The Role of Distributive Policy in Federal Government

Distributive policy is defined as the government effort to distribute a good or benefit to some portion of the population, often in an effort aimed at solving public problems. These policies are among the most common forms of federal action and are typically paid for through general tax revenues. As such, distributive policies provide for everything from farm subsidies and corporate contracts to infrastructure and "pork-barrel" spending.

In contrast to redistributive policy, distributive policies impose no direct tax among one group in order to provide for the benefit of another. For this reason, distributive policies are considered less controversial than are redistributive policies. While social welfare policies have resulted in decades of contentious debate, distributive policies often fly under the public's radar, regardless of the monetary figures involved. Subsidies and grants are often considered "business as usual" among the public.

This is not always the case, however. In recent years, a high profile debate over pork-barrel spending has emerged. As the amount of "pork" has risen from $3.1 billion in 1991 to a high of $29 billion in 2006, the visibility of pork-barrel spending has similarly risen throughout the political scene (Citizens Against Government Waste 2008). When it comes to distributive policy, pork-barrel spending has situated itself on the front lines of public debate.

Additionally, distributive policy plays a highly substantial role in the federal government's budget. As the United States falls further into debt and the annual deficit continues to increase, the political relevance of all distributive spending decisions will increase along with it. Distributive spending plays an important role in both the governing and political aspects of public policy.
Concept Linkage

Pork-barrel spending is undeniably the most highly visible product of distributive policy making. Current Presidential candidate John McCain has continually raised the issue on the campaign trail, in public interviews, and even during the first Presidential debate. His vocal opposition to the practice has contributed to pork-barrel spending's status on the center stage of the 2008 election.

While general distributive spending remains uncontroversial in the United States, pork-barrel spending in fact occupies an extremely small fraction of overall distributive policy. Put into perspective, with a projected FY 2009 budget of $3.1 trillion, the $17.2 billion of pork-barrel spending in 2008 constitutes only 0.55% of the annual budget (Abramowitz and Weisman 2008; Citizens Against Government Waste 2008). Additionally, many of the $17.2 billion worth of projects represented as pork-barrel spending are projects that Senator McCain and much of the country may be inclined to otherwise support; $2.9 billion in foreign aid to Israel, for example, goes through an earmark process that classifies it as pork-barrel spending (Smith 2008).

This suggests that distributive policy itself lies at the heart of the debate. Pork-barrel spending is the very visible punching bag of distributive policy, but government waste is truly the controversial issue; much of what the public considers "waste" is established through non-earmarked, non-pork distributive spending. This spending may manifest as subsidies the public does not agree with, agencies they see as wasteful "bureaucracy," or initiatives they believe are misguided; all are examples of distributive spending in action. "Pork-barrel" has become a synonym for waste, and wasteful government spending is truly the issue under debate.

Interest group liberalism may explain this phenomenon. As government focuses not on serving the larger public's interests through its use of distributive policy, but rather on serving the interests of a particular group (be they businesses, interest groups, constituents, or otherwise), the public begins to lose sight of their connection to such spending. In short, the policy begins to remind them of redistributive policy; they see such efforts as the government is taking "our tax dollars" to spend on projects wholly irrelevant to their lives and focused towards the benefit of a small group of individuals. This is the policy under debate today, and pork-barrel spending serves as a symbol of this greater policy divide.

Concept Application

Policy advocates who favor "small government" often portray distributive spending as government waste. Senator John McCain has made the issue of pork-barrel spending central to his Presidential election campaign, with the implication being that he is for "small government" and against government spending. Popular media pundits who oppose government power may point to the recently abandoned Northrop Grumman Air Force contract, which totaled $35 billion, as an example of wasteful government practices and, thus, the need to limit government authority. On the other side, opponents of the Iraq War may cite controversial no-bid contracts in order to frame our distributive policy in the region as extravagant, with the suggestion that the war is being exploited for private monetary gain. In short, policy advocates on all sides stand something to gain when their arguments are applied against distributive spending, pork-barrel or otherwise, as government use of tax dollars always serves an effective foil.

In contrast, policy researchers are highly interested in the study of distributive policy - particularly spending amendments - as a way of determining the eventual success or failure of legislation (Lee 2000). They may use such spending amendments, for instance, to determine that distributive incentives have been utilized as a form of "coalition building" in the U.S. Senate. In this coalition building, small states are often those most targeted with pork-barrel projects, as all Senators hold an equal vote (of one), while smaller states typically require fewer resources to satisfy than do more populous states (Lee 2000, 59). They are, in other words, a more efficient target for distributive spending, and provide "more bang for the buck" when trying to gain a winning coalition of votes.

Policy analysts can also examine the relationship between distributive spending and our two-party structure in the legislature (Balla et al. 2002). A direct relationship is found as a result of this application: the majority party grants pork projects to the minority party, possibly in order to deflect criticism of pork spending as "bipartisan," while they in fact reserve a disproportionately large amount of the funds for only their own party members (Balla et al. 2002, 524). By focusing on the relationship between distributive spending and the worth of particular Congressional earmarks, Balla et al. determines that not all earmarks are created equal, and that the majority party comes out ahead.

The focus of these studies are almost always conducted on the federal level (in that the national legislature and its bills are most often examined), but the pork-barrel spending in question is almost always designed to benefit the state and local constituencies of Congressional representatives.

Concept Evaluation and Conclusions

Distributive policies are of immense value for policy analysts to study. Such distributive spending covers an incredibly wide range of policy measures and initiatives and plays a similarly invaluable role in the operation of the federal government. The controversial nature of some distributive spending - pork-barrel and otherwise - ensures that the topic is both consequential and politically relevant to research. Lastly, in examining the relationship between distributive spending and voting behavior, we can gain insight into the policymaking process. This insight aids the public in better understanding Congressional practice and helps policymakers understand how to more effectively succeed in their legislative efforts (albeit by confirming the general effectiveness of pork).

On the other hand, like most examinations in the realm of social science, there are far more confounding variables involved than we can realistically expect to account for; it is virtually impossible to imply causation. As such, the result of studies like those from Lee and Balla et al. should be considered in line with their practical limitations, and the weaknesses of their approach (and all approaches relating to the examination of distributive policy) should be kept in mind.

Regardless, the examination of distributive policy holds great value to policy analysts. In attempting to understand the role that distributive policy plays in the public policy process, it is careless to ignore the very real understanding we have uncovered through studying the distributive policy of this country.