• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2007 The Effect of Academic Earmarking on the Distribution of Federal Research Funding Andrew Beecher Dunsmore University of Tennessee, Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Dunsmore, Andrew Beecher, "The Effect of Academic Earmarking on the Distribution of Federal Research Funding. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2007. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4239 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Andrew Beecher Dunsmore entitled "The Effect of Academic Earmarking on the Distribution of Federal Research Funding." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Political Science. Michael R. Fitzgerald, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: E. Grady Bogue, William Lyons, Otis H. Stephens Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Andrew Beecher Dunsmore entitled "The Effect of Academic Earmarkingon the Distribution of Federal ResearchFunding." I have examined the finalpaper copy of this dissertation for formand content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillmentfor the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Political Science. We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: William Lyons, Professor CA...,-1.A­ �-"SI· Otis H. Stephens, Jr., _Professor Accepted for the Council: viceProostand Dean of the Graduate School THE EFFECT OF ACADEMIC EARMARKING ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDING A Dissertation Presented forthe Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Andrew Beecher Dunsmore May 2007 Copyright © 2007 by Andrew Beecher Dunsmore - All rights res�rved. 11 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Beecher and Sarah Dunsmore, whose love and support has sustained me throughthis task and throughout my life, and to Dr. Michael R. Fitzgerald, my major professor, mentor,role model, and friend. Dr. Fitzgerald's carefulguidance and constant support have made my graduate and undergraduate studies at the University of Tennessee rewarding and fun. His continuing friendshipand impact on my development will be feltin all of my future endeavors. 111 lV ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation committee. Without doubt, I believe I had one of the best dissertation committees ever assembled at the University of Tennessee. Dr. Michael R. Fitzgerald, Professorof Political Science and the Senior Teaching Fellow at the Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center forPublic Policy, ably led my committee and directed the dissertation. Dr. Otis Stephens, Alumni Distinguished Service Professorof Political Science and Resident Scholar ofConstitutional Law, was the most senior facultymember on my committee. Both Dr. Fitzgerald and Dr. Stephens have known me forover 20 years, having taught me as an undergraduate from 1984 to 1990 and in my graduate studies from2000 to 2007. Dr. William Lyons, Professorof Political Science and the Senior Director ofPolicy Development forthe City ofKnoxville, was the finalpolitical science member ofmy committee. Dr. E. Grady Bogue, Professorof Education, was the outside member ofmy committee. I studied under both Dr. Lyons and Dr. Bogue while completing my graduate studies. I received a minor in Educational Administration with the Master's degree I completed along the way to the doctorate forwhich Dr. Bogue served as my major professor. These fourfaculty members are some of the most distinguished facultywho have taught and conducted research at the University of Tennessee in the last generation. Their input into the dissertation greatly improved the finalresult, and their mentoring throughout my years ofgraduate study will always be appreciated. I am also indebted to two of my graduate student colleagues. Dr. Ole Forsberg, besides being a great friendand willing listener to all manner of concernsabout the V dissertation and other matters, helped me immensely with the figuresand tables in the dissertation and in general in formattingthe dissertation to fitthe graduate school's requirements. Kimberly Douglass was also another great friend along the way without whose encouragement this project might very well have not been completed. Finally, I am indebted to the entire political science department at the University of Tennessee. With the completion of this doctorate, I have received three degrees from the University of Tennessee in political science. All of the facultywho have taught and mentored me along the way to these three degrees have impacted this dissertation and my development as a scholar. My heart is fullof gratitude forthe support and human concernI have received fromall associated with the department. Vl ABSTRACT This study is about the emergence of academic earmarking and its effecton the distribution offederal research funding. The study examines fourbasic research questions. First, does receiving earmarks improve the ability of an institution to receive other types of federalfunding? Second, how does awarding earmarks affectthe geographical distribution offederal research funding? Third, are earmarks additive, or do they come at the expense of peer reviewed funding? Finally, is there much difference between the institutions which garner the most earmarked fundingand those which receive the most peer reviewed funding? There are six major findings ofthe study: 1. Receiving earmarks generally does not improve the ability of institutions to receive other types of federal funding although in a few instances it does; 2. Earmarkinghas had somewhat of a redistributive effecton the geographical distribution offederal research fundingby sending some fundingto places where it would otherwise not go; 3. Earmarked funding is such a small part of total federalresearch funding that it makes little difference in the overall general geographical distribution offederal research funds; 4. When peer reviewed and total fundinglevels per state are figuredon a per institution basis there are some notable exceptions to the long held Vll beliefthat peer reviewed fundinggoes mostly to institutions in the northeast Atlantic and west coast regions ofthe United States; 5. In general earmarks appear to be an additive featureof the federal research fundingscheme although within individual programs earmarking activity may consume fundswhich historically have been and could otherwise be awarded in peer reviewed competitions; 6. With earmarking and peer reviewed fundingboth now firmly established as differentbut acceptable formsof awarding federal research funding, the differencebetween the institutions doing the best at receiving earmarks and the institutions doing the best at receiving peer reviewed fundingis lessening and a rising tide of earmarking activity is most likely preferentiallylifting the boats ofthose institutions which do the best at receiving peer reviewed funding. Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. THE EFFECT OF ACADEMIC EARMARKING ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDING .............................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 The Academic Earmarking Literature .....................................................................6 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 12 2. THE STORY OF ACADEMIC EARMARKS .................................................. 15 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 15 The Early Years ofAcademic Earmarking ............................................................ 16 Trends in Academic Earmarking - 1990 Through 2003 .......................................22 Recent Trends in Academic Earmarking .............................................................. .42 Arguments Made forand Against Academic Earmarking .................................... .46 The Higher Education Associations Fight Earmarks .............................................55 Congressional Effortsto Fight Earmarking ...........................................................62 Presidential Effortsto Fight Earmarking ...............................................................7 5 Paid Lobbyists and the Reporting ofLobbying Expenses .....................................78 Chapter Summary .................................................................................................. 81 3. DATA AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 89 Introduction ............................................................................................................89

Load more

  326

Copy Link