One of the most striking changes in labor market policy of the past fifty years has comein the form of legislation to limit discrimination in the workplace based on race, gender,disability and age. If such measures are to be effective in ending discrimination, theyneed to be enforced. The latter is dependent on state and federal agencies such as theEqual Employment Opportunities Commission and ultimately the willingness of courts tofind in favor of plaintiffs. Courts also play an important role in the evolution of antidiscriminationpolicy since past decisions create future precedent. This paper askswhether the number of charges filed with government agencies depends on the method bywhich judges are selected. Popularly elected judges should be expected to have more proemployeepreferences (selection) and should move closer to employee preferences(incentives). This should result in fewer anti-discrimination charges being filed in statesthat appoint their judges. In line with this prediction, this paper uses data on the numberof employment discrimination charges filed for the period 1973-2000 and finds that statesthat appoint their judges have fewer anti-discrimination charges being filed.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Rafael LaPorta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silane & Christian Pop-Eleches & Andrei Shleifer, 2003.
"Judicial Checks and Balances,"
NBER Working Papers
9775, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
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.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Edward L. Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2002.
"Legal Origins,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 117(4), pages 1193-1229, November.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Edward L. Glaeser & Andrei Shleifer, 2001.
"Legal Origins,"
NBER Working Papers
8272, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)