Separating Fact From Myth About Pork-Barrel Spending and Academe

By JEFFREY BRAINARD

Defenders of Congressional earmarks justify the practice in several ways -- some of which don't

ALSO SEE: » A searchable database of Congressional earmarks to higher education Related articles: » A Record Year at the Federal Trough: Colleges Feast on $1.67-Billion in Earmarks » Scientists Fear the NSF Is Next Site of Earmarks Related charts and graphs: » Top Recipients of Pork, 2001 » How the States Rank in Pork for Higher Education » Top Sponsors of Pork in the Education Department » Earmarks That Make You Scratch Your Head » Earmarks by Agency » Escalating Academic Earmarks

appear to withstand scrutiny.

* Earmarks bolster universities' ability to compete for peer-reviewed research grants.

Historically, an elite set of universities, concentrated in a few states, has garnered a large percentage of federal research money. Earmarks help level the playing field, their defenders say.

To examine that claim, The Chronicle looked at institutions that received a relatively large amount of earmarked funds, and how they fared in the overall race for federal funds for research and development.

Included were universities that from 1990 to 1999 received at least $10-million in earmarks not shared with any partner. Within that group, institutions were identified that got at least one unshared earmark every year during the decade. There were 18 such universities in all.

The Chronicle then looked at their rankings in receipt of total federal research funds, which includes peer-reviewed grants, over that period. The rankings are compiled annually by the National Science Foundation, with 1999 the most recent year available. The Chronicle determined each university's average rank for 1991 to 1999, to iron out year-to-year fluctuations. That average was then compared with the institution's rank in 1990.

Of the 18, 5 moved up in rank during the decade -- Clemson, Georgetown, Kansas State, Mississippi State, and Rutgers Universities. Twelve others fell in rank, while one held its place. That pattern suggests that most institutions that received a lot of earmarked money during the 1990's did not subsequently improve their ability, relative to other universities, to compete for peer-reviewed federal research grants.

Most of the 12 universities that fell in rank did get more federal research funds over the decade, but other institutions increased by more. Moreover, 10 of the 12 did not bolster their total federal research funds markedly: Each of their increases lagged behind the average increase for all academic institutions over the decade.

* Earmarks go to universities and states that receive few federal research dollars.

The picture is mixed. In 1999, the majority of earmarked funds went to institutions outside the "top 100" -- the 100 universities and colleges receiving the most federal research money.

But although earmarks are meant to spread the wealth, the top 100 actually pulled in a slightly larger share of total federal research funds at the end of the 1990's than at the beginning. The group's share was 82 percent in 1990 and edged up to 83.5 percent by 1999. The list of the top 100 remained virtually unchanged over the decade.

And in 1999, the majority of pork-barrel funds did not go to the states with the smallest shares of federal research funds. The bottom 25 states got just 26 percent of all earmarked dollars for academe that year. (That proportion did exceed those states' share of total federal funds, which was 12 percent.)

Only 2 of the bottom 10 states -- Alaska and West Virginia -- ranked in the top 10 for earmarks in 1999, and they were represented by the two most senior members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ted Stevens, a Republican, and Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat.

What is clearer is that earmarks help some rich institutions become richer. In 1999, 13 of the 25 institutions receiving the most pork were also members of the top 100 for total research funds.

Those patterns could be an argument for cutting back on earmarks -- or sharply increasing them. But federal earmarks alone are probably not enough to help a university move up the ranks, says Irwin Feller, a professor of economics at Pennsylvania State University at University Park.

More important, especially for public universities, is the willingness of state legislatures to provide sustained financing to build laboratories and improve faculty salaries, says Mr. Feller, who has studied federal efforts to help "have-not" states compete for grants. Cooperative legislatures can help universities submit more-competitive proposals for peer-reviewed grants, he says.

Some earmarks may help universities nurture economic development in their states, but no systematic studies have assessed that claim, he adds. "My sense is that a substantial number of earmarks are one-time projects, so there's no link to systematic efforts to improve the university," he says.

* Earmarks make up a small part of all federal spending.

The cost of academic pork is not insignificant when compared to the federal funds devoted to peer-reviewed research at colleges.

The government does not keep precise statistics on the total amount of peer-reviewed federal funds awarded for academic research. One measure is the $12.006-billion given by the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation to university scientists in 2001.

Those two agencies emphasize peer review of research proposals, and are by far the largest sources of federal funds for university scientists. Thus, the figure of $12.006-billion is probably close to the total federal spending on peer-reviewed research this year.

In comparison, Congress appropriated $1.668-billion in academic earmarks for 2001.

* Colleges receive many earmarks for projects that do not involve research, so the grants are not stealing dollars from peer-reviewed science.

Some supporters of earmarks have argued that a significant portion of all Congressional earmarks goes to projects that don't involve research.

However, in 2001, The Chronicle's survey shows that Congress earmarked $1.409-billion for research projects, research equipment, or construction or renovation of research laboratories. That amounted to 84 percent of the total.

Easy-to-print version

E-mail this article