Transportation

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 203–227 | Cite as

Donor states and donee states: investigating geographic redistribution of the US federal-aid highway program 1974–2008

Article

Abstract

In 2009, the US government spent more than $42 billion on the federal-aid highway program. Most of this money was raised from motor vehicle taxes, whose proceeds are deposited in the highway trust fund. Federal motor vehicle user taxes flow into the fund and aid expenditures flow out from it to build and maintain highways and other transportation infrastructure. With so much money at stake it should be no surprise that expenditure decisions are the subject of intense political debate. Chief among these debates is the conflict between donor states, whose residents pay more in highway user taxes than the state receives in federal highway aid and donee states, whose residents pay less in highway user taxes than the state receives in highway aid. While this geographic redistribution has been masked recently by infusions of general fund revenue into the trust fund, the debate nevertheless continues. This paper attempts to understand why some states are donors and others are donees by simultaneously testing four hypotheses about the geographic redistribution of federal highway dollars that relate to a state’s highway need, economic condition, level of urbanization, and representation on the key Congressional oversight committees. The analyses show that redistribution does not favor states with larger highway systems, more highway use, or lower median incomes, all of which are different indicators of need. Instead, states that are less urban and better represented on the four key Congressional committees generally benefit from redistribution. These findings indicate that the user tax revenues are not used in places where they are most needed. Thus they provide little empirical support for any compelling policy argument for continued geographic redistribution of federal highway user tax dollars.

Keywords

Donor states and donee states Highway policy Federal highway trust fund Geographic redistribution 

References

  1. Adler, E.S., Lapinski, J.S.: Demand-side theory and Congressional committee composition: a constituency characteristics approach. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 41(3), 895–918 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bramlett, N.K.: The evolution of the highway-user charge principle. Federal Highway Administration, Washington (1982)Google Scholar
  3. Break, G.: Financing government in a federal system. Brookings, Washington (1980)Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J.: The numbers game: the politics of the federal surface transportation program. Dissertation, University of California (2003)Google Scholar
  5. Congressional Directory: Published biennially by US Government Printing Office, Washington (1973–2008)Google Scholar
  6. Congressional Record. The Library of Congress, Washington (1982)Google Scholar
  7. Congressional Record. The Library of Congress, Washington. http://thomas.loc.gov/(1991, 1998). Accessed 06 Jan 2007
  8. Federal Highway Administration: A guide to federal aid programs and projects. US Department of Transportation, Washington (1999a)Google Scholar
  9. Federal Highway Administration: Financing federal highways. US Department of Transportation, Washington (1999b)Google Scholar
  10. Federal Highway Administration (1974–2005) Highway statistics. US Department of Transportation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Highway Administration (1974–2008) Highway statistics. US Department of Transportation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Federal Highway Administration (2009) Highway Statistics. Table FA-5 Receipts and expenditures for highways by federal agencies—Summary–2009. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/ Accessed 13 March 2012
  13. Fischer JW.: ISTEA reauthorization: highway related legislative proposals in the 105th Congress. Report 97-516. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington (1998a)Google Scholar
  14. Fischer JW.: ISTEA reauthorization: highway and transit legislation in the 105th Congress. Report 98-221. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington (1998b)Google Scholar
  15. Gramlich, E.: Financing federal systems: the selected essays of Edward M. Gramlich. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1997)Google Scholar
  16. Kirk RS.: Federal-aid highway program: “donor-donee” state issues. Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress, Washington. http://burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Federal-Aid%20Highway%20Program%20Donor-Donee%20State%20Issues.pdf(2004). Accessed 28 Feb 2012
  17. Lee, F.E., Oppenheimer, B.I.: Sizing up the senate: the unequal consequences of equal representation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1999)Google Scholar
  18. Lem L.: Fairness or favoritism? Geographic redistribution and fiscal equalization resulting from transportation funding formulas. Dissertation, University of California (1996)Google Scholar
  19. Maddox HWJ.: Federalism and distributive politics: towards a unified supply-demand model of the politics of federal aid. Dissertation, Harvard University (1997)Google Scholar
  20. Rawls, J.: A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1971)Google Scholar
  21. Stein, R.M., Bickers, K.N.: Perpetuating the pork barrel: policy subsystems and American democracy. Cambridge University Press, West Nyack (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price index-urban. http://www.bls.gov (2007). Accessed 22 March 2007
  23. US Census Bureau. Table 1: urban and rural population 1900 to 1990. http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt (1995). Accessed 6 Jan 2007
  24. US Census Bureau. Table 33: urban and rural population, and by state: 1990 and 2000. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s0033.xls (2007). Accessed 6 Jan 2007
  25. US Government Accountability Office. Highway trust fund: nearly all states received more funding than they contributed in highway taxes since 2005. Report to the Congressional Requesters. GAO Report 10-780. Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
  26. Utt R.: Federal highway program shortchanges more than half the states. Heritage Foundation Web Memo, No. 3228, April 18, 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. Weingroff RF.: Creating a landmark: the intermodal surface transportation efficiency act. Public Roads 65 (3), http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/rw01.cfm (2001)

Legislation

  1. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (PL 93-87)Google Scholar
  2. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (PL 102-240)Google Scholar
  3. Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (PL 97-424)Google Scholar
  4. Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (PL 100-17)Google Scholar
  5. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act– A Legacy for Users (2005) (PL 109-59)Google Scholar
  6. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) (PL 105-178)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community and Regional PlanningBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  2. 2.Department of Urban and Regional PlanningFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations