IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mib/wpaper/430.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consensus and Ideology in Courts: an Application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Author

Listed:
  • Sofia Amaral-Garcia
  • Lucia Dalla Pellegrina
  • Nuno Garoupa

Abstract

This article argues that judges suppress dissent when it is costly to do so, and that the cost of dissent depends on the political dimension of the issue broached. It contends that judges who disagree may nevertheless try to safeguard integrity and legitimacy in political disputes by presenting a public impression of unity. We muster evidence from the United Kingdom, specifically, votes from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) between 1998 and 2011. We demonstrate through statistical analysis that judges are likelier to suppress dissent in devolution cases, which are more political in character, than in Commonwealth appeals, which are more mundane in nature. We find that while consensus on domestic issues reflects the absence of conflict between judicial ideologies, judges have stronger conflicting positions on issues concerning devolution, but tend to suppress their propensity to dissent. This finding confirms that the Court wants to appear cohesive to give an image of greater authority on decisions of predominantly political content.

Suggested Citation

  • Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Nuno Garoupa, 2020. "Consensus and Ideology in Courts: an Application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Working Papers 430, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2020.
    • Handle: RePEc:mib:wpaper:430
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.dems.unimib.it/repec/pdf/mibwpaper430.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Hanretty, 2014. "Haves and Have-Nots before the Law Lords," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(3), pages 686-697, October.
    2. Pellegrina, Lucia Dalla & Garoupa, Nuno & Gómez-Pomar, Fernando, 2017. "Estimating judicial ideal points in the Spanish Supreme Court: The case of administrative review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 16-28.
    3. Silvio R. Rendon, 2013. "Fixed and Random Effects in Classical and Bayesian Regression," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 75(3), pages 460-476, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Voigt, Stefan & Ebeling, Michael & Blume, Lorenz, 2007. "Improving credibility by delegating judicial competence--the case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 348-373, March.
    6. Robertson, David, 1982. "Judicial Ideology in the House of Lords: A Jurimetric Analysis," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, January.
    7. Caudill, Steven B, 1988. "An Advantage of the Linear Probability Model over Probit or Logit," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 50(4), pages 425-427, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Kornhauser, Lewis A, 1992. "Modeling Collegial Courts. II. Legal Doctrine," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 441-470, October.
    10. Matias Iaryczower & Gabriel Katz, 2016. "More than Politics: Ability and Ideology in the British Appellate Committee," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 61-93.
    11. 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.
    12. Chris Hanretty, 2015. "Judicial Disagreement need not be Political: Dissent on the Estonian Supreme Court," Europe-Asia Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(6), pages 970-988, July.
    13. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Clare Leaver, 2013. "Social Interactions and the Content of Legal Opinions," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 78-114, February.
    14. 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.
    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. Sarel, Roee & Demirtas, Melanie, 2021. "Delegation in a multi-tier court system: Are remands in the U.S. federal courts driven by moral hazard?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    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. Matej Avbelj & Janez Šušteršič, 2019. "Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 2, pages 129-159, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Pellegrina, Lucia Dalla & Garoupa, Nuno & Gómez-Pomar, Fernando, 2017. "Estimating judicial ideal points in the Spanish Supreme Court: The case of administrative review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 16-28.
    7. Bernardo Guimaraes & Bruno Meyerhof Salama, 2023. "Permitting Prohibitions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 241-271.
    8. Muro, Sergio & Amaral-Garcia, Sofia & Chehtman, Alejandro & Garoupa, Nuno, 2020. "Exploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Keith Carlson & Michael A. Livermore & Daniel N. Rockmore, 2020. "The Problem of Data Bias in the Pool of Published U.S. Appellate Court Opinions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 224-261, June.
    11. Charles M. Cameron & Lewis A. Kornhauser, 2017. "Rational choice attitudinalism?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 535-554, June.
    12. Garoupa, Nuno & Grajzl, Peter, 2020. "Spurred by legal tradition or contextual politics? Lessons about judicial dissent from Slovenia and Croatia," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    13. Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili, 2020. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Bi‐Dimensional Courts: Evidence from Catalonia," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 383-415, June.
    14. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Marco Battaglini & Eleonora Patacchini & Edoardo Rainone, 2019. "Endogenous Social Connections in Legislatures," NBER Working Papers 25988, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Matteo Migheli, 2021. "Green purchasing: the effect of parenthood and gender," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10576-10600, July.
    17. Awudu Abdulai, 2023. "Information acquisition and the adoption of improved crop varieties," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(4), pages 1049-1062, August.
    18. Álvaro Bustos & Tonja Jacobi, 2014. "A Theory of Judicial Retirement," Documentos de Trabajo 451, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    19. List, Christian & Polak, Ben, 2010. "Introduction to judgment aggregation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 441-466, March.
    20. Jerg Gutmann & Katarzyna Metelska-Szaniawska & Stefan Voigt, 2024. "The comparative constitutional compliance database," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 95-115, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General
    • M50 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mib:wpaper:430. 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: Matteo Pelagatti (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpmibit.html .

    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.