IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v12y2018i3p334-352.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts

Author

Listed:
  • Keren Weinshall
  • Udi Sommer
  • Ya'acov Ritov

Abstract

A key influence on governance and regulation is the ideology of individual decisionmakers. However, certain branches of government – such as courts – while wielding wide ranging regulatory powers, are expected to do so with no attitudinal influence. We posit a dynamic response model to investigate attitudinal behavior in different national courts. Our ideological scores are estimated based on probability models that formalize the assumption that judicial decisions consist of ideological, strategic, and jurisprudential components. The Dynamic Comparative Attitudinal Measure estimates the attitudinal decisionmaking on the institution as a whole. Additionally, we estimate Ideological Ideal Point Preference for individual justices. Empirical results with original data for political and religious rights rulings in the Supreme Courts of the United States, Canada, India, the Philippines, and Israel corroborate the measures' validity. Future studies can utilize Ideological Ideal Point Preference and the Dynamic Comparative Attitudinal Measure to cover additional courts, legal spheres, and time frames, and to estimate government deference.

Suggested Citation

  • Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:334-352
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12145
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12145?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. Shankar, Shylashri, 2009. "Scaling Justice: India's Supreme Court, Social Rights, and Civil Liberties," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195693201.
    2. Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Nuno Garoupa & Veronica Grembi, 2009. "Judicial Independence and Party Politics in Constitutional Courts: The Case of Portugal," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/301515, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Sofia Amaral‐Garcia & Nuno Garoupa & Veronica Grembi, 2009. "Judicial Independence and Party Politics in the Kelsenian Constitutional Courts: The Case of Portugal," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 381-404, June.
    4. Paresh Kumar Narayan & Russell Smyth, 2007. "What Explains Dissent on the High Court of Australia? An Empirical Assessment Using a Cointegration and Error Correction Approach," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 401-425, July.
    5. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Clark, Tom S., 2012. "The Supreme Court's Many Median Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 847-866, November.
    6. Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili & Fernando Gómez‐Pomar, 2012. "Political Influence and Career Judges: An Empirical Analysis of Administrative Review by the Spanish Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 795-826, December.
    7. Emerson H. Tiller, 2015. "The Law and Positive Political Theory of Panel Effects," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 35-58.
    8. David Gliksberg, 2014. "Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 378-407, June.
    9. Joshua B. Fischman, 2015. "Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 269-293.
    10. Sean Farhang, 2004. "Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation Under Panel Decision Making," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 299-330, October.
    11. Hanretty, Chris, 2013. "The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 703-716, July.
    12. Escresa Laarni & Garoupa Nuno, 2012. "Judicial Politics in Unstable Democracies: The Case of the Philippine Supreme Court, An Empirical Analysis 1986-2010," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-39, April.
    13. Segal, Jeffrey A. & Cover, Albert D., 1989. "Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 557-565, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Richards, Mark J. & Kritzer, Herbert M., 2002. "Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(2), pages 305-320, June.
    16. Virginia A. Hettinger & Stefanie A. Lindquist & Wendy L. Martinek, 2004. "Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 123-137, January.
    17. Theodore Eisenberg & Talia Fisher & Issi Rosen‐Zvi, 2012. "Does the Judge Matter? Exploiting Random Assignment on a Court of Last Resort to Assess Judge and Case Selection Effects," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 246-290, June.
    18. Jonathan P. Kastellec & Jeffrey R. Lax, 2008. "Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 407-446, September.
    19. Joshua B. Fischman, 2011. "Estimating Preferences of Circuit Judges: A Model of Consensus Voting," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(4), pages 781-809.
    20. Jarosław Kantorowicz & Nuno Garoupa, 2016. "An empirical analysis of constitutional review voting in the polish constitutional tribunal, 2003–2014," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 66-92, March.
    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. Monika Stachowiak-Kudła & Janusz Kudła, 2022. "Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 301-325, 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. Amaral-Garcia Sofia & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Judicial Behavior and Devolution at the Privy Council," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(3), pages 1-40, November.
    2. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    3. Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili & Fernando Gómez‐Pomar, 2012. "Political Influence and Career Judges: An Empirical Analysis of Administrative Review by the Spanish Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 795-826, December.
    4. Christoph Engel, 2024. "The German Constitutional Court – Activist, but not Partisan?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_04, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Jan Fałkowski & Jacek Lewkowicz, 2022. "In practice or just on paper? Some insights on using alphabetical rule to assign judges to cases," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 405-430, December.
    6. Christoph Engel, 2021. "Lucky You: Your Case is Heard by a Seasoned Panel – Panel Effects in the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2021_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised 01 Jun 2022.
    7. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    8. Fałkowski, Jan & Lewkowicz, Jacek, 2021. "Are Adjudication Panels Strategically Selected? The Case of Constitutional Court in Poland," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    9. Pierre Bentata & Romain Espinosa & Yolande Hiriart, 2019. "Correction Activities by France’s Supreme Courts and Control over their Dockets," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 129(2), pages 169-204.
    10. 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.
    11. Garoupa, Nuno & Grembi, Veronica, 2015. "Judicial review and political partisanship: Moving from consensual to majoritarian democracy," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 32-45.
    12. 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).
    13. Amaral-Garcia Sofia & dalla Pellegrina Lucia & Garoupa Nuno, 2023. "Consensus and Ideology in Courts: An Application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 151-184, July.
    14. Joan Josep Vallbé & Carmen Ramírez‐Folch, 2023. "The effect of judges' gender on decisions regarding intimate‐partner violence," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 641-668, September.
    15. Nuno Garoupa & Laura Salamero-Teixidó & Adrián Segura, 2022. "Disagreeing in private or dissenting in public: an empirical exploration of possible motivations," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 147-173, April.
    16. Wessel Wijtvliet & Arthur Dyevre, 2021. "Judicial ideology in economic cases: Evidence from the General Court of the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 25-45, March.
    17. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    18. Padovano, Fabio & Fiorino, Nadia, 2012. "Strategic delegation and “judicial couples” in the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 215-223.
    19. Paul M. Collins, Jr. & Wendy L. Martinek, 2011. "The Small Group Context: Designated District Court Judges in the U.S. Courts of Appeals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 177-205, March.
    20. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).

    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:wly:reggov:v:12:y:2018:i:3:p:334-352. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.