IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v41y1983i1p133-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The objectives of private and public judges

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Rubin

Abstract

The model presented in this paper hypothesizes that judges try to maximize prestige and that the way to achieve this goal is to decide cases efficiently. There is, however, no basis for assuming that this is the goal of judges and even if we accept this hypothesis, the only implication is that disputes should be settled efficiently, not that efficient rules should be promulgated. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1983

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Rubin, 1983. "The objectives of private and public judges," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 133-137, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:41:y:1983:i:1:p:133-137
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00124054
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00124054
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00124054?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. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 1978. "Adjudication as a Private Good," NBER Working Papers 0263, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Matteo Rizzolli & Margherita Saraceno, 2013. "Better that ten guilty persons escape: punishment costs explain the standard of evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 395-411, June.
    2. Wesley J. Liebeler, 1985. "A Property Rights Approach to Judicial Decision Making," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 4(3), pages 783-811, Winter.
    3. Roberto Ippoliti & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2018. "Governance of tax courts," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 317-338, November.

    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. Adam Smith & David Skarbek & Bart Wilson, 2012. "Anarchy, groups, and conflict: an experiment on the emergence of protective associations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(2), pages 325-353, February.
    2. Jahn, Elke J. & Wagner, Thomas, 2001. "Labour's law?," Discussion Papers 6, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Labour and Regional Economics.
    3. Orley Ashenfelter & David Bloom, 1981. "Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers 526, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    4. Bruce L. Benson, 1999. "Polycentric Law Versus Monopolized Law : Implications from International Trade for the Potential Success of Emerging Markets," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 15(Fall 1999), pages 36-66.
    5. Roussey, Ludivine & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2018. "Overburdened judges," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-32.
    6. Orley Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 399-423, September.
    7. Orley C. Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game: Evidence from Long Run Play," NBER Working Papers 18834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Richard Wagner, 1992. "Crafting social rules: Common law vs. statute law, once again," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 381-397, September.
    9. Peter Aranson, 1992. "The common law as central economic planning," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 289-319, September.
    10. Philip Bond, 2004. "Optimal plaintiff incentives when courts are imperfect," 2004 Meeting Papers 723, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. Gregory B. Christainsen, 1990. "Law as a Discovery Procedure," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 9(3), pages 497-530, Winter.
    12. Dennis W. Carlton & Randal C. Picker, 2014. "Antitrust and Regulation," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 25-61, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Field, Barry C., 1985. "The Evolution Of Individual Property Rights In Massachusetts Agriculture, 17th-19th Centuries," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, October.
    14. Fauvrelle Thiago A. & Tony C Almeida Alessio, 2018. "Determinants of Judicial Efficiency Change: Evidence from Brazil," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-36, March.
    15. Eckardt, Martina, 2004. "Evolutionary approaches to legal change," Thuenen-Series of Applied Economic Theory 47, University of Rostock, Institute of Economics.
    16. Steven Shavell, 1981. "The Social versus the Private Incentive to Bring Suit in a Costly Legal System," NBER Working Papers 0741, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Marciano, Alain & Khalil, Elias L., 2012. "Optimization, path dependence and the law: Can judges promote efficiency?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 72-82.
    18. Marselli, Riccardo & McCannon, Bryan C. & Vannini, Marco, 2015. "Bargaining in the shadow of arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 356-368.
    19. Bruce Benson, 1999. "To Arbitrate or To Litigate: That Is the Question," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 91-151, September.
    20. Patricio A. Fernandez & Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2012. "Stare Decisis: Rhetoric and Substance," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 313-336.

    More about this item

    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:kap:pubcho:v:41:y:1983:i:1:p:133-137. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.