IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/anp/econom/v15y20143275_293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alston, Lee J. & Melo, Marcus Andre & Mueller, Bernardo & Pereira, Carlos, 2013. "Changing social contracts: Beliefs and dissipative inclusion in Brazil," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 48-65.
    2. Christina L. Boyd & Lee Epstein & Andrew D. Martin, 2010. "Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 389-411, April.
    3. Sean Farhang, 2004. "Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation Under Panel Decision Making," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 299-330, October.
    4. George, Tracey E. & Epstein, Lee, 1992. "On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 323-337, June.
    5. Ferejohn, John A. & Weingast, Barry R., 1992. "A positive theory of statutory interpretation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 263-279, June.
    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. 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.
    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.

    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. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    2. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    3. Thomas J. Miles, 2012. "Racial Disparities in Wiretap Applications before Federal Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 419-458.
    4. Tilko Swalve, 2022. "Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams? Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 223-249, March.
    5. Samantha Bielen & Wim Marneffe & Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl, 2018. "The Duration of Judicial Deliberation: Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 174(2), pages 303-333, June.
    6. Robert S. Erikson, 2022. "Appellate court assignments as a natural experiment: Gender panel effects in sex discrimination cases," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 423-446, June.
    7. Claudine Desrieux & Romain Espinosa, 2019. "Case selection and judicial decision-making: evidence from French labor courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 57-88, February.
    8. Crow, Matthew S. & Goulette, Natalie, 2022. "Judicial diversity and sentencing disparity across U.S. District Courts," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    9. Chen, Daniel L. & Sethi, Jasmin, 2016. "Insiders, Outsiders, and Involuntary Unemployment: Sexual Harrassment Exacerbates Gender Inequality," IAST Working Papers 16-44, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    10. Yehonatan Givati & Israel Rosenberg, 2020. "How Would Judges Compose Judicial Panels? Theory and Evidence from the Supreme Court of Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 317-341, June.
    11. Bourreau-Dubois, Cécile & Doriat-Duban, Myriam & Jeandidier, Bruno & Ray, Jean-Claude, 2020. "Does gender diversity in panels of judges matter? Evidence from French child support cases," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2020. "Judicial arbitration of unfair dismissal cases: The role of peer effects," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Li-Ju Chen, 2021. "Female policymakers and educational expenditures: cross-country evidence," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 129-155, February.
    14. Charles M. Cameron & Lewis A. Kornhauser, 2017. "Rational choice attitudinalism?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 535-554, June.
    15. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, 2017. "Understanding the Time to Court Case Resolution: A Competing Risks Analysis Using Belgian Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 6450, CESifo.
    16. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    17. Christoph Engel, 2021. "Lucky You: Your Case is Heard by a Seasoned Panel – Panel Effects in the German Constitutional Court," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2021_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised 01 Jun 2022.
    18. Joan Josep Vallbé & Carmen Ramírez‐Folch, 2023. "The effect of judges' gender on decisions regarding intimate‐partner violence," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 641-668, September.
    19. Sean Farhang & Jonathan P. Kastellec & Gregory J. Wawro, 2015. "The Politics of Opinion Assignment and Authorship on the US Court of Appeals: Evidence from Sexual Harassment Cases," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 59-85.
    20. Roberto Asmat & Lajos Kossuth, 2023. "Gender Differences in Judicial Decisions under Incomplete Information: Evidence from Child Support Cases," Working Papers wp2023_2303, CEMFI.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Supreme Court; Ideal points; Political institutions; Law and economics;
    All these 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.

    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: 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.