156 



Applying Hadwiger's analysis to the years 1977 to 1993, a 

 modest increase in earmarking is seen. There is still uneven 

 distribution of funds to the 50 states and the District of 

 Columbia. In fact, over this time period, the top four states 

 received more than $4 8 million each while the bottom four states 

 received no funds at all (Chart 3, page 13). The chart on the 

 following page indicates the funding provided to each state in 

 ranked order. 



And the amount of earmarking is on the rise. Examination of 

 the past seven years shows the percentage of facilities in 

 districts of appropriation subcommittee members is 



CHART 2 



THE CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 



Placement of Agricultural Research Facilities Projects 



Decision to Locate Projects Projects 



1958-1977 1987-1993 



In districts of members of 

 House Approp. Subcommittee 



In states of members of Senate 

 Approp. Subcommittee 



Jointly in both districts and 

 states of sitting members 



Not located in districts or 

 states of sitting members 



Source: Information for 1987 through 1993 is based on author's 

 calculations from USDA Office of Budget and Planning and 

 congressional committee documents. Information for data 1958 

 through 1977 comes from, Don F. Hadwiger, The Politics of 

 Agricultural Research (1981) . 



12 



