| Part ofa series on |
| Communitarianism |
|---|
Inpolitical science,political particularism is "policymakers’ ability to further their career by catering to narrow interests rather than broader national platforms."[1]
In apolitical system governed by particularism, sooner or later, the decisive factor of politics becomesethnic andreligious identity and the interests of the communities defined by these bonds. This stands in contrast with the ideas and values ofpolitical pluralism, with its emphasis onuniversal rights,separation of religion and the government, and an ethic of ethnic andreligious tolerance.[citation needed]
When an elected assembly, which is supposed to express collective interests, directs funds to a specific recipient (withlocal and personal Acts in United Kingdom, orearmarks in United States, for example), the parliamentary system is bent to political particularism. The way to legislate it is often characterized by its opponents as the politics ofgroup identity that trumpsuniversal rights and therefore the rights ofminorities or any other kind of "other".
It is in direct opposition to the concept ofuniversality of the law and to thetrustee model of representation. The practice in the following countries is often calledpork barrel orearmark orpatronage, but those words do not always imply corrupt or undesirable conduct.
"Pork barrel" is frequently used in reference toAustralian politics,[2][3][4] in circumstances wheremarginal seats might be seen as receiving more funding thansafe seats or when funding for projects is heavily directed toward the party-held seats, with the opposition receiving little to no such funding. The term's widespread appearance in news media has led to it being commonly used inAustralian English as a verb, such as in "pork barrelling".[5] Thesports rorts affair (2020) perpetrated by SenatorBridget McKenzie is a classic example of pork barrelling in Australian politics.
Romanians speak ofpomeni electorale (literally, "electoral alms"), while the Polishkiełbasa wyborcza means literally "election sausage". In Serbian,podela kolača ("cutting the cake") refers to post-electoral distribution of state-funded positions for the loyal members of the winning party. The Czechpředvolební guláš ("pre-electiongoulash") has a similar meaning, referring to free dishes ofgoulash served to potential voters during election campaign meetings targeted at lower social classes; metaphorically, it stands for any populistic political decisions that are taken before the elections with the aim of obtaining more votes. The process of diverting budget funds in favor of a project in a particular constituency is calledporcování medvěda ("portioning of the bear") in Czech usage.[6]
The German language differentiates between campaign goodies (Wahlgeschenke, literally "election gifts") to occur around election dates, and parish-pump politics (Kirchturmpolitik, literally "steeple politics") for concentrating funding and reliefs to the home constituency of a politician. While the former is a technical term (almost neutral or only slightly derogatory) the latter is always derogatory and its beneficial scope is not wider than the area within which the politician's village church steeple can be seen. In Switzerland the wording of provincial thinking (Kantönligeist, literally "cantonal mind") may cover these actions as well and it is understood as a synonym in Germany and Austria.
In India, the term "pork barrel politics" has been employed to depict the pattern of distribution of discretionary grants by the national government (see for example Biswas et al. 2010;[7] Rodden and Wilkinson 2004).[8]
The termparish pump politics is more commonly used in Ireland although Independent TDShane Ross referred to pork barrel politics at a press conference for theIndependent Alliance in the run up to the2016 general election, saying that the Alliance was "not interested in pork barrel politics".[9] Despite being appointedMinister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in the32nd Dáil in 2016, he prioritised the reopening of a police station in his own constituency, which was eventually delivered on the eve of the election of new TaoiseachLeo Varadkar in June 2017.[10]
Apart from the law not respecting the duty of generality (legge provvedimento), political particularism in Italy is expressed properly in so-calledlegge mancia.[11]
Enacted in 2004 with the purpose of financing small public works of local authorities, it creates a public fund whose use is subject to previousadvice from Appropriation Committees of the Chamber and Senate. Soon this system revealed a very different nature: the money from the "tip law" went to finance practically everything (from sports clubs to cultural associations to parishes). In 2008, after the failed suppression, the law resurfaced when parliamentarians of the Budget Commission of the Chamber presented a resolution that "commits the government" to distribute 103 million euros to 588 initiatives by decree;[12] theadvice was given by two parliamentary Committees up to 2010, in order to distribute public money from the fund for "urgent interventions aimed at socio-economic rebalancing and the development of the territory and the promotion of sporting, cultural and social activities".[13]
Afterwards, the fund was closed, even if periodically anti-parliamentarian polemics cry about its restoration under other guise.[14] In May 2016, MinisterPier Carlo Padoan, presenting a budgetary reform bill, "emphasized the brake on the bad habit of inserting micro-sector or local regulations. The stop, explained the minister, is aimed at 'avoiding' that parliamentary work 'concentrates exclusively on particularistic norms', which respond to needs linked to individual situations and individuals."[15]
Similar expressions, meaning "election meat", are used inDanish (valgflæsk),Swedish (valfläsk) andNorwegian (valgflesk), where they mean promises madebefore an election, often by a politician who has little intention of fulfilling them.[16]
TheFinnish political jargon usessiltarumpupolitiikka ("culvert politics") in reference to national politicians concentrating on small local matters, such as construction of roads and other public works at politician's home municipality.
InIceland, the termkjördæmapot refers to the practice of funneling public funds to key voting demographics in marginal constituencies.
In thePhilippines, the term "pork barrel" is used to mean funds allocated to the members of thePhilippine House of Representatives and thePhilippine Senate to spend as they see fit without going through the normal budgetary process or through the executive branch. It can be used for both "hard" projects, such as buildings and roads, and "soft" projects, such as scholarships and medical expenses. The first pork barrel fund was introduced in 1922 with the passage of the first Public Works Act (Act No 3044). This pork barrel system was technically stopped by PresidentFerdinand Marcos during his dictatorship by abolishing Congress. It was reintroduced to the system after the restoration of the Congress in 1987. The program has had different names over the years, including the Countryside Development Fund, Congressional Initiative Fund, and currently the Priority Development Assistance Fund.[citation needed] Since 2006, the PDAF was₱70.0 M for each Representative and ₱200.0 M for each Senator.
During the presidency ofGloria Macapagal Arroyo, PDAF became the biggest source of corruption among the legislators.[17]Kickbacks were common and became syndicated—using pre-identified project implementers including government agencies, contractors and bogusnon-profit corporations as well as the government'sCommission on Audit.[18]
In August 2013, outrage over the ₱10 billionPriority Development Assistance Fund scam, involvingJanet Lim-Napoles and numerous senators and representatives, led to widespread calls for abolition of the PDAF system.[19] The so-calledMillion People March which occurred on August 26, 2013, NationalHeroes' Day in the Philippines, called for the end of "pork barrel" and was joined by simultaneous protests nationwide and by theFilipino diaspora around the world.[20]
Petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of the PDAF before the high court following reports of its widespread and systematic misuse by some members of Congress in cahoots with private individuals. Three incumbent senators and several former members of the House of Representatives have been named respondents in a plunder complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged ₱10 billion pork barrel scam. Public outrage over the anomaly has resulted in the largest protest gathering under the three-year-old Aquino administration.[21]
On November 19, 2013, the Supreme Court declared the controversial Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), or more commonly known as the pork barrel, as unconstitutional. In a briefing, the high court declared the PDAF Article in 2013 General Approriations Act and all similar provisions on the pork barrel system as illegal because it "allowed legislators to wield, in varying gradiations, non-oversight, post-enactment authority in vital areas of budget executions (thus violating) the principle of separation of powers".[21]
TheMadrid–Seville high-speed rail line was a noted example of pork barrel politics in Spain.[22]Pasqual Maragall revealed details of an unwritten agreement between him andFelipe González, the prime minister at the time who was fromSeville. The agreement was that Barcelona would receive the1992 Summer Olympics and Seville would receive the high-speed railway line (which opened in 1992).[23] This was in spite of the position of theMadrid–Barcelona high-speed rail line as Spain's most profitable high-speed line.[24]
In 2010, the National Treasury of the Republic of South Africa explored earmarking,[25] along with recycling and tax shifting, as ways of usingcarbon tax revenues. While the Treasury did "not support full earmarking of revenues generated from environmental taxes" they were considering "partial 'on-budget' earmarking"[verification needed] of some revenue. At that time concerns were raised that special interest groups could constrain government and control public resources through earmarking.[25]: 8
The term "pork barrel" is rarely used inBritish English, although similar terms exist:election sweetener,tax sweetener, or justsweetener, which refers to the practice of a Chancellor of the Exchequer leaving room in their fiscal programme to announce a big tax cut or spending boost in the budget immediately prior to an election, usually targeting a key voting demographic (such as the elderly) or benefitting marginal constituencies.[26]
The term "pork barrel" was, however, used in August 2013 by theCampaign for Better Transport in their criticism ofDanny Alexander MP's involvement in securing funding for the A6 Manchester Airport Relief Road which passed through a marginal Liberal Democrat constituency.[27] It was also used byPete Wishart in theHouse of Commons on 26 June 2017 in reference tothe deal between theConservative Party and theDemocratic Unionist Party to keep the former in power.[citation needed] In February 2019 it was used by shadow chancellor John McDonnell to criticise Theresa May's rumoured attempts to persuade Labour MPs to vote for her Brexit deal.[28] In March 2021 opposition Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer accused ministers of "pork barrel politics" over how they had categorised local authorities under the new £4.8bn Levelling Up Fund, which theFinancial Times reported favoured some prosperous Tory voting areas.[29] TheGood Law Project has warned the Government of legal proceedings over the matter.[30] In the runup to theHartlepool by-election of 2021, Tees Valley mayorBen Houchen was accused of pork barrel politics in theFinancial Times.[31]
In the United States, the termearmark is used in relation with thecongressional allocation process.[32]: 36 [33][34]
Discretionary spending, which is set by theHouse andSenate Appropriations Committees and their varioussubcommittees, usually throughappropriation acts, is an optional part offiscal policy which differs frommandatory spending forentitlement programs in thefederal budget.[35]
Pork-barrel projects, which differ fromearmarks, are added to the federal budget mainly by members of the appropriation committees of United States Congress.
We define political particularism as the policymakers' ability to further their career by catering to narrow interests rather than broader national platforms. [...] Following theoretical work on the subject by Carey andShugart (1995) and Shugart (1999), we define political particularism as the ability of policymakers to further their careers by catering to narrow interests rather than to broader national platforms.
{{cite book}}:|work= ignored (help)| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
