IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/ejlwec/v55y2023i1d10.1007_s10657-022-09749-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do child support guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? The case of the French advisory child support guidelines

Author

Listed:
  • Cécile Bourreau-Dubois

    (Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, BETA)

  • Myriam Doriat-Duban

    (Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, BETA)

  • Bruno Jeandidier

    (Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, BETA)

  • Jean-Claude Ray

    (Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, BETA)

Abstract

In this article, we study the decision-making of judges in an experimental setting resembling real world judicial decision-making in order to measure the impact of advisory guidelines on judges’ decisions in divorce cases. We gave 312 French future judges 48 case vignettes, built from real data related to divorce cases involving children. We compared two different subject pools: judges who were asked to set child support awards with an advisory guideline and judges who were asked to set child support awards without any guidelines. We find that guidelines help to reduce the disparity between judges: the variance in similar cases is lower when the subjects have the opportunity to use guidelines. On the other hand, this effect is not systematic since we observe an increase in heterogeneity in some particular cases. We interpret this result by considering that the guidelines may generate a conflict of norms: the judge may be torn between the social norm represented by the guidelines and based on the child’s interest and the legal norm that limits her decisions which need to stay within the parties’ proposals. An increase of heterogeneity would result from different trade-offs between judges.

Suggested Citation

  • Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean-Claude Ray, 2023. "Do child support guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? The case of the French advisory child support guidelines," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 55(1), pages 87-116, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:ejlwec:v:55:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10657-022-09749-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10657-022-09749-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10657-022-09749-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10657-022-09749-2?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhuang Liu, 2018. "Does Reason Writing Reduce Decision Bias? Experimental Evidence from Judges in China," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 83-118.
    2. Anderson, James M & Kling, Jeffrey R & Stith, Kate, 1999. "Measuring Interjedge Sentencing Disparity: Before and After the Federal Sentencing Guidelines," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 271-307, April.
    3. Thomas J. Miceli, 2008. "Criminal Sentencing Guidelines And Judicial Discretion," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(2), pages 207-215, April.
    4. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Jean-Claude Ray, 2006. "Caractéristiques du juge et décisions en matière de pensions alimentaires. Une étude à partir de données expérimentales," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 57(3), pages 563-572.
    5. Payne, A. Abigail, 1997. "Does inter-judge disparity really matter? An analysis of the effects of sentencing reforms in three federal district courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 337-366, September.
    6. Anthony Heyes & Soodeh Saberian, 2019. "Temperature and Decisions: Evidence from 207,000 Court Cases," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(2), pages 238-265, April.
    7. Ozkan Eren & Naci Mocan, 2018. "Emotional Judges and Unlucky Juveniles," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 171-205, July.
    8. Boulu-Reshef, Béatrice & Comeig, Irene & Donze, Robert & Weiss, Gregory D., 2016. "Risk aversion in prediction markets: A framed-field experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5071-5075.
    9. Richard T. Boylan, 2004. "Do the Sentencing Guidelines Influence the Retirement Decisions of Federal Judges?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(1), pages 231-253, January.
    10. Crystal S. Yang, 2015. "Free at Last? Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 75-111.
    11. Alexander, Cindy R & Arlen, Jennifer & Cohen, Mark A, 1999. "Regulating Corporate Criminal Sanctions: Federal Guidelines and the Sentencing of Public Firms," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 393-422, April.
    12. Joshua B. Fischman & Max M. Schanzenbach, 2012. "Racial Disparities Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 729-764, December.
    13. Max M. Schanzenbach & Emerson H. Tiller, 2007. "Strategic Judging Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Positive Political Theory and Evidence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 24-56, April.
    14. M. Marit Rehavi & Sonja B. Starr, 2014. "Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1320-1354.
    15. LaCasse, Chantale & Payne, A Abigail, 1999. "Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Do Defendants Bargain in the Shadow of the Judge?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 245-269, April.
    16. Arnaud Philippe, 2020. "Gender Disparities in Sentencing," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(348), pages 1037-1077, October.
    17. Laura M. Argys & H. Elizabeth Peters & Donald M. Waldman, 2001. "Can the Family Support Act Put Some Life Back into Deadbeat Dads?: An Analysis of Child-Support Guidelines, Award Rates, and Levels," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 36(2), pages 226-252.
    18. Alma Cohen & Crystal S. Yang, 2019. "Judicial Politics and Sentencing Decisions," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 160-191, February.
    19. David S. Abrams & Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2012. "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 347-383.
    20. Waldfogel, Joel, 1998. "Does inter-judge disparity justify empirically based sentencing guidelines?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 293-304, September.
    21. Todd Sorensen & Supriya Sarnikar & Ronald L. Oaxaca, 2012. "Race and Gender Differences under Federal Sentencing Guidelines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(3), pages 256-260, May.
    22. Bourreau-Dubois, Cécile & Doriat-Duban, Myriam & Jeandidier, Bruno & Ray, Jean-Claude, 2020. "Does gender diversity in panels of judges matter? Evidence from French child support cases," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    23. Vadim Volkov, 2016. "Legal and Extralegal Origins of Sentencing Disparities: Evidence from Russia's Criminal Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 637-665, December.
    24. Kevin Kwok‐yin Cheng & Sayaka Ri & Natasha Pushkarna, 2020. "Judicial Disparity, Deviation, and Departures from Sentencing Guidelines: The Case of Hong Kong," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 580-614, September.
    25. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Bruno Deffains & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier, 2021. "Les barèmes, outils d’aide à la décision pour les justiciables et les juges," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 131(2), pages 199-222.
    26. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, 2021. "Blame based on one's name? Extralegal disparities in criminal conviction and sentencing," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 469-521, 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. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity ? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers hal-02978348, HAL.
    3. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Bruno Deffains & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier, 2021. "Guidelines: Decision-Making Tools for Litigantsand Judges [Les barèmes, outils d’aide à la décision pour les justiciables et les juges]," Post-Print hal-03054417, HAL.
    4. Cécile Bourreau-Dubois & Myriam Doriat-Duban & Bruno Jeandidier & Jean Claude Ray, 2020. "Do sentencing guidelines result in lower inter-judge disparity? Evidence from framed field experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2020-28, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. Simone Bertoli & Morgane Laouenan & Jérôme Valette, 2022. "Border Apprehensions and Federal Sentencing of Hispanic Citizens in the United States," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03818735, HAL.
    6. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl, 2021. "Prosecution or Persecution? Extraneous Events and Prosecutorial Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 765-800, December.
    7. Chen, Daniel L. & Prescott, J.J., 2016. "Implicit Egoism in Sentencing Decisions: First Letter Name Effects with Randomly Assigned Defendants," IAST Working Papers 16-56, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    8. Brigitte Pereira, 2023. "Guidelines, court decisions and dismissals [Barèmes d’indemnisation, décisions de justice et licenciement]," Post-Print hal-04190156, HAL.
    9. Moulin Xiong & Yiwei Xia & Xiaohong Yu, 2025. "Sentencing equilibrium in rape cases: a legal and political explanation of jurisdictional uniformity in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Crystal S. Yang, 2015. "Free at Last? Judicial Discretion and Racial Disparities in Federal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(1), pages 75-111.
    11. Joshua B. Fischman & Max M. Schanzenbach, 2011. "Do Standards of Review Matter? The Case of Federal Criminal Sentencing," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 405-437.
    12. Claudine Desrieux & Romain Espinosa, 2020. "Scale for capped damages in case of unfair dismissal: some empirical evidence [La Barémisation des indemnités pour licenciement abusif: Quelques Eléments d'Analyse Empirique]," Post-Print halshs-02307212, HAL.
    13. Brodeur, Abel & Wright, Taylor, 2019. "Terrorism, immigration and asylum approval," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 119-131.
    14. Max Schanzenbach, 2005. "Racial and Sex Disparities in Prison Sentences: The Effect of District-Level Judicial Demographics," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 57-92, January.
    15. Thomas J. Miceli, 2008. "Criminal Sentencing Guidelines And Judicial Discretion," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(2), pages 207-215, April.
    16. repec:hal:journl:hal-03680153 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Thomaidou, Mia A. & Patel, Alisha & Xie, Sandy S. & Berryessa, Colleen M., 2024. "Machine learning analysis of a national sample of U.S. case law involving mental health evidence," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    18. Beth A. Freeborn & Monica E. Hartmann, 2010. "Judicial Discretion and Sentencing Behavior: Did the Feeney Amendment Rein in District Judges?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 355-378, June.
    19. Melcarne, Alessandro & Monnery, Benjamin & Wolff, François-Charles, 2022. "Prosecutors, judges and sentencing disparities: Evidence from traffic offenses in France," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    20. Joshua B. Fischman & Max M. Schanzenbach, 2012. "Racial Disparities Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The Role of Judicial Discretion and Mandatory Minimums," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 729-764, December.
    21. Nicolás Grau & Damián Vergara, "undated". "A Simple Test for Prejudice in Decision Processes: The Prediction-Based Outcome Test," Working Papers wp493, University of Chile, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Controlled experiment; Field experiment; Decision making; Child support; Guidelines; Judges;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
    • K15 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Civil Law; Common Law

    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:kap:ejlwec:v:55:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10657-022-09749-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.