View Item 

Show simple item record

Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts
dc.contributor.authorWeinshall, Keren
dc.contributor.authorSommer, Udi
dc.contributor.authorRitov, Ya’acov
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-04T20:09:25Z
dc.date.available2019-11-01T15:10:32Zen
dc.date.issued2018-09
dc.identifier.citationWeinshall, Keren; Sommer, Udi; Ritov, Ya’acov (2018). "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts." Regulation & Governance 12(3): 334-352.
dc.identifier.issn1748-5983
dc.identifier.issn1748-5991
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/145572
dc.description.abstractA 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.
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.
dc.publisherOUP
dc.subject.othersupreme court
dc.subject.otherattitudinal decisionmaking
dc.subject.othercomparative law
dc.subject.otherjudicial politics
dc.subject.otherjudicial ideology
dc.titleIdeological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPolitical Science
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelGovernment, Politics and Law
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145572/1/rego12145_am.pdf
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145572/2/rego12145.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/rego.12145
dc.identifier.sourceRegulation & Governance
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSathe SP ( 2002 ) Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits. OUP, New Delhi, India.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaynie SL ( 1994 ) Resource Inequalities and Litigation Outcomes in the Philippine Supreme Court. The Journal of Politics 56, 752 – 772.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRichards MJ, Kritzer HM ( 2002 ) Jurisprudential Regimes in Supreme Court Decision‐making. American Political Science Review 96, 305 – 320.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobertson D ( 1998 ) Judicial Discretion in the House of Lords. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobinson N ( 2013 ) Structure Matters: The Impact of Court Structure on the Indian and US Supreme Courts. American Journal of Comparative Law 61, 173 – 208.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHanretty C ( 2013 ) The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords. British Journal of Political Science 43, 703 – 716.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSegal JA, Cover AD ( 1989 ) Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review 83, 557 – 565.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSegal JA, Spaeth HJ ( 2002 ) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. CUP, Cambridge, UK.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShankar S ( 2009 ) Scaling Justice: India’s Supreme Court, Social Rights, and Civil Liberties. OUP, New Delhi, India.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSkiple JK, Grendstad G, Shaffer WR, Waltenburg EN ( 2016 ) Supreme Court Justices’ Economic Behaviour: A Multilevel Model Analysis. Scandinavian Political Studies 39 ( 1 ), 73 – 94.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSommer U ( 2009 ) Crusades Against Corruption and Institutionally Induced Strategies in the Israeli Supreme Court. Israel Affairs 15, 279 – 295.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSommer U ( 2010 ) A Strategic Court and National Security: Comparative Lessons from the Israeli Case. Israel Studies Forum 25 ( 2 ), 54 – 80.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSonger DR, Johnson SW, Ostberg CL, Wetstein ME ( 2012 ) Law, Ideology, and Collegiality: Judicial Behaviour in the Supreme Court of Canada. McGill‐Queen’s University Press, Toronto, ON.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThe State of Israel: The Judicial Authority (in Hebrew). [Last accessed 10 December 2016.] Available from URL: http://www.court.gov.il/heb/home.htm
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSupreme Court of Canada [Last accessed 10 December 2016.] Available from URL: http://www.scc‐csc.gc.ca/
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSupreme Court of India [Last accessed 10 December 2016.] Available from URL: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSupreme Court of the Philippines [Last accessed 10 December 2016.] Available from URL: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTate NC, Haynie SL ( 1993 ) Authoritarianism and the Functions of Courts: A Time Series Analysis of the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961–1987. Law and Society Review 27, 707 – 740.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceThiruvengadam AK, Joshi P ( 2012 ) Judiciaries as Crucial Actors in Southern Regulatory Systems: A Case Study of Indian Telecom Regulation. Regulation & Governance 6, 327 – 343.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTiller EH ( 2015 ) The Law and Positive Political Theory of Panel Effects. The Journal of Legal Studies 44 (Suppl. 1), S35 – S58.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWahlbeck PJ, Spriggs JF II, Maltzman F ( 1999 ) The Politics of Dissents and Concurrences on the U.S. Supreme Court. American Politics Quarterly 27, 488 – 514.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWashington University Law. The Supreme Court Database. [Last accessed 10 December 2016.] Available from URL: http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWeinshall K ( 2011 ) Attitudinal and Neo‐institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8, 556 – 586.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWetstein ME, Ostberg CL, Songer DR, Johnson SW ( 2009 ) Ideological Consistency and Attitudinal Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts. Comparative Political Studies 42, 763 – 792.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGliksberg D ( 2014 ) Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 11, 378 – 407.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlaire B, Green A ( 2009 ) Policy Preference Change and Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 47, 1 – 46.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAlarie BRD, Green A ( 2007 ) The Reasonable Justice: An Empirical Analysis of Frank Iacobucci’s Career on the Supreme Court. University of Toronto Law Journal 57, 195 – 226.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmaral‐Garcia S, Garoupa N, Grembi V ( 2009 ) Judicial Independence and Party Politics in the Kelsenian Constitutional Courts: The Case of Portugal. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6, 381 – 404.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAustin G ( 1966 ) The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. OUP, Oxford.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBailey MA, Maltzman F ( 2011 ) The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and the Decisions Justices Make. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBarzilai G, Yuchtman‐Yaar E, Segal Z ( 1994 ) The Israeli Supreme Court and the Israeli Public. Papyrus at Tel Aviv University Press, Tel Aviv, Israel.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBaum L ( 1998 ) The Supreme Court, 6th edn. CQ Press, Washington, DC.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBricker B ( 2017 ) Breaking the Principle of Secrecy: An Examination of Judicial Dissent in the European Constitutional Courts. Law & Policy 32 ( 2 ), 170 – 191.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrouard S, Honninge C ( 2017 ) Constitutional courts as veto players: Lessons from the United States, France and Germany. European Journal of Political Research.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChodosh H, Mayo SA, Ahmadi AM, Singhvi AM ( 1997 ) Indian Civil Justice System Reform: Limitation and Preservation of the Adversarial Process. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 30, 1 – 78.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClayton CW, Gillman H (eds) ( 1999 ) Supreme Court Decision‐making: New Institutionalist Approaches. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDalla Pellegrina L, Escresa L, Garoupa N ( 2014 ) Measuring Judicial Ideal Points in New Democracies: The Case of the Philippines. Asian Journal of Law and Society 1, 125 – 164.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEisenberg T, Fisher T, Rosen‐Zvi I ( 2011 ) Israel’s Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction: An Empirical Study. Cornell Law Review 96, 693 – 726.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEisenberg T, Fisher T, Rosen‐Zvi I ( 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 9, 246 – 290.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEisenberg T, Fisher T, Rosen‐Zvi I ( 2013 ) Group Decision Making on Appellate Panels: Presiding Justice and Opinion Justice Influence in the Israel Supreme Court. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 19, 282 – 296.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein L, Knight J ( 1998 ) The Choices Justices Make. CQ Press, Washington, DC.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein L, Martin AD, Quinn KM, Segal JA ( 2007 ) Ideological Drift among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important. Northwestern University Law Review 101, 1483 – 1542.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein L, Quinn KM, Martin AD, Segal JA ( 2008 ) On the Perils of Drawing Inferences about Supreme Court Justices from their First Few Years of Service. Judicature 91, 168 – 179.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEpstein L, Landes WM, Posner RA ( 2013 ) The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEscresa L, Garoupa NM ( 2012 ) Judicial Politics in Unstable Democracies: The Case of the Philippine Supreme Court, an Empirical Analysis 1986‐2010. Asian Journal of Law and Economics 3 ( 1 ), 1 – 39.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarhang S, Wawro G ( 2004 ) Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation Under Panel Decision Making. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20, 299 – 330.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFarnsworth W, Guzior D, Malani A ( 2013 ) Policy Preferences and Legal Interpretation. Journal of Law and Courts 1, 115 – 138.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFeldman SM ( 2005 ) The Rule of Law or the Rule of Politics? Harmonizing the Internal and External Views of Supreme Court Decision Making. Law and Social Inquiry 30, 89 – 135.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFischman JB ( 2011 ) Estimating Preferences of Circuit Judges: A Model of Consensus Voting. Journal of Law and Economics 54, 781 – 809.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFischman JB ( 2015 ) Do the Justices Vote Like Policy Makers? Evidence from Scaling the Supreme Court with Interest Groups. The Journal of Legal Studies 44 (Suppl. 1), S269 – S293.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGadbois GH Jr ( 2011 ) Judges of the Supreme Court of India:1950–1989. OUP, New Delhi, India.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGaroupa N, Gili M, Gómez‐Pomar F ( 2012 ) Political Influence and Career Judges: An Empirical Analysis of Administrative Review by the Spanish Supreme Court. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 9, 795 – 826.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGiles MW, Blackstone B, Vining RLJ ( 2008 ) The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making. The Journal of Politics 70, 293 – 306.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHettinger VA, Lindquist SA, Martinek WL ( 2004 ) Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. American Journal of Political Science 48, 123 – 137.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHirschl R ( 2004 ) Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Harvard University Press.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHowe P, Russell PH (eds) ( 2001 ) Judicial Power and Canadian Democracy. McGill‐Queen’s University Press, Montreal, QC.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKantorowicz J, Garoupa N ( 2016 ) An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Review Voting in the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, 2003–2014 Constitutional Political Economy 27 ( 1 ), 66 – 92.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKastellec JP, Lax JR ( 2008 ) Case Selection and the Study of Judicial Politics. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 5, 407 – 446.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLauderdale BE, Clark TS ( 2012 ) The Supreme Court’s Many Median Justices. American Political Science Review 106, 847 – 866.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaltzman F, Spriggs JF II, Wahlbeck PJ ( 2000 ) Crafting Law on the Supreme Court: The Collegial Game. CUP, Cambridge, UK.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartin AD, Quinn KM ( 2002 ) Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953‐1999. Political Analysis 10, 134 – 153.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMartin AD, Quinn KM, Epstein L ( 2005 ) The Median Justice on the United States Supreme Court. North Carolina Law Review 83, 1275 – 1322.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNarayan PK, Smyth R ( 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 4, 401 – 425.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeuborne B ( 2003 ) The Supreme Court of India. International Journal of Constitutional Law 1, 476 – 510.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOstberg CL, Wetstein ME ( 2007 ) Attitudinal Decision‐making in the Supreme Court of Canada. University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, BC.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceReise SP, Waller NG ( 2009 ) Item Response Theory and Clinical Measurement. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5, 27 – 48.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
rego12145_am.pdf
Size:
1.347MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open
Name:
rego12145.pdf
Size:
2.126MB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.