economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 13, 55-65.
54.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2005). GDP deflator. http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid
55.
Warren, R. ( 1970). Federal-local development planning: Scale effects in representation and policymaking. Public Administration Review , 30, 584-595.
