Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:38:40.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Allocation of Federal Aid Monies: The Synthesis of Demand-Side and Supply-Side Explanations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Robert M. Stein
Robert M. Stein*
Affiliation:
Rice University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research on the distribution of federal aid monies has been dominated by the donor's perspective. Different distribution formulas, political influence of congressional representatives, bureaucrats, and individual aid recipients have been studied as the sole determinants of aid allocations. Each explanation, however, fails to examine the question of aid allocations from a demand-side perspective. This omission assumes that all governmental units are equally desirous of federal assistance and that any bias in the distribution of federal aid is a function of supply-side conditions. Identifying a linkage between demand-side and supply-side determinants of aid allocations, this article proposes and tests hypotheses derived from an integrated model of federal aid allocations.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 75 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 334 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ACIR (see U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations).Google Scholar
Anagnoson, Theodore (1979). “The Politics in the Distribution of Federal Grants: The Case of the Economic Development Administration.” In Rundquist, Barry (ed.), Political Benefits. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Anagnoson, Theodore (1978). “Targeting Federal Categorical Grants: An Impossible Dream.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, Phoenix, Arizona.Google Scholar
Anton, Thomas (1979). “Data Systems for Urban Fiscal Policy: Toward Reconstruction.” Presented at the Conference on Comparative Urban Research, Chicago.Google Scholar
Anton, Thomas (1978). “Outlays Data and the Analysis of Federal Policy Impact.” Presented at the Urban Impacts of Federal Policies Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Anton, Thomas, Cawley, Jerry, and Kramer, Kevin (1980). Moving Money: An Empirical Analysis of Federal Expenditure Patterns. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain.Google Scholar
Beer, Samuel (1976). “The Adoption of General Revenue Sharing: A Case Study in Public Sector Politics.” Public Policy 4: 127–95.Google Scholar
Blalock, Herbert (1971). “Causal Inferences, Closed Populations and Measures of Association.” In Blalock, Herbert (ed.), Causal Models in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Caputo, David, and Cole, Richard (1976). Revenue Sharing. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Cuciti, Peggy (1978). The Role of Equalization in Federal Grants. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Dommel, Paul (1975). “Urban Policy and Federal Aid: Redistribute Issues.” In Masotti, Louis and Lineberry, Robert (eds.), New Politics. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas, and Hurley, Thomas (1978). “The Responsiveness of Federal and State Governments to Urban Problems.” Journal of Politics 40: 196–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John (1972). “Congressional Influences on Water Politics.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John (1973). Pork Barrel Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gabris, Gilbert, and Giles, William (1978). “The Politics of Grantsmanship in Rural Counties: The Case of Mississippi.” Prepared for the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Norman, and Specht, Harry (1974). “Picking Winners: Federal Discretion and Local Experience as Bases for Planning Grant Allocation.” Public Administration Review 35: 565–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havenman, Joel, et al. (1976). “The North's Loss is the Sunbelt's Gain.” National Journal (June) 26: 878–91.Google Scholar
Hines, Fred, and Reid, Norman (1977). “Using Federal Outlays Data to Measure Program Equity: Opportunities and Limitations.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59: 1013–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loucks, Edward (1978). “The New Federalism and the Suburbs.” Growth and Change 9: 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Thomas (1974). “Political Parties and the Pork Barrel: Party Conflict and Cooperation in House Public Works Committee Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 65: 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Governors' Association (1980). By-Passing the States: Wrong Turn for Urban Aid. Washington, D.C.: National Governors' Association.Google Scholar
Porter, David, et al. (1973). The Politics of Budgeting Federal Aid: Resource Mobilization by Local School Districts. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Reed, B. J., and Green, Roy (1978). “City Management and Perceptions on Grants Administration in Smaller Cities: A Preliminary Examination of Two National Surveys.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Ritt, Leonard (1976). “Committee Position, Seniority, and Distribution of Government Expenditures.” Public Policy 24: 463–89.Google Scholar
Saltzstein, Allan (1977). “Federal Categorical Aid to Cities: Who Needs It Versus Who Wants It.” Western Political Quarterly 30: 377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, Gerald (1975). “Congressional Policy Making: A Test of a Theory.” Journal of Politics 37: 711–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanfield, Rochelle (1979). “Playing Computer Politics with Local Aid Formulas.” National Journal (Dec. 9): 1977–1981.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert (1979). “Federal Categorical Aid: Equalization and the Application Process.” Western Political Quarterly 32: 396–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1963). The Role of Equalization in Federal Grants. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1977). A Catalog of Federal Grant-In-Aid Programs to State and Local Governments: Grants Funded FY 1975. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1978). Categorical Grants: Their Role and Design. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1980a). Recent Trends in Federal and State Aid to Local Governments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (1980b). Citizen Participation in the American Federal System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1979). General Revenue Sharing, Initial State and Local Data Elements, Entitlement Periods 1-11. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Urban Institute (1979). The Impact of Federal Aid on State and Municipal Expenditures. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Uslaner, Eric (1976). “The Pitfalls of Per Capita.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 125–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Peter (1980). “The Measurement of Federal and State Responsiveness to Urban Problems.” Journal of Politics, 43: 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.