<p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; mso-add-space: auto;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; 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’ (BIA) interest to inflate their budget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </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;"> </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;"> </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;"> </span></span></p>
The Political Economy Of American Indian Allotment Revisited
