Study: University Funds Hinge on Political Power

The study shows that states with legislators on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, which largely creates the federal budget, have higher returns on lobbying for higher education funding, said Toronto Professor Brian Silverman.

"Universities that have appropriate political representation earn a tremendous return on lobbying expenditures," he said. "Appropriate representation is if your senator is on the Appropriations Committee."

Each year the federal budget allocates funds for universities and colleges across the country, a process known as earmarking. States that have senators on the Appropriations Committee are able to lobby more successfully for higher education funds, Silverman said.

It is possible, he said, for these states to get $25 to $30 of funding for every dollar invested in lobbying, whereas states that do not have legislators on that committee receive a return of about $17.

In 1997, North Carolina, got $150,000 for every $1,500 to $3,500 worth of lobbying because former U.S. Sen. Lauch Faircloth, R-N.C., was on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Silverman said.

When Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. defeated Faircloth in 1998, the state lost representation on the committee and its return on lobbying decreased to $86,000 of funding -- even though lobbyists spent twice as much than in previous years.

"This is about one-eighth to one-sixth of what it could be," Silverman said.

Another new study done by George Washington University political scientists shows that universities in states that have representation in the majority party of the U.S. House of Representatives get more earmarked money.

One of the study's authors, political science Professor Steven Balla, said majority representation does not affect which universities get earmarks, it only affects the amount of funding a chosen university will receive.

But Balla said legislators do try to inflate the pork funding their states' universities already have.

Balla said that although members of the minority party can be successful at getting funding, members of the majority have more success inflating funding.

But recent findings have not necessarily convinced political officials that political clout has a significant effect on higher education funding.

"I think that's something exaggerated in the press," said Michael Briggs, press representative for Edwards.

He said that though political power and positioning have some effect, they are not the final say when it comes to appropriating federal funds.

No matter how universities come to receive earmarked funds, some studies show the funds are often misused.

Abigail Payne, a professor at the University of Illinois, said she has found evidence that the quality of research done with earmarked funds is declining.

Payne's study examines the quality of an academic's research as a function of its citation in other academic publications. "Citations per publication represent a quality measure," she said.

Controlling for school reputation and other variables, Payne said her study has found citations are dropping with schools that have a lot of earmarked funding.

The more traditional peer review system of allocating funds, which requires researchers to submit a proposal for approval, might produce higher quality research because a scholar's work must be reviewed by his peers before he get funds, she said.

She added that professionals argue that the peer review system is better than earmarking because it gives funding to only the best proposals.

But others assert that a peer review system can become exclusive -- continually giving money to the same group of colleges.

Either way, Silverman said he and other researchers are not attempting to make a judgment on political earmarking. "Our study says nothing about whether earmarked money is a good or bad thing. We're just looking at returns."

The State & National Editor can be reached at stntdesk@unc.edu.