IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v30y2014i1p104-137..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Evaluation of Cross-National Measures of Judicial Independence

Author

Listed:
  • Julio Ríos-Figueroa
  • Jeffrey K. Staton

Abstract

We provide a conceptual map of judicial independence and evaluate the content, construct, and convergent validity of 13 cross-national measures. There is evidence suggesting the validity of extant de facto measures, though their proper use requires attention to correlated patterns of measurement error and missing data. The evidence for the validity of extant de jure measures is weaker. Among other findings, we do not observe a strong and direct link between the rules that allegedly promote judicial independence and independent behavior. The results suggest that while the measurement of both de jure and de facto judicial independence requires a careful strategy for measuring latent concepts, the way that scholars should address this issue depends on whether they are targeting the incentives for independent behavior induced by formal rules or independent behavior itself. (JEL C19, C80, O43)

Suggested Citation

  • Julio Ríos-Figueroa & Jeffrey K. Staton, 2014. "An Evaluation of Cross-National Measures of Judicial Independence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 104-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:30:y:2014:i:1:p:104-137.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ews029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Emily Hencken Ritter & Courtenay R. Conrad, 2016. "Human rights treaties and mobilized dissent against the state," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 449-475, December.
    2. Christian Bjørnskov, 2015. "Constitutional property rights protection and economic growth: evidence from the post-communist transition," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 247-280, September.
    3. Douglas A. Irwin, 2020. "Adam Smith's “tolerable administration of justice” and the Wealth of Nations," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 67(3), pages 231-247, July.
    4. Joshua Holzer, 2020. "The effect of copartisan justice ministers on human rights in presidential democracies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Asif Efrat & Abraham L. Newman, 2018. "Divulging data: Domestic determinants of international information sharing," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 395-419, September.
    6. Jessica Maves Braithwaite & Joseph M Cox & Margaret Farry, 2022. "Tactics of resistance and post-conflict judicial independence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(6), pages 779-793, November.
    7. HULPUȘ Ioana & HULPUȘ Alexandru, 2023. "Sustainable Development Perspectives Of Romanian Justice System In The 2030 Agenda Context," Management of Sustainable Development, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 15(2), pages 87-93, December.
    8. Moshe Yanovskiy & Tim Ginker, 2017. "A proposal for a more objective measure of de facto constitutional constraints," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 311-320, December.
    9. Thomas Edward Flores & Gabriella Lloyd & Irfan Nooruddin, 2023. "When TED talks, does anyone listen? A new dataset on political leadership," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 169-199, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C19 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Other
    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
    • O43 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Institutions and Growth

    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:oup:jleorg:v:30:y:2014:i:1:p:104-137.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.