IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cmn/journl/y2019i2p129-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology

Author

Listed:
  • Matej Avbelj

    (Nova Univerza)

  • Janez Šušteršič

    (Re-forma d.o.o.)

Abstract

The article presents a conceptual framework and empirical methodology of an on-going research on the role of ideology in the decisions of the Slovenian Constitution Court. The literature review demonstrates that research on judicial ideology in the courts of European countries and international courts is still rare. This can be explained by conceptual, methodological and empirical challenges posed by this type of research. The article hence advances a conceptual framework which is, contra to the mainstream theoretical approach in the field, based on a multidimensional conception of ideology that is empirically operationalised along the economic, social and authoritarian dimensions with five possible ideological positions on each dimension. By applying the newly developed methodology to a sample of Court's decisions, it is demonstrated that this methodological approach is able to account for ideological differences between judges. This confirms that (judges') ideology is a complex multidimensional set of values and convictions that cannot be reduced to simply equating ideology with (possible) political affiliations.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:cmn:journl:y:2019:i:2:p:129-159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eaco.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/avbelj-sustersic.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bailey, Michael A. & Maltzman, Forrest, 2008. "Does Legal Doctrine Matter? Unpacking Law and Policy Preferences on the U.S. Supreme Court," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(3), pages 369-384, August.
    2. Fabio Padovano, 2009. "The time-varying independence of Italian peak judicial institutions," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 230-250, September.
    3. Carrubba, Clifford J. & Gabel, Matthew & Hankla, Charles, 2008. "Judicial Behavior under Political Constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(4), pages 435-452, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Michele Santoni & Francesco Zucchini, 2006. "Legislative output and the Constitutional Court in Italy," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 165-187, September.
    6. Nadia Fiorino & Fabio Padovano & Grazia Sgarra, 2007. "The Determinants of Judiciary Independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court (1956-2002)," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 683-705, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Blanes i Vidal, Jordi & Leaver, Clare, 2011. "Are tenured judges insulated from political pressure?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 570-586, August.
    9. Paul H. Edelman & David E. Klein & Stefanie A. Lindquist, 2012. "Consensus, Disorder, and Ideology on the Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 129-148, March.
    10. Nuno Garoupa & Fernando Gomez-Pomar & Veronica Grembi, 2013. "Judging under Political Pressure: An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Review Voting in the Spanish Constitutional Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 513-534, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Kay, Aaron C. & Jost, John T., 2003. "Complementary Justice: Effects of "Poor But Happy" and "Poor But Honest" Stereotype Exemplars on System Justification and Implicit Activation of the Justice Motive," Research Papers 1753r, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Blanes i Vidal, Jordi & Leaver, Clare, 2011. "Are tenured judges insulated from political pressure?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 570-586.
    14. Matthew Spitzer & Eric Talley, 2013. "Left, Right, and Center: Strategic Information Acquisition and Diversity in Judicial Panels," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 638-680, June.
    15. Voeten, Erik, 2008. "The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(4), pages 417-433, November.
    16. Raphaël Franck, 2009. "Judicial Independence Under a Divided Polity: A Study of the Rulings of the French Constitutional Court, 1959--2006," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 262-284, May.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Jim A C Everett, 2013. "The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-11, December.
    20. 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.
    21. 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)

    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. 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.
    3. Fiorino, Nadia & Gavoille, Nicolas & Padovano, Fabio, 2015. "Rewarding judicial independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-66.
    4. Fiorino, Nadia & Gavoille, Nicolas & Padovano, Fabio, 2015. "Rewarding judicial independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-66.
    5. Raphaël Franck, 2018. "Judicial impartiality in politically charged cases," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 193-229, June.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Goerke, Laszlo & Neugart, Michael, 2015. "Lobbying and dismissal dispute resolution systems," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 50-62.
    10. 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.
    11. Binswanger, Johannes & Prüfer, Jens, 2012. "Democracy, populism, and (un)bounded rationality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 358-372.
    12. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/4jcok93a4m9d1qtc3vnp4bdefk is not listed on IDEAS
    13. 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.
    14. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/3sb2i4b2r694sqks71jbjihput is not listed on IDEAS
    15. David Abrams & Roberto Galbiati & Emeric Henry & Arnaud Philippe, 2022. "When in Rome... On Local Norms and Sentencing Decisions," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 700-738.
    16. Ujhelyi, Gergely, 2014. "Civil service reform," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 15-25.
    17. Alessandro Melcarne, 2017. "Careerism and judicial behavior," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 241-264, October.
    18. Karakas, Leyla D., 2017. "Political rents under alternative forms of judicial review," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 86-96.
    19. David Abrams & Roberto Galbiati & Emeric Henry & Arnaud Philippe, 2019. "When in Rome… on local norms and sentencing decisions," Sciences Po publications 88, Sciences Po.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4jcok93a4m9d1qtc3vnp4bdefk is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Fabio Padovano, 2013. "Are we witnessing a paradigm shift in the analysis of political competition?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 631-651, September.
    22. David Abrams & Roberto Galbiati & Emeric Henry & Arnaud Philippe, 2019. "When in Rome… on local norms and sentencing decisions," Post-Print hal-03393093, HAL.
    23. David Abrams & Roberto Galbiati & Emeric Henry & Arnaud Philippe, 2019. "When in Rome… on local norms and sentencing decisions," Sciences Po publications 88, Sciences Po.

    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:cmn:journl:y:2019:i:2:p:129-159. 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: Helena Campbelle (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.eaco.eu .

    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.