How federal pork suppresses business

June 15, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An old axiom in Indiana is that the state suffers because Hoosier politicians bring home too little pork from Washington. If officials like Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh would just return more of those tax dollars, goes the wistful thinking, Indiana would have better roads to support business and better public spaces to attract knowledge workers.

However, a new Harvard Business School study suggests the truth is just the opposite: Federal money actually suppresses business investment and growth. In other words, be thankful that the dollars are not flowing to Indiana, at least not in massive quantities.

The researchers found a strong link between politicians’ rise to powerful congressional committee chairmanships—perches from which they could direct pork homeward—and a falloff in business investment.

A year after assuming a chairmanship, the chairman’s state on average received at least 40 percent more federal earmark spending, a level that endures until they leave the post.

In the year following the ascendancy, public companies in the politician’s home state cut capital expenditures about 15 percent, curtail research and development spending, and increase their dividends to investors. Companies also winnow headcount and see sales growth fall off.

The results held fairly consistently across large and small companies, and large and small states.

Indiana certainly sends more tax dollars to Washington than it gets back. The state, 14th-largest by population, ranks 32nd in earmarks. Only California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina get fewer earmarks on a per-capita basis.

A link to the study, which is quite readable, is here.

Why does federal largess suffocate corporate creativity? Purdue University finance professor John McConnell thinks local people put more energy into trying to land pork than doing productive work and creating jobs.

Look at West Virginia, McConnell says. It’s full of federally funded projects courtesy of long-time Sen. Robert Byrd, yet it’s among the most economically depressed states in the nation.

“Like many other opiates, federal pork creates an addiction that stunts creativity,” he says. “In this case, the addiction crowds out entrepreneurial activity of the type that creates value.”

McConnell adds that everyone would be better off with lower taxes and not having to beg to get it back.

Your turn. Is there an upside to pork?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • extend concept to foreign aid
    I expect that similar research would show aid in 3rd world countries suppresses business and innovation there as wellâ?¦ Thus prolonging the inability of them to become self sufficient.
  • Amen to this study!
    Coming out of Harvard, an elite east coast school, it can't be seen as "right wing propoganda", but what a great study to have a dialogue about in the public forum.

    People are fed up with the pork process. In the West Virginia example, Roberty Byrd has seniority because he's been there for 50 years but he can barely walk and talk now in his 90s. Can anyone of either party think that is an ideal example of a highly engaged Senator or representative of the people?

    Entitlements and Pork: two types of government spending that by their name alone sound like the opposite of self-reliance, hard work and creativity.

    People are rightfully concerned about public spending, govt employee pensions, and debt levels.

    I hope this study will remain in the public debate.
  • Now what
    McConnell's last quote in the article sums up the sentiment of most taxpayers: "...everyone would be better off with lower taxes and not having to beg to get it back." The problem is that over 40% of the voters don't pay taxes, but still receive the benefits of pork spending or subsidies of various kinds. Therefore, even with this study or 1,000 like it our politicians will still reach for the earmarks and brag about what they get rather than vote for tax cuts so that they can keep getting the mass non-tax payer votes versus votes from the ever decreasing number of people who actually create wealth, create jobs, pay most of the taxes......
  • Inner Growth vs. Out Growth

    The over spending and larger government is a result the State and Feds conceding to the lobbing groups requests to keep giving the incentives for Out growth, rural. Out growth, larger government, and more spending go hand in hand. The State and Federal budgets keep enlarging the budget, spending more, incentivizing for outgrowth and calling it a free market. This is the problem. We need to make sure that our taxes go towards Comprehensive Community Redevelopment projects that rebuild our communities, back to our core centers, cleaning up our corridors that reconnect every town in our State, and Country.
    We need leaders that understand this saves money, creates jobs with long term sustainability, and have the guts to implement the needed actions to do create the impact project.
    The Dead End Road to No Ware concept, again creating bigger, regionalism, more government, more spending and the leaders selling the same shit is the problem.
  • Pork
    Excellent words, Steve! A simple solution - cut spending accross the board by 20% and let the chips fall where they may. The ones that scream the loudest will be the voices for the "entitled". People like Jesse Jackson come to mind. Then the liberal lie fest about how this will kill old people, babies, and keep the poor from being educated. Where will it ever end?.....
  • but how....
    how is this federal pork spent? Who is it going to? How are these people spending the money received? From there, where does the money go?

    Basically, What is the road map of the Federal Pork? Is it directly to project which they give it right back and no one else benefits? Does it go to supplies, Products, and labor? What is the fiscal Trickle Down effect of the Federal Pork spending?
  • cuts
    Couldn't agree more Berwick Guy. Reference this article from Indy Star for proof:
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20106010322
    or how about this one:
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20106020348
    The fact of the matter is that it's much easier to squawk than it is to give up something that you've gotten for free for an extended period of time.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT