IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/alecam/1009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Learning About Judicial Independence: Institutional Change In The State Courts

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Hanssen

    (Montana State University)

Abstract

There is widespread agreement that an independent judiciary is crucial to the growth of a nation. Yet systematic analysis of the development of independent courts is difficult, because, typically, formal judicial institutions seldom change. Here, I examine a formal judicial institution with substantial cross-sectional and time-series variation to explore: the procedure used to select and retain judges in the American states. Five different procedures emerged over the nation’s history, and all are in use today. I conclude as follows: Each new procedure was developed in order to increase the independence of state judges and was then superseded by a newer procedure, owing in large part to unanticipated agency problems. However, not all states changed procedures when the opportunity arose. States with larger legislative majorities, earlier entrance to the Union, or constitutional amendment requirements were less likely to adopt new procedures.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Hanssen, "undated". "Learning About Judicial Independence: Institutional Change In The State Courts," American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings 1009, American Law & Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:bep:alecam:1009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=alea
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward Glaeser & Simon Johnson & Andrei Shleifer, 2001. "Coase Versus the Coasians," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(3), pages 853-899.
    2. Tabarrok, Alexander & Helland, Eric, 1999. "Court Politics: The Political Economy of Tort Awards," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 157-188, April.
    3. Ramseyer, J Mark, 1994. "The Puzzling (In)dependence of Courts: A Comparative Approach," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 721-747, June.
    4. Landes, William M & Posner, Richard A, 1975. "The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(3), pages 875-901, December.
    5. Tim Besley & Abigail Payne, 2003. "Judicial accountability and economic policy outcomes: evidence from employment discrimination charges," IFS Working Papers W03/11, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Hanssen, F. Andrew, 1999. "Appointed Courts, Elected Courts, and Public Utility Regulation: Judicial Independence and the Energy Crisis," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 179-201, August.
    7. Elder, Harold W., 1987. "Property rights structures and criminal courts: An analysis of state criminal courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 21-32, June.
    8. McMillan, John & Woodruff, Christopher, 1999. "Dispute Prevention without Courts in Vietnam," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 637-658, October.
    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. Daniel Berkowitz & Karen Clay, "undated". "Initial Conditions, Institutional Dynamics and Economic Performance: Evidence from the American States," American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings 1083, American Law & Economics Association.
    2. Daniel Berkowitz & Karen Clay, 2007. "Legal Origins and the Evolution of Institutions: Evidence from American State Courts," Working Paper 320, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jun 2007.
    3. John Dove & William J. Byrd, 2022. "Judicial independence and lynching in historical context: an analysis of US States," Cliometrica, Springer;Cliometric Society (Association Francaise de Cliométrie), vol. 16(3), pages 639-672, September.
    4. Christian Almer & Timo Goeschl, 2011. "The political economy of the environmental criminal justice system: a production function approach," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 611-630, September.
    5. Carmine Guerriero, 2006. "Dependent Controllers and Regulation Policies: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers 2006.109, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    6. Guerriero, Carmine, 2011. "Accountability in government and regulatory policies: Theory and evidence," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 453-469.
    7. Dove, John A., 2015. "The effect of judicial independence on entrepreneurship in the US states," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 72-96.
    8. John A. Dove, 2017. "Judicial Independence and US State Bond Ratings: An Empirical Investigation," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 24-46, September.
    9. Guerriero, Carmine, 2006. "Endogenous Price Mechanisms, Capture and Accountability Rules: Theory and Evidence," Privatisation Regulation Corporate Governance Working Papers 12197, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Shalini Iyengar & Nives Dolšak & Aseem Prakash, 2019. "Selectively Assertive: Interventions of India’s Supreme Court to Enforce Environmental Laws," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Dove, John A., 2018. "It's easier to contract than to pay: Judicial independence and US municipal default in the 19th century," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 1062-1081.
    12. Kanazawa, Mark Tooru, 2023. "The Efficiency of Occupational Licensing during the Gilded and Progressive Eras: Evidence from Judicial Review," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 1221-1252, December.
    13. Fleck, Robert K. & Hanssen, F. Andrew, 2010. "Repeated adjustment of delegated powers and the history of eminent domain," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 99-112, June.
    14. Dove, 2016. "Judicial independence and economic freedom in the US states," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 78-83, January.
    15. Hadfield, Gillian K., 2008. "The levers of legal design: Institutional determinants of the quality of law," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 43-73, March.

    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. F. Andrew Hanssen, 2004. "Is There a Politically Optimal Level of Judicial Independence?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 712-729, June.
    2. Hayo, Bernd & Voigt, Stefan, 2007. "Explaining de facto judicial independence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 269-290, September.
    3. John A. Dove, 2017. "Judicial Independence and US State Bond Ratings: An Empirical Investigation," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 24-46, September.
    4. Daniel Berkowitz & Karen Clay, 2006. "The Effect of Judicial Independence on Courts: Evidence from the American States," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(2), pages 399-440, June.
    5. Brenner Dror & Cohen Alon, 2016. "Ideology and Strategy among Politicians: The Case of Judicial Independence," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 333-375, July.
    6. Daniel Berkowitz & Karen Clay, 2007. "Legal Origins and the Evolution of Institutions: Evidence from American State Courts," Working Paper 320, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jun 2007.
    7. Claire Lim, 2009. "Turnover and Accountability of Appointed and Elected Judges," 2009 Meeting Papers 190, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    8. Elliott Ash & W. Bentley MacLeod, 2015. "Intrinsic Motivation in Public Service: Theory and Evidence from State Supreme Courts," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4).
    9. Guerriero, Carmine, 2006. "Dependent Controllers and Regulation Policies: Theory and Evidence," Privatisation Regulation Corporate Governance Working Papers 12204, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. George Tridimas, 2010. "Constitutional judicial review and political insurance," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 81-101, February.
    11. Stefan Voigt, 2011. "Positive constitutional economics II—a survey of recent developments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 205-256, January.
    12. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Cristian Pop-Eleches & Andrei Shleifer, 2004. "Judicial Checks and Balances," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(2), pages 445-470, April.
    13. J. Mark Ramseyer & Eric B. Rasmusen, 1996. "Judicial Independence in Civil Law Regimes: Econometrics from Japan," Public Economics 9603001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Gretchen Helmke & Elena V. McLean, 2014. "Inducing independence: A strategic model of World Bank assistance and legal reform," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(4), pages 383-405, September.
    15. Lars P. Feld & Stefan Voigt, 2004. "Making Judges Independent – Some Proposals Regarding the Judiciary," CESifo Working Paper Series 1260, CESifo.
    16. Matthew C. Stephenson, 2003. "“When the Devil Turns … ”: The Political Foundations of Independent Judicial Review," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 59-89, January.
    17. Hayo, Bernd & Voigt, Stefan, 2016. "Explaining constitutional change: The case of judicial independence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Voigt, Stefan & Ebeling, Michael & Blume, Lorenz, 2007. "Improving credibility by delegating judicial competence--the case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 348-373, March.
    19. Lambais, Guilherme & Sigstad, Henrik, 2023. "Judicial subversion: The effects of political power on court outcomes," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    20. Cohen, Alon, 2014. "Independent judicial review: A blessing in disguise," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 209-220.

    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:bep:alecam:1009. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aleaaea.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.