So Roosevelt, Hopkins, Ickes and the rest of the New Dealers could at least claim that they used resources to foster relief and recovery at a base level in each state. The variation across states shows that other factors determined the distribution beyond this base level. None of the regression analyses by any of the scholars writing on this subject show any sign that the New Deal was reform-minded, a finding consistent with most historians' views of the Roosevelt Administration. It is clear that political maneuvering played an important role in this story in all of the analyses. The question of whether or not the variation also reflected more noble motives is still not fully answered.
Different specifications show different results.
One problem with the Couch and Shughart analyses is that they do not adequately control for problems with simultaneity bias, which was a central feature of Wallis's earlier analyses. My sense having followed all of this literature care fully over the past decade is that the distribution of New Deal funds was complicated. It was driven by some noble goals, some political goals, and certainly by special interest pressures. All of these factors come together into a giant and very complex stew that boiled over into the largest peacetime expansion of government in U.S. history. Price V. Fishback is the Frank and Clara Kramer Professor of Economics at the University of Arizona.