IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ehsrev/v67y2014i2p517-534.html

The selection bias in court records: settlement and trial in eighteenth-century Ottoman Kastamonu

Author

Listed:
  • Metin M. Coşgel
  • Boğaç A. Ergene

Abstract

type="main"> Court records are used extensively in historical research. Preserved as summaries of daily legal proceedings, they give historians a unique opportunity to access information about the names, characteristics, and socio-economic status of individuals and the laws, local customs, and legal institutions of societies. Although researchers have noted various limitations of these records, the problem of selection bias has not been systematically studied. Since litigants would probably settle disputes in which one side is likely to be a clear winner, the cases that go to trial are more likely to be the difficult and uncertain ones that comprise a non-random subset of all disputes. This article presents a study of selection bias in Ottoman courts in the town of Kastamonu in northern Anatolia, from the late seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. Disputes are categorized by type and the distribution of court participants is studied according to composition, gender, and socio-religious status. A regression analysis is run to determine the factors affecting the likelihood of cases being tried in court. The results indicate that the cases that ended up in court were selected systematically. If the selection bias is ignored, research based on Ottoman court records may be seriously flawed in its ability to yield general conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Metin M. Coşgel & Boğaç A. Ergene, 2014. "The selection bias in court records: settlement and trial in eighteenth-century Ottoman Kastamonu," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 67(2), pages 517-534, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ehsrev:v:67:y:2014:i:2:p:517-534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1468-0289.12029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timur Kuran, 2004. "The Economic Ascent of the Middle East’s Religious Minorities: The Role of Islamic Legal Pluralism," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 475-515, June.
    2. Peter Thompson, 2005. "Selection and Firm Survival: Evidence from the Shipbuilding Industry, 1825-1914," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 26-36, February.
    3. Huybens, Elisabeth & Jordan, Astrid Luce & Pratap, Sangeeta, 2005. "Financial Market Discipline in Early-Twentieth-Century Mexico," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(3), pages 757-778, September.
    4. Lustick, Ian S., 1996. "History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 605-618, September.
    5. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    6. George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, 1984. "The Selection of Disputes for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 1-56, January.
    7. Timur Kuran & Scott Lustig, 2012. "Judicial Biases in Ottoman Istanbul: Islamic Justice and Its Compatibility with Modern Economic Life," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(3), pages 631-666.
    8. Brian Goff, 2006. "Supreme Court consensus and dissent: Estimating the role of the selection screen," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 367-383, 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. Metin Cosgel & Thomas J. Miceli & Emre Özer, 2023. "Resolving Lawsuits with a Decisive Oath: An Economic Analysis," Working papers 2023-03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2024.
    2. Coşgel, Metin M. & Miceli, Thomas J. & Özer, Emre, 2024. "Resolving lawsuits with a decisive oath: An economic analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).

    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. Pyle, William, 2006. "Resolutions, recoveries and relationships: The evolution of payment disputes in Central and Eastern Europe," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 317-337, June.
    2. J.J. Prescott & Kathryn E. Spier & Albert Yoon, 2014. "Trial and Settlement: A Study of High-Low Agreements," NBER Working Papers 19873, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jimeno Juan F. & Martínez-Matute Marta & Mora-Sanguinetti Juan S., 2020. "Employment protection legislation, labor courts, and effective firing costs," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Sciendo & Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-26, January.
    4. Madhav S. Aney, 2012. "Conflict with Quitting Rights: A Mechanism Design Approach," Working Papers 18-2012, Singapore Management University, School of Economics.
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:11:y:2007:i:1:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Becker, Sascha O. & Rubin, Jared & Woessmann, Ludger, 2020. "Religion in Economic History : A Survey," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1273, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    7. Dietmar Harhoff & Georg von Graevenitz & Stefan Wagner, 2016. "Conflict Resolution, Public Goods, and Patent Thickets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 704-721, March.
    8. Mark A. Lemley & Carl Shapiro, 2005. "Probabilistic Patents," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 75-98, Spring.
    9. Jean O. Lanjouw & Mark Schankerman, 1997. "Stylized Facts of Patent Litigation: Value, Scope and Ownership," NBER Working Papers 6297, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Anderson, Terry L & McChesney, Fred S, 1994. "Raid or Trade? An Economic Model of Indian-White Relations," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 39-74, April.
    11. Michael Hellwig & Kai Hüschelrath & Ulrich Laitenberger, 2018. "Settlements and Appeals in the European Commission’s Cartel Cases: An Empirical Assessment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 52(1), pages 55-84, February.
    12. Hyde, Charles E. & Williams, Philip L., 2002. "Necessary costs and expenditure incentives under the English rule," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 133-152, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Kirstein, Roland & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 1997. "Judicial detection skill and contractual compliance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 509-520, December.
    15. Steven Shavell, 2005. "Liability for Accidents," NBER Working Papers 11781, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Alan C. Marco, 2005. "The option value of patent litigation: Theory and evidence," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3-4), pages 323-351.
    17. Cédric Schneider, 2011. "The battle for patent rights in plant biotechnology: evidence from opposition fillings," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 565-579, October.
    18. Deepak Somaya & Christine A. McDaniel, 2012. "Tribunal Specialization and Institutional Targeting in Patent Enforcement," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 869-887, June.
    19. Mats Bergman & Malcolm Coate & Maria Jakobsson & Shawn Ulrick, 2010. "Comparing Merger Policies in the European Union and the United States," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(4), pages 305-331, June.
    20. Julian Schumacher & Christoph Trebesch & Henrik Enderlein, 2015. "What Explains Sovereign Debt Litigation?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3).
    21. Spurr, Stephen J. & Howze, Sandra, 2001. "The effect of care quality on medical malpractice litigation," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 491-513.

    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:bla:ehsrev:v:67:y:2014:i:2:p:517-534. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ehsukea.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.