Fairness and Resources:
The Community Development Tragedy of Earmarks

by Cornelia Butler Flora

Historically, sociologists and economists have argued that in order to move toward a modern economy, universalistic criteria are needed (Weber 1927, Parsons and Smelser 1956). These criteria, the basis of bureaucracies, mean that the rules are set that determine access to and distribution of resources and those rules apply to everyone.

For children, it means that resources are divided fairly—and sorrow when it seems they are not. Our younger daughter’s saddest day was when she realized, “I’ll ALWAYS be the youngest.” Her age is an ascribed attribute about which she can do nothing, except be sure that she is participating in systems where age is not a criterion of access, beyond a threshold, such as age to drive and age to collect Social Security. Recently a mother of identical twins, she instructs all that one is not older than the other, so that neither will always be the youngest.

For adults, it means that there is a level playing field, and that decisions are made impartially, not because of whom you are related to, who you know, or how much money you have.

In a society that purports to be fair, fulfillment of certain criteria is necessary to get access to certain goods and services. We believe that everyone by virtue of residence is entitled to clean water, so we make rules and regulations that determine the level of compliance for clean water standards, sanctions for systems that don’t conform, and we also give grants and loans to help systems move to compliance.

However, there are requirements to get the resources to come into compliance. You don’t just get money because you have failed to comply. There are a series of steps localities must take, such as making sure the rate structure is such that enough revenue is generated and the
expenses shared fairly. That means involving the community so that each rate payer understands
the importance of the water system to decide a rate that will cover the infrastructure costs.

Another way to improve a water system is to hire a lobbyist and get an earmark or special grant. The more earmarks there are, the less money available to those who have followed the universalistic rules of showing not only need, but ability to manage after state or federal resources are gone.

The particularistic manner of accessing resources, such as resources for infrastructure, can dramatically undermine holistic community development efforts to determine community priorities built first on internal resources and to maintain those new assets into the future to create new community assets.

In our research on community development across the nation, we have seen a number of communities that explain that they really don’t need to organize and talk to each other. They really don’t need to build working relationships across different groups because “Sam here knows ‘good, old’ Congress-person X. They go hunting or fishing together, and he’ll just make sure we get the money for this thing.” And since the Congress-person is on a particular committee—let’s say it’s the Appropriations Committee—he can make sure that money comes without strings attached.

Some members of Congress argue that they alone are able to make these decisions because they know their areas very well and that mere bureaucrats who follow rules, often set by Congress, are incapable of doing the kinds of distribution that is based on the need that they see. Of course, this kind of earmarking reinforces dependency, discourages local organization and innovation, and makes sure that the persons providing those services, based on particularistic criteria, maintain their strong ties that can result in them keeping their jobs, whatever that might be.

We further find that this learned dependency—using particularistic criteria of who owes whom a favor, which lobbyist or group contributes money to whatever campaign, or who has that personal relationship—really discourages communities from serious assessment of their assets and determination of how those assets can be recombined to create stronger, more dynamic communities with healthy ecosystems, vital economies and social inclusion. Instead, these communities tend to have a clientelistic culture with a few people in the community who are good friends of the Congress-person, figuring out what the Congress-person has to give and making sure those are the projects for which they can cut the ribbons in whatever community they want to maintain their patronage.

This of course tends to undermine the legitimacy of the bureaucracies who do not have the funds to respond to those who follow the rules, as well as undermining the efforts of community organization.

Our society cares a lot about rule-following and having rules that are fair. Community collaboration to ensure community benefits allows communities to use their own resources first to address mutually determined priorities. Using clientilistic ties to go around the rules undermines the democratic principle of equity. And such delivery mechanisms teach dependency.

References

Parson, Talcott and Neil J. Smelser. 1956. Economy and society; a study in the integration of economic and social theory. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Weber, Max. 1927. General Economic History. New York: Greenberg.

Next Article

Return to Inside this Issue (Vol. 29, No. 1, 2007)

Return to Rural Development News Index

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Iowa State University
107 Curtiss Hall
Ames, IA 50011-1050
(515) 294-8321, (515) 294-3180 fax

For questions, comments or concerns about the NCRCRD website, contact .

Last updated September 3, 2004.