IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/rlecon/v8y2012i2n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Andrew D.

    (Washington University in St. Louis)

  • Hazelton Morgan L.W.

    (Washington University in St. Louis)

Abstract

Despite an inherent kinship, the studies of political science and law spent many decades isolated from one another. In recent years the two fields have become more and more integrated, with an increasing number of political scientists collaborating with law professors and joining law school faculties. Political science is a rigorous discipline that can benefit both legal scholars and lawyers. Public Law—the subfield of political science that studies law and courts—has much to offer in understanding how judges make decisions and how larger political and institutional contexts affect the legal system. Furthermore, law students can only benefit from exposure to the methodological approaches that are standard in political science. Enhanced integration of political science and law will inherently expand the knowledge and reach of lawyers and legal scholars due to the important contributions discussed in this article.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Andrew D. & Hazelton Morgan L.W., 2012. "What Political Science Can Contribute to the Study of Law," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(2), pages 511-529, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:8:y:2012:i:2:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/1555-5879.1581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/1555-5879.1581
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/1555-5879.1581?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reilly C. & Gelman A. & Katz J., 2001. "Poststratification Without Population Level Information on the Poststratifying Variable With Application to Political Polling," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 96, pages 1-11, March.
    2. Kosuke Imai, 2005. "Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00272, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Shepsle, Kenneth A., 1992. "Congress is a "They," not an "It": Legislative intent as oxymoron," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 239-256, June.
    4. Kira Fuchs & Florian Herold, 2011. "The Costs and Benefits of a Separation of Powers--An Incomplete Contracts Approach," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 131-167.
    5. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    6. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    7. Rasmusen, Eric, 1994. "Judicial Legitimacy as a Repeated Game," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 63-83, April.
    8. Tom S. Clark, 2009. "The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 971-989, October.
    9. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    10. Minjung Kyung & Jeff Gill & George Casella, 2011. "New findings from terrorism data: Dirichlet process random‐effects models for latent groups," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(5), pages 701-721, November.
    11. Eileen Braman & Thomas E. Nelson, 2007. "Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 940-956, October.
    12. Imai, Kosuke, 2005. "Do Get-Out-the-Vote Calls Reduce Turnout? The Importance of Statistical Methods for Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(2), pages 283-300, May.
    13. Paul Brace & Brent D. Boyea, 2008. "State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(2), pages 360-372, April.
    14. Hall, Melinda Gann, 2001. "State Supreme Courts in American Democracy: Probing the Myths of Judicial Reform," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 315-330, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sean Richey & Ken'ichi Ikeda, 2009. "Institutional Incentives and Trust: Marginalized Groups and the Creation of Trust in Local Government," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 90(4), pages 911-926, December.
    2. Christina L. Boyd & Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, 2010. "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 389-411, April.
    3. Kevin Arceneaux & Alan S. Gerber & Donald P. Green, 2010. "A Cautionary Note on the Use of Matching to Estimate Causal Effects: An Empirical Example Comparing Matching Estimates to an Experimental Benchmark," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 39(2), pages 256-282, November.
    4. Musharraf Rasool Cyan & Antonios M. Koumpias & Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, 2016. "The Effects of Media Campaigns on Individual Attitudes towards Tax Compliance; Quasi-experimental Evidence from Survey Data in Pakistan," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1609, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    5. Alexander G. Nikolaev & Sheldon H. Jacobson & Wendy K. Tam Cho & Jason J. Sauppe & Edward C. Sewell, 2013. "Balance Optimization Subset Selection (BOSS): An Alternative Approach for Causal Inference with Observational Data," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 398-412, April.
    6. Yehonatan Givati & Matthew C. Stephenson, 2011. "Judicial Deference to Inconsistent Agency Statutory Interpretations," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 85-113.
    7. Xavier Giné & Ghazala Mansuri, 2018. "Together We Will: Experimental Evidence on Female Voting Behavior in Pakistan," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 207-235, January.
    8. Ian R Turner, 2017. "Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 69-96, January.
    9. Dino Gerardi & Margaret A. McConnell & Julian Romero & Leeat Yariv, 2016. "Get Out The (Costly) Vote: Institutional Design For Greater Participation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(4), pages 1963-1979, October.
    10. Matthew D. Montgomery & Michael P. Fix & Justin T. Kingsland, 2021. "Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2894-2906, November.
    11. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Monica Mogollon & Daniel Ortega & Carlos Scartascini, 2021. "Who’s calling? The effect of phone calls and personal interaction on tax compliance," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 28(6), pages 1302-1328, December.
    13. Imai, Kosuke, 2008. "Sharp bounds on the causal effects in randomized experiments with "truncation-by-death"," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 144-149, February.
    14. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    15. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    16. Anderson, Simon & Meagher, Kieron J, 2012. "Choosing a Champion: Party Membership and Policy Platform," CEPR Discussion Papers 8941, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Castillo-Manzano, José I. & López-Valpuesta, Lourdes & Sánchez-Braza, Antonio, 2018. "When the mall is in the airport: Measuring the effect of the airport mall on passengers’ consumer behavior," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 32-38.
    18. Adam Bonica & Adam Chilton & Jacob Goldin & Kyle Rozema & Maya Sen, 2019. "Legal Rasputins? Law Clerk Influence on Voting at the US Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 1-36.
    19. Ortega, Daniel & Scartascini, Carlos, 2020. "Don’t blame the messenger. The Delivery method of a message matters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 286-300.
    20. Laura Langbein, 2009. "Beyond random assignment for internal validity and beyond social research for random assignment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 173-174.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:rlecon:v:8:y:2012:i:2:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.