Hubbry Logo
LogrollingLogrollingMain
Open search
Logrolling
Community hub
Logrolling
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Logrolling
Logrolling
Logrolling
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Logrolling is the trading of favors, or quid pro quo, such as vote trading by legislative members to obtain passage of actions of interest to each legislative member.[1] In organizational analysis, it refers to a practice in which different organizations promote each other's agendas, each in the expectation that the other will reciprocate. In an academic context, the Nuttall Encyclopedia describes logrolling as "mutual praise by authors of each other's work". Where intricate tactics or strategy are involved, the process may be called horse trading.

Concept and origin

[edit]

There are three types of logrolling:

  • Logrolling in direct democracies: a few individuals vote openly, and votes are easy to trade, rearrange, and observe. Direct democracy is pervasive in representative assemblies and small-government units
  • Implicit logrolling: large bodies of voters decide complex issues and trade votes without a formal vote trade (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2])
  • Distributive logrolling: enables policymakers to achieve their public goals. These policymakers logroll to ensure that their district policies and pork barrel packages are put into practice regardless of whether their policies are actually efficient (Evans 1994[3] and Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]).

Distributive logrolling is the most prevalent kind of logrolling found in a democratic system of governance.[4]

Quid pro quo sums up the concept of logrolling in the United States' political process today. Logrolling is the process by which politicians trade support for one issue or piece of legislation in exchange for another politician's support, especially by means of legislative votes (Holcombe 2006[5]). If a legislator logrolls, he initiates the trade of votes for one particular act or bill in order to secure votes on behalf of another act or bill. Logrolling means that two parties will pledge their mutual support, so both bills can attain a simple majority. For example, a vote on behalf of a tariff may be traded by a congressman for a vote from another congressman on behalf of an agricultural subsidy to ensure that both acts will gain a majority and pass through the legislature (Shughart 2008[6]). Logrolling cannot occur during presidential elections, where a vast voting population necessitates that individual votes have little political power, or during secret-ballot votes (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]). Because logrolling is pervasive in the political process, it is important to understand which external situations determine when, why, and how logrolling will occur, and whether it is beneficial, efficient, or neither.

Origins

[edit]
Davy Crockett by William Henry Huddle, 1889.

The widest accepted origin is the old custom of neighbors assisting each other with the moving of logs. If two neighbors had cut a lot of timber that needed to be moved, it made more sense for them to work together to roll the logs.[7][8] In this way, it is similar to a barn-raising where a neighbor comes and helps a family build their barn, and, in turn, that family goes and returns the favor, helping him build his. Here is an example of the term's original use:

"A family comes to sit in the forest," wrote an observer in 1835; "Their neighbors lay down their employments, shoulder their axes, and come in to the log-rolling. They spend the day in hard labor, and then retire, leaving the newcomers their good wishes, and a habitation."[9]

American frontiersman Davy Crockett was one of the first to apply the term to legislation:

The first known use of the term was by Congressman Davy Crockett, who said on the floor (of the U.S. House of Representatives) in 1835, "my people don't like me to log-roll in their business, and vote away pre-emption rights to fellows in other states that never kindle a fire on their own land."[10]

Choice to logroll

[edit]

Human beings, whether ignorant or informed, rational or irrational, logical or illogical, determine individual and group action through choices. Economics studies these choices, including the choice to logroll, and their particular influence within the market sector (Schwartz 1977[11]). In America, political and economic decisions are usually made by politicians elected to legislative assemblies, and not directly by the citizenry (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]). Although legislative votes are recorded and are available to the American public, legislators can exchange their votes on issues they do not care much about for votes on other issues that are more important to their personal agendas (Holcombe 2006[5]). In The Calculus of Consent, James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock explore the relationship between individual choice in the voting process and in the marketplace, specifically within logrolling. Logrolling vote trades, like any activity within the marketplace, must be mutually beneficial (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]).

A vote trade is like a legislative IOU. When a legislator needs a few more votes to acquire a simple majority, he will seek support through a vote exchange. He will promise a fellow legislator an IOU vote for another piece of legislation in return for a vote on his own act or bill. Legislators who logroll within a small body, for example, the U.S. House or Senate, have an incentive to honor their IOU votes because they cannot have their reputations tainted if they wish to be effective politicians (Holcombe 2006[5]).

Logrolling and the role of preference

[edit]

People have varying preferences, and make decisions at the margin to maximize their utility and improve their welfare. The same is true for legislators, who all enter office with different agendas, passions, and goals. Ideological diversity plays a significant role in the result of a vote and carries with it a significant cost. In addition, legislators will favor interests that offer them the most support. Legislative votes are determined by the intensity of personal preference, desires of constituents, and, ultimately, what will lead to the particular legislator's greatest utility. When people have ideologies at opposite ends of the political spectrum, it's difficult to ensure a simple majority, so buying a supermajority vote through logrolling may be the most cost effective (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]).

In the General Possibility Theorem, Kenneth Arrow argues that if a legislative consensus can be reached through a simple majority, then minimum conditions must be satisfied, and these conditions must provide a superior ranking to any subset of alternative votes (Arrow 1963[12]). A bill must be attractive to a legislator, or else he will not cast his vote for it. A vote, by the pure nature of the voting process, demonstrates explicit interest in whatever is voted upon. In logrolling, a superior ranking means that the marginal benefit of the vote is greater than any alternatives, so exchanging votes is worthwhile. The General Possibility Theorem necessitates that allocating one vote for another must constitute true utility and a sincere vote. Arrow's theory may place more restrictions and limitations on an individual voter's preferences than Buchanan and Tullock's; regardless, individuals will always choose the option they value most.

Logrolling to reach the optimal decision

[edit]

Decisions reach an optimum only when they are unanimous, when votes are not coerced and everyone has veto power (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]). Unanimous votes, however, are not required for the American voting process. This is why some logrolling advocates argue that logrolling must be allowed within a democracy—sometimes there may not be a "best" or "most efficient" option on a vote.

Logrolling creates a market within which votes are exchanged as a sort of currency, and thus, facilitates the political process that produces the highest valued outcomes (Holcombe 2006[5]). If individual participants recognize the value of their own vote, they are motivated to trade. When methods of trade do not conflict with given standards or ethical procedures, individuals naturally seek mutually advantageous vote trades. An individual may effectually, but imperfectly, "sell" his vote on a particular issue to, in return, secure votes from other individuals on behalf of legislation he prefers (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]).

Logrolling has one necessary condition: benefits from the public activity must be significantly more concentrated or localized than the costs. In economics, decisions are made at the margin. Logrolling depends on the reality that the marginal benefit (or utility) of at least some elected officials, or the citizenry, will increase when the legislation is passed (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]). Any economist will consider the immediate opportunity cost of the logrolling procedure within the legislative body, as well as the external cost of the vote (the cost to enact and see the bill through to fruition).

When transaction costs are low and parties involved are perfectly informed, a mutually beneficial agreement will occur: whoever values the property the highest will end up with it. This is what Ronald H. Coase proposed in his Theory of Property Rights in 1960. This theory holds true within the world of economics. In the American system of government, legislators have the incentive to logroll because transaction costs are low. When transaction costs are low, the Coase theorem says that the political marketplace (the decisions of the legislatures) will allocate resources to the highest valued point (Coase 1960[13]).

Typically, logrolling is a mechanism used to gain support for special interest and minority groups. However, because of the ideological mix that already exists within the legislature itself, minority views are often represented, even if only marginally. With low transaction costs, the Coase theorem will come into play. The highest valued outcome is chosen by the legislature, regardless the member's ideological stance or political affiliation (Holcombe 2006[5]).

The problem of cyclical majorities may arise with the absence of logrolling. The cyclical majority problem occurs when voters are faced with multiple voting options but cannot choose the option they most prefer, since it is not available. Voters must consider whether the alternative option is closer to their original preference (Bara and Weale 2006[14]). However, when logrolling is allowed, the highest valued outcome is secure without the threat of a cyclical majority. For example, suppose a country road in West Virginia is in disrepair. The local congressman proposes a bill to have the main road in his community resurfaced and paved. The road leads to a town of merely 600 residents. Thus, the other legislators will vote against the measure because the funding is not worthwhile to their constituents. In a logrolling system, the local legislator can use his vote to bargain with his fellow legislators. He will exchange his vote for his fellow legislators' bills to promote, for instance, the construction of new hospitals and the increase of veteran's benefits, in return for their votes to repair the road (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]).

Logrolling: An example

[edit]
Table 1-1
Agriculture Tax Vote School Tax Vote Fire Tax Vote
Tanya $300 $200 Y $150 $200 N $100 $200 N
Alvin $150 $200 N $350 $200 Y $150 $200 N
Rebecca $100 $200 N $50 $200 N $225 $200 Y
Total $550 $600 Inefficient $550 $600 Inefficient $475 $600 Inefficient

Table 1-1 explains another example of logrolling. In the example, we have three individuals: Tanya, Alvin, and Rebecca. Tanya favors subsidies for agriculture, Alvin favors school construction, and Rebecca favors the recruitment of more firefighters. It seems as if the proposals are doomed to fail because each is opposed by a majority of voters. Even so, this may not be the outcome. Tanya may visit Rebecca and tell her that she will vote for Rebecca's bill to recruit more firefighters so long as Rebecca votes for her policy, subsidies for agriculture, in return. Now both proposals will win because they have gained a simple majority (Table 1-2), even though in reality the subsidy is opposed by two of the three voters. It's easy to see the Coase theorem at work in examples like this. Here, transaction costs are low, so mutually beneficial agreements are found, and the person who values the service the most will hold it (Browning and Browning 1979[15]). Still, outcomes may be inefficient.

Efficient logrolling

[edit]
Table 1-2
Agriculture Tax Vote School Tax Vote Fire Tax Vote
Tanya $350 $200 Y $150 $200 N $100 $200 Y
Alvin $150 $200 N $350 $200 Y $200 $200 N
Rebecca $125 $200 Y $50 $200 N $300 $200 Y
Total $625 $600 Efficient $550 $600 Inefficient $600 $600 Efficient

If the sum of the total benefit of the legislation for all the voters is less than the cost of the legislation itself, the legislation is inefficient. Despite its inefficiency, however, it still may pass if logrolling is permitted. If Tanya trades her vote to recruit more firemen to Rebecca in exchange for Rebecca's vote in favor of agriculture subsidies, a mutually beneficial agreement will be reached, even though the outcome is inefficient. On the other hand, if the sum of the total benefit of the legislation for all voters is greater than the cost of the legislation itself, the legislation is efficient. If Tanya trades her vote once again for Rebecca's vote, both parties will reach a mutually beneficial agreement and an efficient outcome.

Minimum winning coalitions and logrolling

[edit]

A minimum winning coalition is the smallest number of votes required to win the passage of a piece of legislation. Minimum winning coalitions demonstrate the importance of logrolling within a democracy, because the minimal winning coalition may be overthrown with the sway of a single vote. As previously mentioned, coalitions will buy a supermajority of votes if the support for the proposed legislation sways. If a legislator logrolls a few votes beyond the minimal winning coalition to his side, he will ensure that the final vote will be in favor of his legislation. In a way, vote trading does combine positions on distinct issues to form single legislative votes and packages (Stratmann 1992[16]). Logrolled votes transcend affiliations and party lines and become feasible outcomes preferred by a majority or winning coalition (Schwartz 1977[11]).

Logrolling in real politics

[edit]

A problem in research is that it is impossible to identify vote trading directly within the House of Representatives or the Senate because roll call votes on specific goods are not observed (Irwin and Kroszner 1996[17]). However, examples of refurbished bills can shed some light on the working-out of logrolling within the legislature. For example, in 1930, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the second-highest tariff in U.S. history, passed the House and Senate. Congress voted to increase tariffs exponentially, which worked to push the United States from a stagnant recession into a plummeting depression (Irwin and Kroszner 1996[17]). Strict party line votes suggest that partisan polarization in 1929 prevented the Smoot-Hawley bill from passing through Congress. The bill, however, was revamped, and legislators used logrolling to pass it through both chambers in 1930.

Omnibus bills can be an alternative market to logrolling. Various clauses are added to a bill to satisfy all involved parties sufficiently. However, large bills, like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, require an in depth knowledge of 1,000 plus pages. Many sections of these types of bills are initially opposed but are later supported because of special benefit clauses (Evans 1994[3]).

Because logrolling allows special-interest groups a voice in the political process, programs that benefit a minority group can get the approval of a majority. However, this may not be in the best interest of the majority. Special-interest groups typically do not represent the typical voter, but rather, small branches of minority ideologies (Holcombe 2006[5]). Voting results with or without logrolling will differ only if the minority is more interested in an issue than the majority, enough to separate the marginal voters from the majority. Studies show that lobbying and political pressure exerted by special-interest groups are not atypical behavior in a modern democracy (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]). Conditions imposed upon the social choice of the legislature imply a more severe restriction on the individual voter's preferences than the theory of logrolling presented by Buchanan and Tullock and presumed by Arrow's General Possibility Theory (Wilson 1969[18]).

Critics reproach members of Congress for protecting their own electoral interests at the expense of the general welfare. Congressmen tend to distribute specialized benefits at a great cost and ignore the particular costs the legislation bears upon the taxpayers (Evans 1994[3]). Legislators, who seek their personal benefit via logrolling even though it may not benefit those who must pay for the measure, are known as maximizers. Maximizers only take into account their personal cost and electability, instead of the effects of their actions on other parties involved. In short, other taxpayers will pay for the policy even if it does not affect them (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]). Initially, maximizers will encourage other legislators to have the same selfish behavior because significant gains can be accrued in the short run. Buchanan and Tullock state that within a system of maximizers, all individuals are worse off than if they had all adopted Kantian norms of behavior.

Legislative bodies can expect higher government spending and taxation when logrolling is allowed to flourish. Logrolling does not imply excessive spending; members can trade tax reductions just as easily as they can trade pork barrel policies. The problem is that benefits of a vote only reach a particular portion of the population, while the tax costs that pay for the vote are spread throughout the entire populace, especially when the act depends on revenue from sales or income taxes. Benefits are concentrated in localities, and the costs are dispersed throughout the nation. Committee members can thus exploit pork barrel projects for electoral purposes. The citizenry is seen as a "common pool," used to finance projects through taxes. Somehow the citizens end up paying higher taxes than those who are not in a logroll system (Dalenberg and Duffy-Deno 1991[19] and Gilligan and Matsusaka 1995[20]). In a system where logrolling is permitted, a third party may bear the cost of the project, rather than those who receive the full benefit of the legislation. This is always inefficient.

The logic of collective action shows that votes for bills are motivated by politicians and are determined by a simple majority (Olson 1971[21]). Politicians are in the game to win it. Collective effort explains why farms acquire government subsidies at the expense of millions of consumers and why those in the textile industry benefit at the expense of clothing buyers (Shughart 2008[6]). Congressional committees ensure that each committee leader will create legislative coalitions to push his policies to fruition. Thus, ceteris paribus, members who receive such projects, are likely to vote in support of their leader's wishes (Evans 1994[3]).

Policymakers and congressmen have goals of power, and making their own mark in public policy, not pure aims of reelection (Dodd 1977[22]). Reelection does play a great part in the legislative process as a condition to achieving any other political goal. Thus, logrolling can be a powerful tool for committee chairs, who control the voting agendas (Evans 1994[3]). While committee leaders create the supermajority, they try to achieve their personal goals and help a bare majority of members achieve theirs. A skilled policy-oriented committee leader often seeks to exploit the goals of other members in order to construct legislation he or she will prefer (Arnold 1979[23] and Strahan 1989[24]).

Wafelijzerpolitiek

[edit]
Main article: Waffle-iron politics

Wafelijzerpolitiek (lit. waffle iron politics) is a form of logrolling used in Belgium. Until the split of the unitary Belgium in several parts, the unitary government decided on the funds given to big projects. As there were usually two opposing groups of about equal size in Belgium, this norm resulted in the approval of two equally sized projects in the two parts of the country, with the funds given to the two projects being equal. As a result, one project was always overfunded. Many see wafelijzerpolitiek as the source of Belgium's high debt.

After the first state reformation in 1988, many big projects were decided regionally, so the number of wafelijzer projects went down. There are still some things that fall under the supervision of the federal government, where wafelijzerpolitiek still happens. One example is the Belgian railway network.

Another result of the wafelijzerpolitiek is the big useless works. As Flanders is a part of Belgium with many ports (e.g., big ports in Antwerp and Zeebrugge), for every investment in Flemish waterways there had to be an investment in Walloon waterways. Some results are the Ronquières inclined plane and the Strépy-Thieu boat lift.

Simple referendums

[edit]

In a referendum on a simple issue, the voter cannot easily trade his own vote for a vote on a reciprocal favor. This is because first, he is unsure as to when and how the other issues will be voted upon, and second, he and his immediate neighbors represent a fraction of the total electorate. Thus, trading may not be worthwhile (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]).

Vote trading under a democratic, majority-rule institution is sometimes considered morally reprehensible behavior. However, the only perfect solution to rid the political system of distributive logrolling would be to develop a specific formula to weigh the costs and benefits of legislation perfectly and only allow efficient programs to be enacted (This is inconceivable. Therefore, logrolling must occur, but only by observing the constitutional rules that have been laid down as safeguards of democracy (Buchanan and Tullock 1962[2]).

Summary

[edit]

The reality is that transaction costs are high, and most voters, who are ignorant of political issues and the political process, see little incentive to attempt to influence their local legislator's political decisions (Holcombe 2006[5]). It is also difficult for voters to be informed of their legislator's voting habits. Because of this, distributive logrolling will occur in democratic systems. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the legislator to measure the costs and benefits of legislation and determine what is most efficient for his constituents. Logrolling will occur only if members of the legislature fail to gather enough votes for the passage of specific legislation. In essence, logrolling is a legal way to manipulate voter preference toward either an efficient or an inefficient outcome that would not otherwise be enacted (Browning 1979[15]).

Legality

[edit]

Logrolling is illegal in numerous jurisdictions, and in some instances is a crime.[25] Sophisticated computational techniques have been developed for the detection and prosecution of this crime.[26]

Other usages

[edit]

Spy Magazine ran a feature entitled "Logrolling in Our Time" that cited suspicious or humorous examples of mutually admiring book jacket blurbs by pairs of authors. Private Eye magazine regularly draws attention to alleged logrolling by authors in "books of the year" features published by British newspapers and magazines.[27][full citation needed]

Log rolling or a hodgepodge legislation in the Philippines also refers to any legislation that have several subjects on unrelated matters combined together. It is expressed in Article 6 Section 26.1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as a guarantee to prevent surprise or fraud from the legislature.[28]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Logrolling

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Logrolling is the legislative practice in which politicians exchange votes or support for one another's bills or provisions, typically to secure passage of measures that would otherwise fail to achieve a standalone majority. The term originates from the early American frontier custom of neighbors cooperating to roll logs for land clearing and construction, a metaphor for mutual aid that was applied to political trading by around 1812, often carrying connotations of disreputable deal-making. In bodies like the , logrolling manifests through the aggregation of unrelated items into omnibus bills, such as appropriations legislation containing earmarks for local projects that benefit specific districts but contribute to broader fiscal burdens—commonly labeled pork-barrel spending. This tactic traces back to at least the , in which , , and traded support for federal assumption of state debts in exchange for locating the national capital on the . Prominent practitioners, including , leveraged logrolling to master vote-trading and advance complex agendas amid fragmented interests. While logrolling can enable efficient coalitions where aggregate benefits exceed costs—potentially yielding Pareto-superior outcomes by aligning intense minority preferences—it frequently promotes inefficient projects, instability in , and circumvention of rules like single-subject requirements designed to isolate legislative merits. Critics from good-government advocates highlight its role in undermining and inflating budgets, as bundled provisions obscure individual vote costs to constituents, though empirical analyses underscore its persistence as a hidden form of in networked legislative alliances.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Etymology

Logrolling refers to the practice in legislative bodies where politicians exchange votes or support for each other's proposed bills or measures, typically as a to advance mutual interests that might otherwise lack sufficient backing. This vote-trading mechanism allows individual legislators to secure passage of favored by reciprocating support, often prioritizing localized or district-specific benefits over broader coherence. While commonly associated with legislatures, the extends to any involving trade-offs across issues where parties prioritize differently. The term originated in American English around 1823, deriving from the literal practice of "log-rolling," where frontier neighbors cooperated to roll heavy logs into piles for clearing land or burning, symbolizing mutual aid in laborious tasks. By the early 19th century, this metaphor was applied to political cooperation, evolving to denote reciprocal favors among legislators, sometimes with connotations of self-interested bartering rather than pure altruism. The earliest recorded political usage reflects disreputable undertones, highlighting exchanges that could undermine collective decision-making for personal or parochial gain. Over time, the phrase solidified in U.S. political lexicon by the mid-1800s, distinguishing it from unrelated meanings like the sport of log rolling on water.

Historical Origins

The practice of logrolling, involving reciprocal vote trading among legislators to advance mutually beneficial projects, took root in the United States during the early amid expanding national infrastructure needs and decentralized congressional representation. This emerged as members sought support for local interests, such as and projects, often bundling unrelated provisions into omnibus bills. By the , the term "logrolling" had entered political discourse, adapting the metaphor of neighbors collaboratively rolling logs to clear land or build structures into a descriptor for legislative . A pivotal early reference occurred in 1835 when Tennessee Representative , serving his final term in from 1833 to 1835, publicly decried the "log-roll" system during House proceedings. Crockett, known for his opposition to expansive federal spending, refused to participate, arguing it compelled support for measures contrary to constituents' interests in exchange for backing one's own initiatives. His stance highlighted growing awareness of logrolling's role in pork-barrel politics, particularly under President Andrew Jackson's administration, where factional alliances facilitated passage of regional favors despite broader fiscal concerns. While the American context popularized the term, similar practices of coalition-building through reciprocal support predated it in parliamentary systems, though without the specific nomenclature until later adaptations. In the U.S., logrolling intensified with the rise of party machines and in the antebellum era, contributing to debates over centralized versus distributive legislation that persisted into the Civil War period.

Theoretical Framework

Logrolling in Collective Decision-Making

In , logrolling manifests as explicit or implicit vote trading among decision-makers, enabling the exchange of support across disparate issues to overcome deadlocks inherent in simple majority voting. This mechanism allows participants to aggregate more effectively in multi-issue environments, where individual proposals may fail due to divided majorities but succeed through reciprocal concessions. Theoretical analyses posit that logrolling facilitates the expression of intensities—strong support for one's priority offset by tolerance for others'—which unidimensional voting rules like ignore, potentially yielding outcomes that approximate by minimizing uncompensated external costs. Public choice theorists and , in their foundational work The Calculus of Consent, examine logrolling as a response to the inefficiencies of majority , where diffuse opposition can block value-generating projects despite net societal benefits. They argue that without mechanisms like vote trading, decision costs remain externalized, leading to suboptimal equilibria; logrolling internalizes these by permitting side payments in votes, akin to market exchanges, provided trades are bilateral or multilateral among informed parties. , in an appendix to the volume, further contends that logrolling can be Pareto-improving when it aligns decisions with underlying intensities, countering the tendency of pure voting to favor median preferences over marginal gains. Formal models of logrolling in legislative settings, such as those employing game-theoretic frameworks, demonstrate that stable vote allocations emerge through sequential , where farsighted actors converge on trades that maximize utility without . For instance, in committees facing binary decisions on linked issues, decentralized trading paths exist leading to equilibria where no further profitable swaps occur, enhancing welfare relative to autarkic voting. These models underscore logrolling's role in resolving Condorcet paradoxes by structuring coalitions around intensity-weighted coalitions, though they assume and enforceability, conditions rarer in expansive legislatures. Empirical extensions, while beyond pure theory, validate that logrolling mitigates the "paradox of voting" by incentivizing participation in low-stakes issues to secure high-stakes wins.

Conditions for Pareto-Efficient Logrolling

In theory, logrolling yields Pareto-efficient outcomes when the resulting set of policy decisions maximizes collective such that no alternative feasible arrangement exists that improves the welfare of at least one decision-maker without reducing that of another, typically measured by utilities derived from passed legislation. This efficiency arises because vote trades effectively simulate market exchanges, where legislators "buy" support for high-intensity preferences by offering votes on low-intensity issues, aggregating dispersed benefits and concentrating costs in a manner akin to Coasian . A primary condition for Pareto efficiency is the absence of restrictions on coalition formation, allowing multilateral vote trading that internalizes externalities from pairwise exchanges; bilateral logrolling alone can produce suboptimal equilibria due to uncompensated effects on non-traders, as demonstrated in models where sequential trades lead to cycles or inferior profiles relative to sincere voting. Thomas Schwartz's analysis shows that unrestricted trading under complete information and enforceable commitments converges to a core allocation—a vote profile stable against deviations—ensuring Pareto optimality, though it may diverge from intensity-blind majority rule outcomes unless voter-issue alignments are simple (e.g., two issues or three voters). Additional enabling conditions include heterogeneous preference intensities across issues, enabling where the utility surplus from passing a favored bill exceeds the of conceding on another; homogeneous low intensities would preclude beneficial exchanges. Enforceability of trades, often via repeated interactions or institutional norms in legislatures, prevents post-agreement, while separability of issues facilitates valuation without spillover distortions. In settings approximating , such as through iterated logrolling, outcomes align closely with Pareto criteria by requiring virtual consent, minimizing uncompensated externalities as analyzed by Buchanan and Tullock. Empirical analogs in controlled experiments confirm that free trading often reaches efficient equilibria when these conditions hold, though real-world frictions like incomplete information can undermine them.

Logrolling and Preference Intensity

In collective decision-making processes such as majority voting, each participant's vote carries equal weight regardless of the underlying intensity of their preferences, potentially leading to outcomes that disregard concentrated benefits or costs felt strongly by subsets of the group. Logrolling addresses this limitation by enabling explicit or implicit vote trades among decision-makers, allowing those with high preference intensity on specific issues to secure support from others who value different issues intensely, thereby incorporating intensity into the aggregation of preferences. This mechanism contrasts with one-dimensional voting, where low-intensity majorities can override high-intensity minorities without compensation, as theorized in frameworks. James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, in their foundational analysis, argued that logrolling facilitates the revelation of preference intensities through reciprocal exchanges, which can mitigate voting paradoxes like cycles and approximate Pareto-efficient outcomes under conditions of complete information and universal participation in trades. For instance, if a legislator derives substantial utility from a localized infrastructure project (high intensity) but minimal disutility from a distant one favored by a colleague, trading votes can yield net gains for both, reflecting the marginal willingness to pay or avoid loss rather than binary approval. Empirical models simulating such trades, as in experimental settings with varying intensity distributions, demonstrate that logrolling increases the likelihood of decisions aligning with aggregated intensities, outperforming simple majority rule in welfare terms when trades are verifiable and enforceable. The effectiveness of logrolling in capturing preference intensity depends on factors such as the number of issues, voter sophistication, and the absence of externalities that dilute . In repeated interactions, as modeled dynamically, participants learn to form coalitions based on intensity profiles, reducing the incidence of inefficient equilibria seen in non-trading systems. However, if intensities are asymmetrically distributed—with concentrated high-intensity gains offset by diffuse low-intensity losses—logrolling may still favor special interests, though this reflects underlying preference structures rather than a flaw in the intensity-revealing process itself. Game-theoretic extensions confirm that strategic vote trading equilibria often stabilize around intensity-weighted compromises, enhancing overall decision utility compared to intensity-blind alternatives.

Practical Applications

Mechanisms in Modern Legislatures

In modern legislatures, logrolling operates predominantly through implicit mechanisms, whereby unrelated provisions are combined into omnibus bills or amendments, enabling legislators to exchange support via package votes rather than isolated roll calls. This approach embeds reciprocal concessions within larger legislative vehicles, such as appropriations acts, where district-specific benefits are traded against broader fiscal measures. Explicit logrolling, characterized by overt vote-for-vote trades, is rarer due to procedural rules in chambers like the U.S. House that prohibit direct pacts to mitigate perceptions of corruption. Instead, cooperation relies on norms of reciprocity, often facilitated during markups or reconciliations between legislative houses. In the U.S. Congress, a primary arena for these practices, logrolling frequently occurs within omnibus spending bills, which aggregate hundreds of provisions and compel members to approve bundled items—including earmarks for local projects—that might lack standalone majorities. Party leaders and committee chairs play pivotal roles by structuring bills to align cross-issue alliances, using closed rules to limit amendments and preserve logrolled elements. This process allows legislators from diverse districts to advance parochial interests, such as infrastructure funding, by supporting unrelated priorities elsewhere, with trades embedded in the bill's final text rather than announced separately. Empirical studies detect these mechanisms through analysis of roll-call voting patterns across bill provisions, revealing coordinated support among connected legislators—via ties or prior collaborations—that deviates from ideological voting on non-salient issues. Such networks sustain logrolling by predicting mutual reciprocity, influencing outcomes in roughly 10-15% of bills with geographically targeted effects across recent Congresses. In parliamentary systems with stricter , analogous dynamics emerge in coalition negotiations, though individual vote trading yields to bloc bargaining on multi-issue platforms.

Empirical Examples from U.S.

One prominent empirical example of logrolling occurred during consideration of amendments to the Act of 1985, commonly known as the 1985 Farm Bill. Analysis of roll-call votes on five key amendments related to commodity price supports revealed voting patterns inconsistent with pure ideological or district-interest models, indicating reciprocal vote trading among agricultural interest groups. Specifically, representatives from districts with strong or production interests demonstrated heightened vote cohesion on unrelated amendments, such as those affecting or feed grains, suggesting logrolling to secure mutual support for protections benefiting their constituents; for instance, dairy-state members traded votes to block reductions in milk price supports in exchange for aid on sugar quotas. This behavior persisted even after controlling for campaign contributions and ideology, with statistical tests confirming that logrolling explained deviations where majority votes favored farm subsidies despite broader opposition. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 provides another documented case, where logrolling facilitated the expansion of protectionist tariffs amid the onset of the . Examination of over 40 roll-call votes on specific tariff schedules showed senators from import-competing industries, such as , timber, and cement producers, exchanging support across unrelated goods to elevate average duties from 40% to nearly 60% on dutiable imports. For example, Midwestern senators backed higher tariffs (benefiting Southern refiners) in return for elevated rates on and oil, patterns evident in vote correlations that exceeded expectations from state economic interests alone and aligned with logrolling incentives to overcome opposition from export-dependent regions. The resulting bill, signed June 17, 1930, raised tariffs on approximately 20,000 goods, with logrolling credited for assembling the narrow majorities needed despite over 1,000 economist petitions urging veto. In contemporary practice, distributive logrolling manifests in earmarks bundled into large appropriations bills, as seen in the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU), which authorized $286.5 billion for highways and transit over six years. A notorious provision allocated $223 million for the in —derisively called the "Bridge to Nowhere"—to connect Ketchikan's airport to a sparsely populated island of about 50 residents, serving primarily as a symbol of pork-barrel trading where members secured local projects in exchange for votes on national priorities. This earmark, advocated by Alaska's delegation, passed amid broader reciprocity, with containing over 6,000 earmarks totaling $24 billion, enabling cross-regional support despite criticisms of inefficiency; public backlash later prompted partial redirection of funds in 2007, highlighting logrolling's role in sustaining such provisions until external scrutiny intervened. Empirical studies of similar omnibus bills confirm that such bundling increases passage rates by 10-15% through vote trades, as members overlook objectionable elements for district-specific gains.

International Practices and Variants

In parliamentary democracies like , logrolling frequently appears as "pork barrelling," where governments allocate discretionary grants or funding to targeted electorates to secure voter support, akin to trading legislative favors for electoral gains. For instance, between 2018 and 2019, the Australian Sports Rorts scandal involved the distribution of A$100 million in sports grants, with over 70% directed to Coalition-held or marginal seats despite recommendations favoring opposition areas, prompting accusations of vote-buying through localized benefits. This practice has persisted, as evidenced by a 2023 survey finding 80% of Australians viewing pork barrelling as corruption, correlating with scandals like commuter car park allocations favoring government electorates. In the , similar mechanisms operate via targeted funding announcements, functioning as implicit logrolls to consolidate support in key constituencies. The 2019 Towns Fund initiative disbursed £3.6 billion (initially announced as £1.6 billion for 101 towns) disproportionately to Conservative marginal seats, with empirical analysis showing a 2.23 to 3.55 increase in Conservative vote share in funded areas during the December 2019 general election, using difference-in-differences models controlling for prior trends. Historically, 19th-century British parliamentary logrolling facilitated railway bills through vote exchanges among MPs representing vested interests, a pattern echoed in modern despite formal Westminster discipline. Within the , logrolling variants emerge in supranational institutions due to multidimensional policymaking, where member states or MEPs exchange concessions across issue areas under qualified majority or rules. In the , leverage in one domain enables trades for support elsewhere, though empirical studies find limited overt cash-for-votes exchanges, with logrolling more subtle via package deals on trade, , and cohesion funds. EU Parliament analyses reveal spatial models of vote trading, where divergent national preferences facilitate exchanges, such as agricultural subsidies swapped for environmental concessions, amplifying inefficiency in common pool resources. In Latin American legislatures, particularly presidential systems like Brazil's, logrolling often involves explicit amendment trading during budget processes, where deputies secure for districts by supporting executive priorities, undermining fiscal discipline. Brazilian Congress data from 1990s-2010s show coalitions relying on individualized vote trades for emendas impositivas (mandatory amendments), contributing to deficit spikes, as in the 2014-2016 where logrolled expenditures exceeded 2% of GDP annually. This variant contrasts with U.S. omnibus bills by emphasizing -building in fragmented assemblies, with failures like Brazil's 2022 coalition collapse attributed to unreciprocated trades. Beyond national legislatures, logrolling extends to international organizations, where states trade votes on non-linked issues, unregulated and incentivized by low enforcement; for example, in the UN General Assembly, developing nations have exchanged support on resolutions for economic aid pledges, per analyses of 2000-2010 voting patterns. Such practices highlight variants adapted to low-information, high-sovereignty environments, differing from domestic checks like transparency rules.

Evaluations and Controversies

Theoretical and Empirical Defenses

In theory, logrolling is defended as a mechanism that addresses the limitations of simple majority voting by incorporating differences in preference intensities, potentially yielding outcomes closer to . and argued in their 1962 work The Calculus of Consent that without provisions for side-payments or vote trading, fails to satisfy Pareto criteria because it disregards the relative strength of individual preferences, often blocking projects where concentrated benefits outweigh diffuse costs. By enabling legislators to trade support—effectively compensating those with weaker interests—logrolling approximates the observed in markets, allowing legislation to pass that would otherwise fail despite net societal benefits. Gordon Tullock extended this analysis, positing that comprehensive logrolling, which accounts for all relevant externalities across multiple issues, can internalize costs and produce efficient aggregates by mimicking unanimity rule in divided electorates. Under conditions of heterogeneous preferences, where some voters hold intense views on specific issues while others are indifferent, pairwise or multilateral trades facilitate Pareto improvements: the intensely interested parties secure passage in exchange for reciprocal support elsewhere, elevating total welfare beyond what rigid one-issue voting achieves. This contrasts with fragmented voting, which systematically underproduces policies reflecting marginal valuations, as trades reveal "shadow prices" for votes akin to market pricing. Empirically, evidence of logrolling's functionality appears in analyses of U.S. congressional voting patterns, where non-ideological reciprocity—legislators supporting bills salient to colleagues' districts in exchange for future favors—predicts stability and bill passage rates. A 1981 study of roll-call votes from 1961–1976 found significant logroll effects among regionally aligned members, with the strongest reciprocity parameters (up to 0.15 probability shifts) in and committees, suggesting trades enhance legislative throughput without solely relying on partisan cues. More recent work confirms logrolling's prevalence, as connected legislators vote cohesively on low-salience bills tied to mutual agendas, facilitating outcomes in fragmented chambers where unilateral majorities are rare. These patterns imply logrolling mitigates , enabling the enactment of district-specific or subsidies that align with localized welfare gains, though direct causality to aggregate efficiency remains inferred from theoretical models rather than randomized controls.

Criticisms: Fiscal Waste and Inefficiency

Logrolling facilitates the bundling of disparate spending provisions into omnibus bills, allowing legislators to secure support for pet projects through reciprocal deals that individually lack broad consensus, thereby inflating total expenditures beyond what a merit-based would justify. This often prioritizes distributive benefits for specific over national fiscal prudence, leading to the funding of low-value and programs that impose net costs on taxpayers. analysis posits that such vote trading distorts , as the marginal benefits of each traded item are weighed against localized gains rather than aggregate efficiency, resulting in overproduction of public goods relative to . Empirical observations in the U.S. Congress highlight this inefficiency, particularly through pork-barrel earmarks enabled by logrolling, which peaked at approximately 15,000 provisions in 2005, adding billions to federal outlays amid rising deficits. Critics argue these mechanisms perpetuate fiscal waste by embedding unrelated expenditures—such as the $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in , proposed in the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—that fail cost-benefit scrutiny yet pass via cross-district bargains. Studies of state legislatures further indicate that environments conducive to logrolling, such as those with lower turnover and stable coalitions, correlate with accelerated spending growth, as reduced enables persistent trading of support for inefficient allocations. In international contexts, logrolling has similarly undermined budget discipline; for example, fragmented legislatures in Latin American countries exhibit patterns where vote exchanges amplify deficits by prioritizing short-term over long-term solvency, as evidenced by comparative analyses of public reforms. This causal link to inefficiency arises because logrolling externalizes costs to the general —akin to a problem—where individual legislators capture benefits while diffusing fiscal burdens, eroding incentives for restraint and contributing to sustained deficits averaging 3-5% of GDP in affected systems during logrolling-intensive periods.

Causal Impacts on Policy Outcomes

Logrolling exerts a causal influence on outcomes by enabling reciprocal vote exchanges that override sincere preferences, thereby facilitating the enactment of unlikely to pass on standalone merits. Empirical of U.S. congressional roll-call votes from multiple sessions reveals patterns of vote trading correlated with legislators' personal and professional connections, which predict voting deviations from ideological or district-interest baselines, resulting in higher legislative passage rates for bundled bills. This mechanism expands scope, particularly for distributive measures, as trades allow minorities with intense local interests to extract concessions, shifting outcomes from median-voter equilibria toward universalistic logrolls that diffuse costs across taxpayers. Such dynamics often degrade policy efficiency, as logrolling incentivizes the inclusion of low-value projects with concentrated benefits, leading to aggregate welfare losses. Laboratory and theoretical models of vote trading demonstrate that reciprocal exchanges typically produce inefficient allocations, where traded outcomes yield lower utility than non-trading scenarios, due to misaligned incentives favoring short-term gains over long-term optimality. In practice, this manifests in elevated pork-barrel spending; for example, pre-2011 earmark practices, reliant on logrolling coalitions, added approximately $15-20 billion annually to federal appropriations, diverting funds to district-specific of dubious national merit and contributing to persistent deficits. While proponents argue logrolling can align policy with preference intensities for Pareto gains, from congressional voting indicates predominant effects toward fiscal expansion and inefficiency, as trades rarely reflect genuine intensity matching and instead amplify . Reforms like earmark moratoriums from 2011-2021 temporarily curbed such spending by disrupting logroll networks, reducing discretionary outlays and highlighting the causal link to unchecked distributive policies. Overall, logrolling tilts outcomes toward higher government intervention, with diffused exacerbating overinvestment in suboptimal initiatives over public goods.

Institutional Responses

In the United States Congress, logrolling through explicit vote trading is not prohibited by federal statute, as it is viewed as an inherent aspect of legislative bargaining, though certain procedural rules limit its scope in specific contexts. The Senate's Byrd Rule, enacted as part of the and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and incorporated into Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, serves as a key restriction by barring "extraneous" provisions in budget reconciliation bills—those that lack a direct budgetary impact or fail to align with reconciliation instructions, thereby curbing the attachment of unrelated riders that enable logrolling. This rule requires a 60-vote threshold to waive a raised against such provisions, effectively preventing senators from bundling non-fiscal policies to secure passage without protection. At the state level, constitutional single-subject rules predominate as mechanisms to prohibit logrolling, mandating that bills pertain to one unified subject to avoid combining disparate provisions that might not individually garner support. These provisions, present in the constitutions of approximately 41 states, aim to enhance transparency, prevent surprise enactments, and eliminate vote trading across unrelated issues, with courts frequently striking down violative omnibus bills. For example, in , the has invoked single-subject requirements to invalidate logrolled measures, such as combining criminal provisions with fiscal items, though enforcement has been critiqued for allowing loopholes via broad bill titles. Wisconsin's explicitly bans logrolling, prohibiting legislators from offering or promising votes or influence in exchange for support on other , classifying such conduct as unethical and subject to penalties. Internationally, formal prohibitions on logrolling are less codified, with parliamentary systems in countries like the and relying more on party whips and procedural norms than explicit bans, as coalition governments and disciplined voting reduce reliance on individual quid pro quo trades. In the , treaty negotiation processes under the Council of the EU permit logrolling in qualified voting but constrain it through institutional points and requirements on sensitive issues, without dedicated anti-logrolling statutes.

Reforms and Alternatives to Curb Logrolling

One approach to curbing logrolling involves enforcing single-subject rules for , which require bills to address only one topic, thereby preventing the bundling of unrelated provisions that facilitate vote trading. Forty-three constitutions incorporate such rules, primarily to inhibit logrolling by disallowing riders or amendments on extraneous matters, as these practices obscure legislative intent and enable covert exchanges. In practice, courts in states like and have invalidated bills violating this rule when they encompass multiple subjects, reducing opportunities for legislators to attach unpopular measures to popular ones. Proposals to extend single-subject requirements to the federal , as advocated in policy analyses, argue that this would eliminate much of the omnibus packaging that sustains logrolling, potentially saving billions in extraneous spending without halting essential lawmaking. Another reform targets earmarks—congressionally directed funds often central to logrolling—through bans and transparency mandates. The U.S. House and imposed a moratorium on earmarks in 2007, extended informally until and formally until 2021, which reduced the visibility and volume of district-specific projects used as bargaining chips, with earmark requests dropping from over 13,000 in 2005 to near zero during the ban. Post-moratorium reforms, such as the requirement for public disclosure of earmark requests at least 48 hours before votes, aimed to expose vote trades to scrutiny, though critics note incomplete enforcement allowed resurgence, with over 12,000 earmarks in 2022 appropriations. Advocates for permanent bans contend that earmarks inflate budgets by an estimated $20-40 billion annually and perpetuate logrolling cycles, recommending competitive federal grant processes as a merit-based alternative to legislator-directed allocations. Procedural alternatives include strengthening germaneness rules and separating appropriations from bills to isolate votes and diminish bundling incentives. House Rule XXI, for instance, prohibits nongermane amendments in appropriations, though enforcement varies and has not fully stemmed logrolling in must-pass bills. Broader institutional designs, such as increasing veto points through bicameral limits or sunset clauses on provisions, force periodic re-evaluation, disrupting long-term vote-trading networks; empirical studies of state legislatures with strict sunset requirements show reduced persistence of low-priority programs compared to those without. These measures prioritize merit over reciprocity, though implementation faces resistance from incumbents benefiting from established alliances.

Extended Contexts

Logrolling in Negotiation Theory

Logrolling constitutes a core technique in integrative , wherein parties trade concessions across multiple issues to expand the overall value of the agreement beyond zero-sum distributive outcomes. This approach leverages differences in parties' priorities: a negotiator concedes on a low-value issue to secure gains on a high-value one, fostering mutual benefit provided that the trade-offs align favorably. The concept originates from multi-issue models, where logrolling sequences—such as pairwise issue exchanges—enable sequential trade-offs that aggregate into Pareto-superior settlements. Effective logrolling presupposes accurate assessment of counterparts' preferences, often through or contingent offers that signal priorities without full revelation. For instance, in a bilateral over , benefits, and work conditions, Party A might yield on flexible hours (low priority) to obtain higher pay (high priority), while Party B prioritizes scheduling stability and concedes accordingly, yielding a joint gain unattainable via single-issue haggling. Empirical studies of negotiator behavior indicate that logrolling succeeds when parties abstract issues broadly to uncover compatible interests, rather than fixating on concrete positions, thereby increasing the likelihood of integrative agreements. Theoretically, logrolling contrasts with bridging, another integrative , by directly repackaging existing issue bundles rather than inventing novel solutions; it assumes additive utilities across issues and risks failure if priorities converge or if one party misperceives the trade space. In formal models, such as those simulating multi-issue protocols, logrolling procedures iteratively pair low-utility concessions with high-utility demands, converging on equilibria where no further trades improve outcomes for both. Applications span domains like labor disputes and commercial contracts, where documented cases show logrolling elevating joint outcomes by 20-30% over baseline distributive tactics, contingent on trust and issue interdependence.

Logrolling as a Physical Sport

Logrolling, also known as birling, is a competitive originating from the practices of North American lumberjacks in the late , where workers balanced and maneuvered floating logs during river drives to transport timber. The activity evolved from practical necessity into organized contests as logging camps sought entertainment, with the first unofficial world championship held in , in 1898, won by Tom Fleming of . Early competitions used natural , , or cedar logs lathe-turned to uniform diameters, typically 13 to 17 inches, and lengths of 6 to 8 feet, floated in shallow water. In the sport, two competitors stand on opposite ends of a free-floating log submerged to about depth in and attempt to dislodge the opponent by manipulating the log's through footwork, without direct physical contact. Core rules prohibit touching the opponent or crossing the log's imagined centerline, with violations resulting in disqualification; matches continue until one participant falls into the , often after a best-of-five or best-of-seven format in tournaments. Techniques include the "" to initiate spin, "snub" to halt or reverse it, and aggressive maneuvers like intensifying or kicking to unbalance the foe, with the cardinal principle being to maintain visual focus on the opponent's feet to anticipate shifts. Prior to , participants wore spiked shoes for grip on bark-covered logs, but innovations by seven-time Judy Scheer-Hoeschler introduced carpeted surfaces, enabling rubber-soled athletic shoes and broadening participation beyond lumberjacks. The National Roleo Association, founded in 1926 in Washburn, Wisconsin, standardized early rules and sanctioned events, while modern governance falls to bodies like the United States Logrolling Association (USLRA), which specifies amateur log dimensions (e.g., 15-inch diameter, 72-inch length) and oversees pro rankings. Championships occur annually at venues such as the Lumberjack World Championships in , featuring men's, women's, and junior divisions since at least , with notable early women's titles including Bette Berkeley's 1939 national win at age 17. Synthetic logs, introduced in 2012 by Key Log Rolling, have facilitated growth, supporting over 100 summer camps and aquatic programs by 2015, alongside events like the 2025 log rolling meet at Lake Wingra, . The demands exceptional balance, , and , with competitions emphasizing protocols like padded docks and waivers.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logrolling
  2. https://politicaldictionary.com/words/logrolling/
  3. https://userpages.umbc.edu/~nmiller/RESEARCH/LOGROLLING.pdf
  4. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31169/w31169.pdf
  5. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/logrolling
  6. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/tag/logrolling/
  7. https://www.etymonline.com/word/log-rolling
  8. https://www.cato.org/downsizing-government-essay/congressional-incentives-government-failure
  9. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/private-benefits-public-vices-railways-and-logrolling-19th-century-british-parliament
  10. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/11192-diffcalcpdf
  11. https://johnjthrasher.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/oxfordhb-9780198717133-e-25-1.pdf
  12. https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/10780
  13. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~trp/VoteTrading_Oct_10_2018.pdf
  14. https://userpages.umbc.edu/~nmiller/RESEARCH/PC.77b.pdf
  15. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30022848
  16. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27743/w27743.pdf
  17. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02922012/document
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0899825620301457
  19. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/79832/1/VfS_2013_pid_547.pdf
  20. https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/35946/7/Charroin_Vanberg_Logrolling_dp758_2024.pdf
  21. https://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=implicit%2Blogrolling
  22. http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/walker_d/econ_369_-_public_choice_-_logrolling%2C_bureaus%2C_etc_.htm
  23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117472
  24. https://thelawmakers.org/legislative-research/logrolling-in-congress
  25. https://www.nber.org/papers/w31169
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424001471
  27. https://www.econ.msu.ru/cmt2/lib/c/521/File/Logrolling.pdf
  28. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w5510/w5510.pdf
  29. https://www.uvm.edu/~rsicotte/Dye&SicotteHSTariff.pdf
  30. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042115/what-are-some-examples-pork-barrel-politics-united-states.asp
  31. https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-bridge-nowhere-national-embarrassment
  32. https://theconversation.com/pork-barrelling-is-unfair-and-wasteful-heres-a-plan-to-end-it-188898
  33. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/24/australians-believe-pork-barrelling-corruption-federal-government-australia-institute-survey
  34. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-024-01164-2
  35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501763.2011.599996
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268000000082
  37. https://gppreview.com/2014/10/15/legislative-logrolling-fiscal-discipline-latin-america/
  38. https://www.scielo.br/j/rap/a/XvSPSVYBM8x4PfcQ57MW74p/
  39. https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/19/1/3/430795
  40. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/buchanan-the-calculus-of-consent-logical-foundations-of-constitutional-democracy
  41. https://cooperative-individualism.org/tullock-gordon_the-problems-of-majority-voting-1959-dec.pdf
  42. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/40414/chapter-abstract/347393440
  43. http://investigadores.cide.edu/aparicio/refpol/Wittman_WhyDemocAreEfficient_1989.pdf
  44. https://aithor.com/essay-examples/logrolling-in-politics-and-its-impact-on-government-budget
  45. https://www.quorum.us/public-affairs-dictionary/pork-barrel-spending/
  46. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/cato/v27i3/f_0001662_873.pdf
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268097000335
  48. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr156.pdf
  49. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7032&context=etd
  50. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654797
  51. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30862
  52. https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/single-subject-rules-can-prevent-perverse-outcomes-give-judges-enormous
  53. https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2023/04/03/supreme-court-calls-out-legislative-logrolling-but-leaves-gaping-loopholes/
  54. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/13.05
  55. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00574.x
  56. https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/assets/organizations/legislative-service-commission/files/members-briefs-volume-134-one-subject-rule.pdf
  57. https://www.iml.org/file.cfm?key=448
  58. https://www.jamesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Menton.pdf
  59. https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/earmark-spending-bad-fruit-rotten-trees
  60. https://www.cato.org/commentary/its-time-congress-ban-earmarks
  61. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/mediation/mediation-breaking-a-partial-impasse-in-negotiations/
  62. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/value-creation-in-negotiation/
  63. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011262625052
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226960193_Logrolling_Procedure_for_Multi-Issue_Negotiation
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3152820/
  66. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046878196273009
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926580512000258
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251308592_Initial_Perceptions_in_Negotiations_Evaluation_and_Response_to_%27Logrolling%27_Offers
  69. https://www.britannica.com/sports/birling
  70. https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/02/03/379052827/reviving-the-lost-art-of-log-rolling
  71. https://keylogrolling.com/pages/history-of-log-rolling
  72. https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/log-rolling-growing-from-lumberjack-game-to-olympic-sport/
  73. https://www.topendsports.com/sport/list/log-rolling.htm
  74. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/uw-s3-cdn/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2012/07/23185044/IM-Log-Rolling-Rules.pdf
  75. https://www.marcusexists.com/logrolling
  76. https://uslogrolling.com/USLRA-Rules
  77. https://captimes.com/entertainment/city-life/timber-log-rolling-meet-brings-lumberjacks-and-jills-to-lake-wingra/article_6150fc50-9029-4f2e-8f24-a5896dbb54f1.html
  78. https://uslogrolling.wildapricot.org/event-6179028
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.