IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/copoec/v33y2022i3d10.1007_s10602-021-09352-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition

Author

Listed:
  • Monika Stachowiak-Kudła

    (Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Management and Finance
    Warsaw University of Technology)

  • Janusz Kudła

    (University of Warsaw)

Abstract

Based on the theory of path dependence, we show that legal tradition affects the administrative court’s rulings. It also complements the two other reasons for diversified verdicts: the experience of the judges and courts (specialization) and preference (bias) for one of the parties. This effect is persistent even if the verdicts are controversial and result in serious consequences for a party and when the penalty paid by the complainant is perceived as excessive but fulfilling the strict rules of law. We prove that judicial decision making is a function of path dependency stemming from a legal tradition of the court. To confirm this, logistic regression is applied to a sample of 337 erroneous excise duty documentation cases of heating oil sales from all sixteen provincial administrative courts in Poland. Increasing the specialization of judges and having them exchange experiences may be a remedy for the unjustified adjudication differences.

Suggested Citation

  • Monika Stachowiak-Kudła & Janusz Kudła, 2022. "Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 301-325, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:copoec:v:33:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10602-021-09352-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10602-021-09352-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10602-021-09352-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10602-021-09352-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tom S. Clark & Benjamin G. Engst & Jeffrey K. Staton, 2018. "Estimating the Effect of Leisure on Judicial Performance," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(2), pages 349-390.
    2. Grosfeld, Irena & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2015. "Cultural vs. economic legacies of empires: Evidence from the partition of Poland," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 55-75.
    3. Daniel Klerman & Yoon-Ho Alex Lee, 2014. "Inferences from Litigated Cases," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 209-248.
    4. 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.
    5. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    6. Pierre Bentata & Yolande Hiriart, 2015. "Biased Judges: Evidence from French Environmental Cases," Working Papers 2015-17, CRESE.
    7. Sascha O. Becker & Katrin Boeckh & Christa Hainz & Ludger Woessmann, 2016. "The Empire Is Dead, Long Live the Empire! Long‐Run Persistence of Trust and Corruption in the Bureaucracy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(590), pages 40-74, February.
    8. Angela Huyue Zhang & Jingchen Liu & Nuno Garoupa, 2018. "Judging In Europe: Do Legal Traditions Matter?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 144-178.
    9. Vincy Fon & Francesco Parisi & Ben Depoorter, 2005. "Litigation, Judicial Path-Dependence, and Legal Change," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 43-56, July.
    10. Keren Weinshall & Udi Sommer & Ya'acov Ritov, 2018. "Ideological influences on governance and regulation: The comparative case of supreme courts," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 334-352, September.
    11. Eric Helland & Daniel Klerman & Yoon-Ho Alex Lee, 2018. "Maybe there Is No Bias in the Selection of Disputes for Litigation," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 174(1), pages 143-170, March.
    12. Bukowski, Paweł, 2019. "How history matters for student performance. lessons from the Partitions of Poland," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 136-175.
    13. Paresh Kumar Narayan & Russell Smyth, 2007. "What Explains Dissent on the High Court of Australia? An Empirical Assessment Using a Cointegration and Error Correction Approach," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 401-425, July.
    14. Kong-Pin Chen & Kuo-Chang Huang & Chang-Ching Lin, 2015. "Party Capability versus Court Preference: Why Do the "Haves" Come Out Ahead?—An Empirical Lesson from the Taiwan Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 93-126.
    15. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2015. "Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 7-33.
    16. Marciano, Alain & Khalil, Elias L., 2012. "Optimization, path dependence and the law: Can judges promote efficiency?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 72-82.
    17. Vadim Volkov, 2016. "Legal and Extralegal Origins of Sentencing Disparities: Evidence from Russia's Criminal Courts," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 637-665, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Keren Weinshall & Lee Epstein, 2020. "Developing High‐Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 416-434, June.
    2. Bartlomiej Biga & Michal Mozdzen, 2021. "Is it Darker in a Larger Courtroom? On the Relationship Between the Size of Regional Court and Exercising the Right to Public Information in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 1189-1203.
    3. Yun-chien Chang & Su-hao Tu, 2020. "Two-way selection between flat-fee attorneys and litigants: theoretical and empirical analyses," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 131-164, February.
    4. Soto-Oñate, David & Torrens, Gustavo, 2023. "Institutional-cultural coherence and economic development: The case of the Spanish regions," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 41-89.
    5. Krishnan, C.N.V. & Solomon, Steven Davidoff & Thomas, Randall S., 2020. "How do legal standards matter? An empirical study of special litigation committees," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Vitola, Alise & Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2018. "Diversity & empire: Baltic Germans & comparative development," Discussion Papers 2018/6, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    7. Miceli, Thomas J., 2010. "Legal change and the social value of lawsuits," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 203-208, September.
    8. Polugodina, Maria & Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2020. "East Prussia 2.0: Persistent regions, rising nations," Discussion Papers 2020/8, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    9. Matej Avbelj & Janez Šušteršič, 2019. "Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 2, pages 129-159, June.
    10. Álvaro Bustos & Pablo Bravo-Hurtado & Antonio Aninat, 2020. "The (Other) Effects of Restricting Access to Higher Courts: The Case of Wrongful Terminations in Labor Contracts in Chile," Documentos de Trabajo 534, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    11. Bau, Natalie, 2019. "Can Policy Change Culture? Government Pension Plans and Traditional Kinship Practices," CEPR Discussion Papers 13486, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Bukowski, Paweł, 2019. "How history matters for student performance. lessons from the Partitions of Poland," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 136-175.
    13. Bukowski, Paweł, 2018. "How history matters for student performance: lessons from the Partitions of Poland," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90643, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Alberto Chong & Mark Gradstein, 2019. "Institutional persistence, income inequality, and individual attitudes," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 17(3), pages 401-413, September.
    15. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2017. "Judicial decision making under changing legal standards: The case of dismissal arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 108-126.
    16. Andreas Backhaus, 2019. "Fading Legacies: Human Capital in the Aftermath of the Partitions of Poland," Working Papers 0150, European Historical Economics Society (EHES).
    17. Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe & Saraceno, Margherita, 2020. "Fee shifting and accuracy in adjudication," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    18. Lee, Yoon-Ho Alex & Klerman, Daniel, 2016. "The Priest-Klein hypotheses: Proofs and generality," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 59-76.
    19. Gerhard Wegner, 2019. "Entrepreneurship in autocratic regimes – how neo-patrimonialism constrains innovation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1507-1529, November.
    20. Harka, Elona & Nunziata, Luca & Rocco, Lorenzo, 2021. "The Alabaster Ceiling: The Gender Legacy of the Papal States," IZA Discussion Papers 14719, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:kap:copoec:v:33:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10602-021-09352-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.