Abstract
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-add-space: auto;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; color: black; font-size: 10pt;">This paper criticizes McChesney's (1990) hypothesis that the decisions to initially and subsequently terminate American Indian allotment were based on the Bureau of Indian Affairs&rsquo; (BIA) interest to inflate their budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>By adopting a richer database on the BIA appropriations from 1877-1945 and correcting for model specification problems, I find no empirical evidence supporting any of McChesney's hypotheses concerning the bureaucratic demand for regulatory change. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>In fact, other large budgetary items, such as New Deal relief funding, Court of Claims judgments, and educational spending, crowded out BIA land management appropriations over these years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Interestingly, a cursory overview of this period illustrates how the BIA fought for less, rather than more, administrative control over Indian affairs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></p>
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have