Bringing Home the Bacon: An Empirical Analysis of the Extent and Effects of Pork- Barrelling in Australian Politics

Which electorates receive targeted funding, and does targeted funding swing votes? To answer these questions, I focus on four discretionary programs introduced by the Australian federal government during the 2001-04 election cycle: Roads to Recovery, Stronger Families and Communities, Sustainable Regions, and Regional Partnerships. Together, these programs totalled well over $1 billion dollars. Controlling for relevant demographic characteristics of the electorate, I find that those electorates held by the governing Liberal-National Coalition (particularly those held by the National Party) received a larger share of discretionary funding, and a larger number of program grants. Among government seats, I find no evidence that funding was directed towards those that were more marginal. More discretionary funding – particularly from the Roads to Recovery program – was associated with a larger swing towards the Coalition in the 2004 election, indicating that targeted funding was rewarded at the ballot box. JEL Codes: D72, R58