IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v12y2000i3p305-323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Choices Judges Make

Author

Listed:
  • Martin van Hees
  • Bernard Steunenberg

Abstract

In this paper we focus on the way in which courts affect public policy. We present a model of judicial behavior that combines insights from theories emphasizing the importance of policy preferences with those suggesting that courts are only motivated by formal-legal criteria. By embedding our model of judicial choice in a broader context of political decision-making we show how judges are able to affect policy and under what circumstances the judiciary will change their legal interpretations. The model is applied to decision-making by the Dutch Supreme Court on euthanasia to illustrate its main features.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin van Hees & Bernard Steunenberg, 2000. "The Choices Judges Make," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(3), pages 305-323, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:12:y:2000:i:3:p:305-323
    DOI: 10.1177/0951692800012003003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692800012003003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951692800012003003?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miller, Gary J. & Moe, Terry M., 1983. "Bureaucrats, Legislators, and the Size of Government," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(2), pages 297-322, June.
    2. Steunenberg, Bernard, 1997. "Courts, Cabinet and Coalition Parties: The Politics of Euthanasia in a Parliamentary Setting," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 551-571, October.
    3. Steunenberg, Bernard, 1992. "Congress, Bureaucracy, and Regulatory Policy-Making," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 673-694, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Gely, Rafael & Spiller, Pablo T., 1992. "The political economy of supreme court constitutional decisions: The case of Roosevelt's court-packing plan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 45-67, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Spiller, Pablo T & Spitzer, Matthew L, 1992. "Judicial Choice of Legal Doctrines," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 8-46, March.
    8. Eskridge, William N, Jr & Ferejohn, John, 1992. "Making the Deal Stick: Enforcing the Original Constitutional Structure of Lawmaking in the Modern Regulatory State," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 165-189, March.
    9. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    10. Geoffrey Brennan & Hartmut Kliemt, 1994. "Finite Lives and Social Institutions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 551-571, November.
    11. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1979. "Bureaucrats Versus Voters: On the Political Economy of Resource Allocation by Direct Democracy," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(4), pages 563-587.
    12. Gely, Rafael & Spiller, Pablo T, 1990. "A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 263-300, Fall.
    13. Tsebelis, George, 1995. "Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 289-325, July.
    14. Brennan, Geoffrey & Kliemt, Hartmut, 1994. "Finite Lives and Social Institutions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(4), pages 551-571.
    15. Ferejohn, John A. & Weingast, Barry R., 1992. "A positive theory of statutory interpretation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 263-279, June.
    16. Ferejohn, John & Shipan, Charles, 1990. "Congressional Influence on Bureaucracy," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(0), pages 1-20.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Höpner, Martin, 2010. "Warum betreibt der Europäische Gerichtshof Rechtsfortbildung? Die Politisierungshypothese," MPIfG Working Paper 10/2, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    2. Bernard Steunenberg, 2010. "Is big brother watching? Commission oversight of the national implementation of EU directives," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 359-380, September.

    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. Moser, Peter, 1999. "The impact of legislative institutions on public policy: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
    2. 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).
    3. Bernardo Guimaraes & Bruno Meyerhof Salama, 2023. "Permitting Prohibitions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 241-271.
    4. 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.
    5. George Tridimas, 2010. "Constitutional judicial review and political insurance," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 81-101, February.
    6. Bernard Steunenberg, 2010. "Is big brother watching? Commission oversight of the national implementation of EU directives," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 359-380, September.
    7. Lars P. Feld & Stefan Voigt, 2004. "Making Judges Independent – Some Proposals Regarding the Judiciary," CESifo Working Paper Series 1260, CESifo.
    8. Mariano Tommasi & Pablo T. Spiller, 2004. "The Institutions of Regulation," Working Papers 67, Universidad de San Andres, Departamento de Economia, revised Mar 2004.
    9. Miltos Makris, 2003. "Administrative Bureaus with Standard Operating Procedures," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 03/062, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    10. Pablo T. Spiller & Rafael Gely, 2007. "Strategic Judicial Decision Making," NBER Working Papers 13321, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Charles R. Shipan, 2000. "The Legislative Design of Judicial Review," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(3), pages 269-304, July.
    12. Mat McCubbins & Roger Noll & Barry Weingast, 2005. "The Political Economy of Law: Decision-Making by Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Administrative Agencies," Discussion Papers 04-035, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    13. Michele Santoni & Francesco Zucchini, 2006. "Legislative output and the Constitutional Court in Italy," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 165-187, September.
    14. Moszoro, Marian W. & Spiller, Pablo T., 2014. "Third-Party Opportunism and the Theory of Public Contracts: Operationalization and Applications," MPRA Paper 101592, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Dieter Schmidtchen & Bernard Steunenberg, "undated". "European Policymaking: An Agency-Theoretic Analysis of the Issue," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2002-1-1040, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    16. René Torenvlied, 1996. "Political Control Of Implementation Agencies," Rationality and Society, , vol. 8(1), pages 25-56, February.
    17. Fiorino, Nadia & Gavoille, Nicolas & Padovano, Fabio, 2015. "Rewarding judicial independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-66.
    18. Pablo T. Spiller & Sanny Liao, 2006. "Buy, Lobby or Sue: Interest Groups' Participation in Policy Making - A Selective Survey," NBER Working Papers 12209, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Shaheen Naseer, 2019. "Public Spending, Quality of Bureaucracy and Economic Growth: A Theoretical Analysis," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 203-221.
    20. Feld, Lars P. & Voigt, Stefan, 2003. "Economic growth and judicial independence: cross-country evidence using a new set of indicators," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 497-527, September.

    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:sae:jothpo:v:12:y:2000:i:3:p:305-323. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.