Skip to main content
Log in

Representation as agency and the Pork Barrel Paradox

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Alchian, A. and Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs and economic organization.American Economic Review 62: 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K.J. (1963).Social choice and individual values, 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. (1970).Conflict of interest. Chicago: Markham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J.M. (1960).Fiscal theory and political economy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J.M. and Tullock, G. (1962).The calculus of consent. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R.T. and Oppenheimer, J.A. (1984). A method of estimating the personal ideology of political representatives.American Political Science Review 78: 163–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collie, M.P. (1988). The rise of coalition politics: Voting in the U.S. House.Legislative Studies Quarterly 13: 321–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G.W. and Tutt, T. (1984). Universalism and allocative decision-making in the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors.Journal of Politics 46: 546–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenno, R.F. (1973).Congressmen in committees. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J.A. (1974).Pork barrel politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J.A., Fiorina, M.P. and McKelvey, R.D. (1987). Sophisticated voting and agenda independence in the distributive politics setting.American Journal of Political Science 31: 167–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M.P. (1981). Universalism, reciprocity and distributive policy-making in majority rule institutions. In J.P. Crecine (Ed.),Research in public policy making and management, Vol. I, 197–221. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M.P. and Noll, R. (1978). Voters, bureaucrats, and legislators: A rational choice perspective on the growth of bureaucracy.Journal of Public Economics 9: 239–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Froman, L.A., Jr. (1967).The congressional process: Strategies, rules and procedures. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W.A. (1961). A theory of coalition formation.American Sociological Review 26: 373–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, C. (1977). Fiscal illusion in state and local finance. In T.E. Borcherding (Ed.),Budgets and Bureaucrats, 176–187. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1965).Fact, fiction, and forecast, 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinckley, B. (1981).Coalitions and politics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalt, J. and Zupan, M. (1984). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics.American Economic Review 74: 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kau, J. and Rubin, P. (1979). Self-interest, ideology, and logrolling in congressional voting.Journal of Law and Economics 22: 365–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiserson, M. (1970). Game theory and the study of coalition behavior. In S. Groennings, E.W. Kelley, and M. Leiserson (Eds.),The study of coalition behavior: Theoretical perspective and cases from four continents, 255–272. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, E. (1962). Just taxation — a positive solution. Trans. from German by E. Henderson. In R.A. Musgrave and A.T. Peacock (Eds.),Classics in the theory of public finance, 168–176. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T.J. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory.World Politics 16: 677–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A. (1951).Muddy waters. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCubbins, M. and Sullivan, T. (1984). Constituency influence on legislative policy choice.Quality and Quantity 18: 299–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manley, J.F. (1970).The politics of finance. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, D.R. (1960).U.S. Senators and their world. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D.R. (1974).Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.J. and Oppenheimer, J.A. (1982). Universalism in experimental committees.American Political Science Review 76: 561–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Netter, J. (1985). An empirical investigation of the determinants of congressional voting on federal financing of abortions and the ERA.Journal of Legal Studies 14: 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niou, E.M.S. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1985). Universalism in Congress.American Journal of Political Science 29: 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panning, W.H. (1985). Formal models of legislative processes. In G. Loewenberg, S.C. Patterson, and M.E. Jewell (Eds.),Handbook of legislative research, 669–697. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. (1967).The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C.R. (1968). Some organizational influences on urban renewal decisions.American Economic Review 58: 306–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polsby, N.W. (1968). The institutionalization of the House of Representatives.American Political Science Review 62: 144–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971).Theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W.H. (1962).The theory of political coalitions. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W.H. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1973).An introduction to positive political theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E.E. (1935).Politics, pressures, and the tariff. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E.E. (1942).Party government. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, T. (1983). The pork barrel paradox. WP-14, Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin.

  • Schwartz, T. (1985). Dr. Krankheit and the concept of compliance.American Philosophical Quarterly 22: 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepsle, K.A. and Weingast, B.R. (1981). Political preferences for the pork barrel: A generalization.American Journal of Political Science 25: 96–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P.M. (1973).The rape of the taxpayer. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockman, D. (1975). The social pork barrel.The Public Interest 39: 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1959). Problems of majority voting.Journal of Political Economy 67: 571–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1982). The political economy of benefits and costs.Journal of Political Economy 90: 824–826.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. (1976). Revenue structure, fiscal illustion, and budgetary choice.Public Choice 25: 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B.R. (1979). A rational choice perspective on congressional norms.American Journal of Political Science 23: 245–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingast, B.R., Shepsle, K.A. and Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A neoclassical approach to distributive politics.Journal of Political Economy 89: 642–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, H.F. (1978). Evaluating theories of congressional roll-call voting.American Journal of Political Science 22: 551–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicksell, K. (1962). A new principle of just taxation. Trans. from German by J.M. Buchanan. In R.A. Musgrave and A.T. Peacock (Eds.),Classics in the theory of public finance, 72–118. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J.Q. (1973).Political organizations. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Thanks to Nathaniel Beck, Leonard Binder, Gary Cox, James DeNardo, Shale Horowitz, Gary Jacobson, Shefali Jha, Sam Kernell, Mathew McCubbins, Gary Miller, John Mulcaire, Douglass North, Peter Ordeshook, Ronald Rogowski, Norman Schoefield, George Tsebelis, Gordon Tullock, Michael Wallerstein, and Barry Weingast for comments on ancestral versions over the years. Research supported by NSF grant SES 8896228 and UCLA Senate grants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwartz, T. Representation as agency and the Pork Barrel Paradox. Public Choice 78, 3–21 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053363

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053363

Keywords

Navigation