IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/juipol/v72y2021ics0957178721001181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors affecting judicial review of regulatory appeals

Author

Listed:
  • Silva, Jeovan Assis
  • Guimaraes, Tomas Aquino

Abstract

The relationship between the executive and judiciary branches on regulatory matters in developing countries is a subject that has not been explored much. This paper explores factors affecting judicial decisions in the regulatory field, aiming to fill this gap. The content of 1353 judicial reviews of appealed decisions issued by nine Brazilian regulatory agencies, judged by two federal appellate courts from 2010 to 2019, were analyzed. Data analysis used logistic regression with decision ruling in favor or against the agency as the dependent variable, and length of the proceedings, regulatory agency, subject of the decision, grounds of the court ruling, and amount in dispute as independent variables. The results show that: a) length of the proceedings had a relevant impact on the court behavior; b) courts are more likely to issue rulings against the regulatory authorities when reviewing procedural issues and on subjects involving norms and price-setting regulatory tasks; c) the electricity authority was the only regulatory body that had results that were statistically significant and it was found that appeal rulings were more likely to be against that body.

Suggested Citation

  • Silva, Jeovan Assis & Guimaraes, Tomas Aquino, 2021. "Factors affecting judicial review of regulatory appeals," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:juipol:v:72:y:2021:i:c:s0957178721001181
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jup.2021.101284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178721001181
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jup.2021.101284?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederick Schauer & Richard Zeckhauser, 2010. "The Trouble with Cases," NBER Chapters, in: Regulation vs. Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law, pages 45-70, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Oliver E. Williamson, 2005. "The Economics of Governance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "Efficient Regulation," NBER Chapters, in: Regulation vs. Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law, pages 27-43, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Daniel P. Kessler, 2010. "Regulation vs. Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number kess09-1, March.
    5. Tiller, Emerson H & Spiller, Pablo T, 1999. "Strategic Instruments: Legal Structure and Political Games in Administrative Law," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 349-377, July.
    6. Richard A. Posner, 2010. "Regulation (Agencies) versus Litigation (Courts): An Analytical Framework," NBER Chapters, in: Regulation vs. Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law, pages 11-26, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    8. Luis Andres & José Luis Guasch & Sebastián Lopez Azumendi, 2009. "Regulatory Governance and Sector Performance: Methodology and Evaluation for Electricity Distribution in Latin America," Chapters, in: Claude Ménard & Michel Ghertman (ed.), Regulation, Deregulation, Reregulation, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Avdasheva, Svetlana & Golovanova, Svetlana & Katsoulacos, Yannis, 2019. "The role of judicial review in developing evidentiary standards: The example of market analysis in Russian competition law enforcement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 101-114.
    10. Dragu, Tiberiu & Board, Oliver, 2015. "On Judicial Review in a Separation of Powers System," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 473-492, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Berg, Sanford V., 2000. "Sustainable regulatory systems: laws, resources, and values," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 159-170, December.
    13. Carvalho, Bruno & Rondon, Rodrigo & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2020. "Better utility regulation through RIA? Merits and implications based on the Brazilian case," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Michael R. Baye & Joshua D. Wright, 2011. "Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 1-24.
    15. Frank Vibert, 2014. "The New Regulatory Space," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15881.
    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. Ian R Turner, 2017. "Working smart and hard? Agency effort, judicial review, and policy precision," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(1), pages 69-96, January.
    2. Ghosh, Ranjan & Kathuria, Vinish, 2016. "The effect of regulatory governance on efficiency of thermal power generation in India: A stochastic frontier analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 11-24.
    3. Avdasheva, Svetlana & Golovanova, Svetlana & Katsoulacos, Yannis, 2019. "The role of judicial review in developing evidentiary standards: The example of market analysis in Russian competition law enforcement," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 101-114.
    4. Florian Smuda & Patrice Bougette & Kai Hüschelrath, 2015. "Determinants of the Duration of European Appellate Court Proceedings in Cartel Cases," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(6), pages 1352-1369, November.
    5. Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova & Elena Sidorova, 2022. "Does judicial effort matter for quality? Evidence from antitrust proceedings in Russian commercial courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 425-450, June.
    6. John R. Wright, 2010. "Ambiguous Statutes and Judicial Deference To Federal Agencies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 217-245, April.
    7. Adam R. Fremeth & Guy L. F. Holburn & Richard G. Vanden Bergh, 2016. "Corporate Political Strategy in Contested Regulatory Environments," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 272-284, December.
    8. Moral, Alfonso & Rosales, Virginia & Martín-Román, Ángel, 2021. "Professional vs. non-professional labour judges: their impact on the quality of judicial decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    9. Andrew Johnston & Kenneth Amaeshi & Emmanuel Adegbite & Onyeka Osuji, 2021. "Corporate Social Responsibility as Obligated Internalisation of Social Costs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 39-52, April.
    10. Yannis Katsoulacos, 2019. "On the choice of legal standards: a positive theory for comparative analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 125-165, October.
    11. Diana W. Thomas, 2019. "Regressive effects of regulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 1-10, July.
    12. John M. de Figueiredo, 2009. "Integrated Political Strategy," NBER Working Papers 15053, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    14. Schmid, Andreas, 2007. "Incentive Compatibility and Efficiency in the contractual Insurer-Provider Relationship: Economic Theory and practical Implications: The Case of North Carolina," MPRA Paper 23311, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    15. Sean M. Dougherty, 2014. "Legal Reform, Contract Enforcement and Firm Size in Mexico," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 825-844, September.
    16. Robert Roßner & Dimitrios Zikos, 2018. "The Role of Homogeneity and Heterogeneity Among Resource Users on Water Governance: Lessons Learnt from an Economic Field Experiment on Irrigation in Uzbekistan," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-30, July.
    17. Imam, M. & Jamasb, T. & Llorca, M. & Llorca, M., 2018. "Power Sector Reform and Corruption: Evidence from Electricity Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1801, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    18. Roy Gava, 2022. "Challenging the regulators: Enforcement and appeals in financial regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1265-1282, October.
    19. McLaughlin, Patrick & Potts, Jason, 2019. "RegData: Australia," Working Papers 10062, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    20. Lehmann, Markus A., 2002. "Error minimization and deterrence in agency control," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 373-391, May.

    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:eee:juipol:v:72:y:2021:i:c:s0957178721001181. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/utilities-policy .

    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.