IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-308990.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Sergio Muro
  • Sofia Amaral-Garcia
  • Alejandro Chehtman
  • Nuno Garoupa

Abstract

When dissents are allowed, judges must decide whether or when to write them. While the main insights of rational dissent theory have been documented and corroborated in several empirical studies, there has been much less evidence testing on how different types of dissent may affect the likelihood of dissent. Particularly, dissents in more salient cases, or more forceful dissents, may have stronger legal effects than dissents appearing in less relevant cases or very narrowly construed dissents. Our article aims to fill that gap in the literature by seeking to isolate varying levels of appeal intensity and types of dissents in the Supreme Court of Argentina. Unlike previous literature, we find that more important cases have a lower likelihood of carrying a dissenting opinion. Yet, when we breakdown dissents by type (that is, reasoned dissents versus boilerplate dissents), we find that majority decisions carrying dissents tend to be longer, but only in cases of reasoned dissents. Furthermore, we show that reasoned dissents are more likely to occur in important cases. Overall, our study highlights that not all dissents should be treated alike as different types of dissent carry different levels of collegial and effort related costs. These costs affect the likelihood of dissent in different and complex ways.

Suggested Citation

  • Sergio Muro & Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Alejandro Chehtman & Nuno Garoupa, 2020. "Exploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/308990, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/308990
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/308990/3/2020_IRLE_SCArgentina.pdf
    File Function: Full text for the whole work, or for a work part
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harnay, Sophie & Marciano, Alain, 2003. "Judicial conformity versus dissidence: an economic analysis of judicial precedent," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 405-420, December.
    2. Gerber, Scott D. & Park, Keeok, 1997. "The Quixotic Search for Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court: A Cross-Judicial Empirical Analysis of the Rehnquist Court Justices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(2), pages 390-408, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Niblett, Anthony & Yoon, Albert H., 2015. "Judicial disharmony: A study of dissent," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 60-71.
    5. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    6. Bertomeu Juan González & Pellegrina Lucia Dalla & Garoupa Nuno, 2017. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Latin America: The Case of Argentina," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-35, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Fon, Vincy & Parisi, Francesco, 2006. "Judicial precedents in civil law systems: A dynamic analysis," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 519-535, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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. 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.
    2. 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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. Maria Antonelli & Veronica Grembi, 2013. "A microeconomic model of the demand of civil justice: is one institutional context better than another?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 295-318, October.
    5. Chen, Daniel L. & Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2023. "Non-confrontational extremists," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Duol Kim & Heechul Min, 2017. "Appeal rate and caseload: evidence from civil litigation in Korea," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 339-360, October.
    8. Anderlini, Luca & Felli, Leonardo & Riboni, Alessandro, 2020. "Legal efficiency and consistency," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    9. Flavio Menezes & Magnus Söderberg & Miguel Santolino, 2012. "Regulatory behaviour under threat of court reversal," Discussion Papers Series 472, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    10. 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.
    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. 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.
    13. Niblett, Anthony & Yoon, Albert H., 2015. "Judicial disharmony: A study of dissent," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 60-71.
    14. 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.
    15. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    16. Campbell, Randall C. & Nagel, Gregory L., 2016. "Private information and limitations of Heckman's estimator in banking and corporate finance research," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 186-195.
    17. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    18. Ilona Babenko & Benjamin Bennett & John M Bizjak & Jeffrey L Coles & Jason J Sandvik, 2023. "Clawback Provisions and Firm Risk," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 191-239.
    19. Şahan, Duygu & Tuna, Okan, 2018. "Environmental innovation of transportation sector in OECD countries," Chapters from the Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), in: Kersten, Wolfgang & Blecker, Thorsten & Ringle, Christian M. (ed.), The Road to a Digitalized Supply Chain Management: Smart and Digital Solutions for Supply Chain Management. Proceedings of the Hamburg International C, volume 25, pages 157-170, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute of Business Logistics and General Management.
    20. Eric Fesselmeyer & Kiat Ying Seah, 2018. "Individual Payoffs and the Effect of Homeownership on Social Capital Investment," Journal of Housing Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 59-78, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Argentina; Dissents; Judicial behavior;
    All these keywords.

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/308990. 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.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.