The recent uproar over the Air Force decision to award a contract to a team including Airbus, which is not an American company, is a reminder of the importance of "distributive tendency" and the difficulty for goods and services to be provided by government in a manner based solely on merit, without regard to political pressure.
The contract was for the next generation of aircraft refueling tankers and was worth $35 billion. The Air Force claims to be responding to requirements that they look objectively at the merits of the various proposals presented to them--a requirement that stems from congressional dictates--but this doesn't mollify members of congress who want the contract to benefit their constituents by providing jobs in their districts.
In both 2301 and 2302 we discuss the tendency of Congress to respond more positively to bureaucratic proposals that distribute benefits over a large number of districts, even if that process rewards projects of dubious value. The irony here is that Congress itself wanted to curtail the practice, at least in theory. When a real choice is presented to them however, they revert back to the tried and true practice.
The knee jerk reaction is to blame Congress, but are members of Congress accurately assessing the preferences of their constituents here?
Here are related articles:
Boeing was arrogant and proposed an inferior product.
Senator Shelby of Alabama says the contract was won fair and square. [Shelby by the way is a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and Alabama happens to be where much of the work will be done.
Boeing supporters are set to protest.
