IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/anp/econom/v15y20143275_293.html

How judges think in the Brazilian Supreme Court: Estimating ideal points and identifying dimensions

Author

Listed:
  • Pedro Fernando Almeida Nery Ferreira

    (Universidade de Brasília, Brazil)

  • Bernardo Mueller

    (Universidade de Brasília, Brazil)

Abstract

We use NOMINATE (Nominal Three Step Estimation) (Poole and Rosenthal, 1983, 1997) to estimate ideal points for all Supreme Court Justices in Brazil from 2002 to 2012. Based on these estimated preferences we identify the nature of the two main dimensions along which disagreements tend to occur in this Court. These estimates correctly predict over 95% of the votes on constitutional review cases in each of the compositions of the Court which we analyze. The main contribution of the paper is to identify that the main dimension along which preferences align in the Brazilian Supreme Court is for and against the economic interest of the Executive. This is significantly different than the conservative-liberal polarization of the US Supreme Court. Our estimates show that along this dimension the composition of the Court has been clearly favorable to the Executive's economic interests, providing the setting in which the dramatic transformation in institutions and policies that the country has undergone in last two decades could take place.

Suggested Citation

  • Pedro Fernando Almeida Nery Ferreira & Bernardo Mueller, 2014. "How judges think in the Brazilian Supreme Court: Estimating ideal points and identifying dimensions," Economia, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics], vol. 15(3), pages 275-293.
    • Handle: RePEc:anp:econom:v:15:y:2014:3:275_293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758014000253
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1517758014000253/1-s2.0-S1517758014000253-main.pdf?_tid=5dffadae-a7b3-11e4-bb43-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1422535134_69c7350f11743538aa7d8b707373c002
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eduardo da Silva Mattos, 2025. "The Judiciary as a fiscal policy tool? Budget stress and judicial decision-making in Brazil," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 205(3), pages 563-588, December.
    2. Spruk, Rok & Kovac, Mitja, 2019. "Replicating and extending Martin-Quinn scores," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Felipe de Mendonça Lopes, 2019. "Dissent Aversion and Sequential Voting in the Brazilian Supreme Court," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 933-954, December.
    4. Felipe Lopes & Paulo Furquim de Azevedo, 2016. "Government Appointment Discretion and Judicial Independence: preference and opportunistic effects on Brazilian Courts," Business and Economics Working Papers 236, Unidade de Negocios e Economia, Insper.
    5. Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Nuno Garoupa & Marian Gili, 2020. "Estimating Judicial Ideal Points in Bi‐Dimensional Courts: Evidence from Catalonia," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 383-415, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • H77 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Intergovernmental Relations; Federalism
    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)
    • K39 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Other

    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:anp:econom:v:15:y:2014:3:275_293. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Rodrigo Zadra Armond (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/anpecea.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.