IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v65y2021ics0144818820301617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Professional vs. non-professional labour judges: their impact on the quality of judicial decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Moral, Alfonso
  • Rosales, Virginia
  • Martín-Román, Ángel

Abstract

This paper proposes an empirical analysis to study if the quality of judicial decisions is influenced by the number and type of judges working in the court. A set of econometric models will be estimated in order to explain the differences existing in the confirmation rate of the sentences dictated by the 339 Spanish Labour Courts taken as a sample, over the period 2004–2017. The acting of other judges in the court, besides the incumbent judge, will be considered as a treatment. In addition, different control covariates as economic determinants and other factors closely related to judicial activity will be empirically analysed, taking into account possible endogeneity problems in the treatment variable. Main results show that the quality of judicial decisions decreases when other judges besides the incumbent one are acting in the court, but this effect is smaller when the other judges are non-professional judges. This paper aims to contribute to the literature on the Economics of Court Performance, particularly on the empirical analysis of the quality of judicial decisions, and it also looks to provide relevant suggestions for judicial policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Moral, Alfonso & Rosales, Virginia & Martín-Román, Ángel, 2021. "Professional vs. non-professional labour judges: their impact on the quality of judicial decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:65:y:2021:i:c:s0144818820301617
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2020.105948
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818820301617
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2020.105948?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. Melcarne Alessandro & Ramello Giovanni B., 2015. "Judicial Independence, Judges’ Incentives and Efficiency," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 149-169, July.
    2. Stefan Voigt, 2016. "Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 183-208, October.
    3. Posner, Richard A, 2000. "Is the Ninth Circuit Too Large? A Statistical Study of Judicial Quality," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 711-719, June.
    4. Shavell, Steven, 1995. "The Appeals Process as a Means of Error Correction," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 379-426, June.
    5. Garoupa, Nuno, 2018. "Does being a foreigner shape judicial behaviour? Evidence from the Constitutional Court of Andorra, 1993–2016," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 181-195, February.
    6. Michael R. Baye & Joshua D. Wright, 2011. "Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 1-24.
    7. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Valentina & Grajzl, Peter & Sustersic, Janez & Zajc, Katarina, 2012. "Court output, judicial staffing, and the demand for court services: Evidence from Slovenian courts of first instance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 19-29.
    8. Martín-Román, Ángel & Moral, Alfonso & Martínez-Matute, Marta, 2015. "Peer effects in judicial decisions: Evidence from Spanish labour courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-37.
    9. Landes, William M & Lessig, Lawrence & Solimine, Michael E, 1998. "Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 271-332, June.
    10. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Valentina & Grajzl, Peter & Slavov, Atanas & Zajc, Katarina, 2016. "Courts in a transition economy: Case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 18-38.
    11. Di Vita, Giuseppe, 2010. "Production of laws and delays in court decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 276-281, September.
    12. Cohen, Mark A., 1992. "The motives of judges: Empirical evidence from antitrust sentencing," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 13-30, March.
    13. Ahmed E. Taha, 2004. "Publish or Paris? Evidence of How Judges Allocate Their Time," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 6(1), pages 1-27.
    14. Giovanni Cerulli, 2014. "ivtreatreg: A command for fitting binary treatment models with heterogeneous response to treatment and unobservable selection," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 14(3), pages 453-480, September.
    15. Ángel L. Martín Román & Alfonso Moral de Blas & Marta Martínez Matute, 2013. "Tipo de juez y estimación de los casos de despido: un análisis de los Juzgados de lo Social en España," Cuadernos de Economía - Spanish Journal of Economics and Finance, Asociación Cuadernos de Economía, vol. 36(102), pages 142-154, Diciembre.
    16. Beenstock, Michael & Haitovsky, Yoel, 2004. "Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 351-369, September.
    17. Bhattacharya, Mita & Smyth, Russell, 2001. "The Determinants of Judicial Prestige and Influence: Some Empirical Evidence from the High Court of Australia," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 223-252, January.
    18. Dimitrova-Grajzl Valentina & Grajzl Peter & Zajc Katarina & Sustersic Janez, 2012. "Judicial Incentives and Performance at Lower Courts: Evidence from Slovenian Judge-Level Data," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 215-252, August.
    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. Przemysław Banasik & Katarzyna Metelska-Szaniawska & Małgorzata Godlewska & Sylwia Morawska, 2022. "Determinants of judges’ career choices and productivity: a Polish case study," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 81-107, February.
    2. Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova & Elena Sidorova, 2022. "Does judicial effort matter for quality? Evidence from antitrust proceedings in Russian commercial courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 425-450, June.
    3. Roberto Ippoliti & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2018. "Governance of tax courts," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 317-338, November.
    4. Samantha Bielen & Wim Marneffe & Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl, 2018. "The Duration of Judicial Deliberation: Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 174(2), pages 303-333, June.
    5. Peter Grajzl & Shikha Silwal, 2020. "The functioning of courts in a developing economy: evidence from Nepal," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 101-129, February.
    6. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2017. "The Role of Precedents on Court Delay - Evidence from a civil law country," MPRA Paper 80057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Stefan Voigt, 2016. "Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 183-208, October.
    8. Caio Castelliano & Peter Grajzl & Tomas Aquino Guimaraes & Andre Alves, 2021. "Judicial enforcement and caseload: theory and evidence from Brazil," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 137-168, August.
    9. Grajzl, Peter & Silwal, Shikha, 2020. "Multi-court judging and judicial productivity in a career judiciary: Evidence from Nepal," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    10. Dimitrova-Grajzl Valentina & Grajzl Peter & Zajc Katarina & Sustersic Janez, 2012. "Judicial Incentives and Performance at Lower Courts: Evidence from Slovenian Judge-Level Data," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 215-252, August.
    11. Duy Vu & Michele Pezzoni & Duc Lam Nguyen, 2021. "Arbitrator teams and dispute resolution performance: an empirical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 347-381, April.
    12. Gupta, Maansi & Bolia, Nomesh B., 2024. "Factors affecting efficient discharge of judicial functions: Insights from Indian courts," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. John Szmer & Robert K. Christensen & Samuel Grubbs, 2020. "What influences the influence of U.S. Courts of Appeals decisions?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 55-81, February.
    14. Melcarne Alessandro & Ramello Giovanni B., 2015. "Judicial Independence, Judges’ Incentives and Efficiency," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 149-169, July.
    15. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Valentina & Grajzl, Peter & Slavov, Atanas & Zajc, Katarina, 2016. "Courts in a transition economy: Case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 18-38.
    16. Fauvrelle Thiago A. & Tony C Almeida Alessio, 2018. "Determinants of Judicial Efficiency Change: Evidence from Brazil," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-36, March.
    17. Timothy Yu-Cheong Yeung & Michal Ovádek & Nicolas Lampach, 2022. "Time efficiency as a measure of court performance: evidence from the Court of Justice of the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 209-234, April.
    18. Falavigna, Greta & Ippoliti, Roberto & Ramello, Giovanni B., 2018. "DEA-based Malmquist productivity indexes for understanding courts reform," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 31-43.
    19. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2020. "Disposition time and the utilization of prior judicial decisions: Evidence from a civil law country," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    20. Roussey, Ludivine & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2018. "Overburdened judges," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-32.

    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:eee:irlaec:v:65:y:2021:i:c:s0144818820301617. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    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.