IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-665537.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judicial Biases in Ottoman Istanbul: Islamic Justice and Its Compatibility with Modern Economic Life

Author

Listed:
  • Timur Kuran
  • Scott Lustig

Abstract

The transition to impersonal exchange and modern economic growth has depended on courts that enforce contracts efficiently. This article shows that Islamic courts of the Ottoman Empire exhibited biases that would have limited the expansion of trade in the eastern Mediterranean, particularly that between Muslims and non-Muslims. It thus explains why economic modernization in the Middle East involved the establishment of secular courts. In quantifying Ottoman judicial biases, the article discredits both the claim that these courts treated Christians and Jews fairly and the counterclaim that non-Muslims lost cases disproportionately. Biases against non-Muslims were in fact institutionalized. By the same token, non-Muslims did relatively well in adjudicated interfaith disputes, because they settled most conflicts out of court in anticipation of judicial biases. Islamic courts also appear to have favored state officials. The article undermines the Islamist claim that reinstituting Islamic law (sharia) would be economically beneficial.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/665537
    DOI: 10.1086/665537
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/665537
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/665537
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/665537?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. Avinash Dixit, 2003. "Trade Expansion and Contract Enforcement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(6), pages 1293-1317, December.
    2. Utpal Bhattacharya & Neal Galpin & Bruce Haslem, 2007. "The Home Court Advantage in International Corporate Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(4), pages 625-660.
    3. 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.
    4. Cosgel, Metin & Miceli, Thomas & Ahmed, Rasha, 2009. "Law, state power, and taxation in Islamic history," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 704-717, September.
    5. Greif,Avner, 2006. "Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671347.
    6. Moses Shayo & Asaf Zussman, 2011. "Judicial Ingroup Bias in the Shadow of Terrorism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(3), pages 1447-1484.
    7. Kessler, Daniel & Meites, Thomas & Miller, Geoffrey P, 1996. "Explaining Deviations from the Fifty-Percent Rule: A Multimodal Approach to the Selection of Cases for Litigation," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(1), pages 233-259, January.
    8. Özmucur, Süleyman & Pamuk, Şevket, 2002. "Real Wages And Standards Of Living In The Ottoman Empire, 1489–1914," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 62(2), pages 293-321, June.
    9. Siegelman, Peter & Donohue, John J, III, 1995. "The Selection of Employment Discrimination Disputes for Litigation: Using Business Cycle Effects to Test the Priest-Klein Hypothesis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 427-462, June.
    10. Feld, Lars P. & Voigt, Stefan, 2003. "Economic growth and judicial independence: cross-country evidence using a new set of indicators," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 497-527, September.
    11. F. Andrew Hanssen, 2004. "Is There a Politically Optimal Level of Judicial Independence?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 712-729, June.
    12. Helmke, Gretchen, 2002. "The Logic of Strategic Defection: Court–Executive Relations in Argentina Under Dictatorship and Democracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(2), pages 291-303, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Shavell, Steven, 1996. "Any Frequency of Plaintiff Victory at Trial Is Possible," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 493-501, 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. Niklas Potrafke, 2016. "Policies against human trafficking: the role of religion and political institutions," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 353-386, November.
    2. Sascha O. Becker & Jared Rubin & Ludger Woessmann, 2020. "Religion in Economic History: A Survey," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 480, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    3. Alessandra Cassar & Giovanna d'Adda & Pauline Grosjean, 2014. "Institutional Quality, Culture, and Norms of Cooperation: Evidence from Behavioral Field Experiments," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 821-863.
    4. Sascha O. Becker & Jared Rubin & Ludger Woessmann, 2023. "Religion and Growth," Monash Economics Working Papers 2023-15, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Becker, Sascha O. & Pfaff, Steven, 2022. "Church and State in historical political economy," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1409, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Koyama, Mark & Desierto, Desiree, 2020. "The Political Economy of Status Competition: Sumptuary Laws in Preindustrial Europe," CEPR Discussion Papers 14407, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Niklas Potrafke, 2013. "Democracy and countries with Muslim majorities: a reply and update," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 323-332, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Avner Seror, 2021. "Social Roles," Working Papers halshs-03234653, HAL.
    10. Martin Mendelski & Alexander Libman, 2014. "Demand for litigation in the absence of traditions of rule of law: an example of Ottoman and Habsburg legacies in Romania," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 177-206, June.
    11. Metin Coşgel & Hamdi Genç & Emre Özer & Sadullah Yıldırım, 2022. "Gender and Justice: The Status of Women in Ottoman Courts," Working papers 2022-03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    12. Timur Kuran & Jared Rubin, 2014. "The Financial Power of the Powerless: Socio-Economic Status and Interest Rates under Partial Rule of Law," Working Papers 14-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

    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. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2015. "Dismissal Laws in Australia: Reforms and Enforcement by Labour Courts," IZA Discussion Papers 9295, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Waldfogel, Joel, 1998. "Reconciling Asymmetric Information and Divergent Expectations Theories of Litigation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(2), pages 451-476, October.
    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. 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..
    5. Keith N. Hylton & Haizhen Lin, 2009. "Trial Selection Theory: A Unified Model," Working Papers 2009-06, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    6. Daniel P. Kessler & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2004. "Empirical Study of the Civil Justice System," NBER Working Papers 10825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Coşgel, Metin M. & Miceli, Thomas J. & Rubin, Jared, 2012. "The political economy of mass printing: Legitimacy and technological change in the Ottoman Empire," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 357-371.
    8. Berger, Helge & Neugart, Michael, 2011. "Labor courts, nomination bias, and unemployment in Germany," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 659-673.
    9. Anthony Niblett & Richard A. Posner & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "The Evolution of a Legal Rule," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(2), pages 325-358.
    10. David S. Kaplan & Joyce Sadka & Jorge Luis Silva‐Mendez, 2008. "Litigation and Settlement: New Evidence from Labor Courts in Mexico," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 309-350, June.
    11. Jeff Yates & Damon M. Cann & Brent D. Boyea, 2013. "Judicial Ideology and the Selection of Disputes for U.S. Supreme Court Adjudication," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 847-865, December.
    12. Rubin, Jared, 2010. "Bills of exchange, interest bans, and impersonal exchange in Islam and Christianity," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 213-227, April.
    13. Theodore Eisenberg & Michael Heise, 2009. "Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 121-155, January.
    14. Poitras, Marc & Frasca, Ralph, 2011. "A unified model of settlement and trial expenditures: The PriestâKlein model extended," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 188-195, September.
    15. Bodoh-Creed, Aaron L., 2019. "Endogenous institutional selection, building trust, and economic growth," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 169-176.
    16. Laura Beth Nielsen & Robert L. Nelson & Ryon Lancaster, 2010. "Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 175-201, June.
    17. Gonzalo Ruiz, 2014. "Understanding the Pro-plaintiff Bias in Consumer Protection Legal Processes," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 113-141, March.
    18. Haitian Lu & Hongbo Pan & Chenying Zhang, 2015. "Political Connectedness and Court Outcomes: Evidence from Chinese Corporate Lawsuits," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4).
    19. Joni Hersch, 2006. "Demand for a Jury Trial and the Selection of Cases for Trial," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 35(1), pages 119-142, January.
    20. 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.

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/665537. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.