The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we estimate the returns to lobbying by universities. To motivate our empirical work, we develop a simple theoretical model of university lobbying for academic earmarks. Our statistical analysis shows that universities represented by a House Appropriations Committee (HAC) or Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) member spend less money on lobbying than those that are not represented. In addition, using instrumental variables estimations, we show that universities without HAC or SAC representation may receive some benefit to lobbying for earmarks, although in many estimations this benefit is not statistically different from zero. However, for universities with HAC or SAC representation, a 10 percent increase in lobbying yields an additional 2.8 percent or 3.5 percent increase in earmarks, respectively. This suggests that there are large returns to lobbying for academic earmarks if a university is represented by a member of one the HAC or SAC, but little or no return if not.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
La Porta, R. (1999) · Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization · doi:10.1093/jleo/15.1.222 · Cited by 5,699
Cited by
Politically Connected Boards of Directors and The Allocation of Procurement Contracts
Goldman, E., Rocholl, J., & So, J. (2013) · Review of Finance · doi:10.1093/rof/rfs039 · Cited by 920
Blanes i Vidal, J., Draca, M., & Fons-Rosen, C. (2012) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.102.7.3731 · Cited by 639
Dorobantu, S., Kaul, A., & Zelner, B. (2017) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2590 · Cited by 441
Richter, B. K., Samphantharak, K., & Timmons, J. F. (2009) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00407.x · Cited by 406
Advancing the Empirical Research on Lobbying
de Figueiredo, J. M., & Richter, B. K. (2014) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135308 · Cited by 367
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- de Figueiredo, J. M., & Silverman, B. S.
- Venue
- The Journal of Law and Economics
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 597-625
- ISSN
- 0022-2186 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5285
- OpenAlex
- W3125672505
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 35.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/508248
- The paper
- de Figueiredo, J. M., & Silverman, B. S. (2006). Academic Earmarks and the Returns to Lobbying. The Journal of Law and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/508248
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.