The electoral effect of pork barrel politics: evidence from England

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Public Choice Pub Date : 2024-04-30 DOI:10.1007/s11127-024-01164-2
Johannes Lattmann
{"title":"The electoral effect of pork barrel politics: evidence from England","authors":"Johannes Lattmann","doi":"10.1007/s11127-024-01164-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study examines the effect of the allocation of centralised funding on electoral support for the incumbent by utilising the introduction of the “Towns Fund” in England in 2019 as a natural experiment. For causal identification, I leverage a difference-in-difference design to examine the electoral effect of this fund. My findings suggest that providing funding to constituencies significantly increased the vote share of the Conservative Party in the General Election in 2019. However, in a subset of constituencies in which the Labour Party constitutes the incumbent, the findings can not be replicated for all specifications and robustness checks. Furthermore, I do not find consistent support that the effect is stronger in economically deprived constituencies. Similarly, the results suggest that the voting outcome depends on the total amount of funding being received, however, this finding does not reach statistical significance. These results complement the literature by providing empirical evidence for pork barrel as a functioning means for vote buying for the Conservative government in 2019 in England. Furthermore, this paper emphasises that partisanship should be considered as a mediating variable when analysing the political effect of providing place-based funding.</p>","PeriodicalId":48322,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01164-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines the effect of the allocation of centralised funding on electoral support for the incumbent by utilising the introduction of the “Towns Fund” in England in 2019 as a natural experiment. For causal identification, I leverage a difference-in-difference design to examine the electoral effect of this fund. My findings suggest that providing funding to constituencies significantly increased the vote share of the Conservative Party in the General Election in 2019. However, in a subset of constituencies in which the Labour Party constitutes the incumbent, the findings can not be replicated for all specifications and robustness checks. Furthermore, I do not find consistent support that the effect is stronger in economically deprived constituencies. Similarly, the results suggest that the voting outcome depends on the total amount of funding being received, however, this finding does not reach statistical significance. These results complement the literature by providing empirical evidence for pork barrel as a functioning means for vote buying for the Conservative government in 2019 in England. Furthermore, this paper emphasises that partisanship should be considered as a mediating variable when analysing the political effect of providing place-based funding.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
猪肉桶政治的选举效应:英格兰的证据
本研究以英国 2019 年引入的 "城镇基金 "为自然实验,考察了中央资金分配对执政者选举支持的影响。为了识别因果关系,我采用了差分设计来考察该基金的选举效应。我的研究结果表明,向选区提供资金大大增加了保守党在 2019 年大选中的得票率。然而,在工党构成执政党的选区子集中,所有规格和稳健性检验都无法复制这些发现。此外,我也没有发现经济贫困选区的效应更强的一致支持。同样,研究结果表明,投票结果取决于所获资助的总额,但这一结论在统计上并不显著。这些结果补充了相关文献,为 2019 年英国保守党政府的选票收买提供了实证证据。此外,本文还强调,在分析以地方为基础提供资金的政治效应时,应将党派关系视为中介变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Choice
Public Choice Multiple-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
18.80%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Public Choice deals with the intersection between economics and political science. The journal was founded at a time when economists and political scientists became interested in the application of essentially economic methods to problems normally dealt with by political scientists. It has always retained strong traces of economic methodology, but new and fruitful techniques have been developed which are not recognizable by economists. Public Choice therefore remains central in its chosen role of introducing the two groups to each other, and allowing them to explain themselves through the medium of its pages. Officially cited as: Public Choice
期刊最新文献
Does more democracy encourage individualism?: evidence from women’s suffrage in the US Appealing, threatening or nudging? Assessing various communication strategies to promote tax compliance Equilibrium responses to price controls: a supply-chain approach The medieval church as an economic firm? Government incentives and firm location choices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1