IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ilewps/4.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Judicial Independence in the EU – A Puzzle

Author

Listed:
  • Gutmann, Jerg
  • Voigt, Stefan

Abstract

Based on data from the EU Justice Scoreboard, we identify a puzzle: National levels of judicial independence (as perceived by the citizens of EU member states) are negatively associated with the presence of formal legislation usually considered as conducive to judicial independence. We try to resolve this puzzle based on political economy explanations and specificities of legal systems, but to no avail. We then ask whether cultural traits can help to put together the puzzle. And indeed, countries with high levels of generalized trust (and to a lesser extent individualistic countries) exhibit increased levels of de facto judicial independence and, at the same time, reduced levels of de jure judicial independence. The combination of these two effects can explain why judicial reforms that should be conducive to an independent judiciary may seem to have adverse consequences. We conclude that cultural traits are of fundamental importance for the quality of formal institutions, even in societies as highly developed as the EU member states.

Suggested Citation

  • Gutmann, Jerg & Voigt, Stefan, 2017. "Judicial Independence in the EU – A Puzzle," ILE Working Paper Series 4, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ilewps:4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/156756/1/ile-wp-2017-4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Aghion & Yann Algan & Pierre Cahuc & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "Regulation and Distrust," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 1015-1049.
    2. Andrei Shleifer & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Rafael La Porta, 2008. "The Economic Consequences of Legal Origins," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(2), pages 285-332, June.
    3. Anne van Aaken & Lars P. Feld & Stefan Voigt, 2010. "Do Independent Prosecutors Deter Political Corruption? An Empirical Evaluation across Seventy-eight Countries," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 204-244.
    4. Christian Bjørnskov & Pierre-Guillaume Méon, 2013. "Is trust the missing root of institutions, education, and development?," Post-Print CEB, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles, vol. 157(3-4), pages 641-669, December.
    5. Jerg Gutmann & Stefan Voigt, 2019. "The Independence of Prosecutors and Government Accountability," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Voigt, Stefan & Gutmann, Jerg & Feld, Lars P., 2015. "Economic growth and judicial independence, a dozen years on: Cross-country evidence using an updated Set of indicators," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 197-211.
    7. Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Gerard Roland, 2017. "Culture, Institutions, and the Wealth of Nations," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(3), pages 402-416, July.
    8. Raymond Hicks & Dustin Tingley, 2011. "Causal mediation analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(4), pages 605-619, December.
    9. Paolo Pinotti, 2012. "Trust, Regulation and Market Failures," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(3), pages 650-658, August.
    10. Pitlik, Hans & Rode, Martin, 2017. "Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 575-598, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Hans Pitlik & Ludek Kouba, 2015. "Does social distrust always lead to a stronger support for government intervention?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 355-377, June.
    13. Hayo, Bernd & Voigt, Stefan, 2007. "Explaining de facto judicial independence," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 269-290, September.
    14. Bjørnskov, Christian, 2006. "The Determinants of Trust," Ratio Working Papers 86, The Ratio Institute.
    15. Tommaso Nannicini & Andrea Stella & Guido Tabellini & Ugo Troiano, 2013. "Social Capital and Political Accountability," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 222-250, May.
    16. Gretchen Helmke & Elena V. McLean, 2014. "Inducing independence: A strategic model of World Bank assistance and legal reform," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(4), pages 383-405, September.
    17. Anne Van Aaken & Eli Salzberger & Stefan Voigt, 2004. "The Prosecution of Public Figures and the Separation of Powers. Confusion within the Executive Branch -- A Conceptual Framework," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 261-280, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Christian Bjørnskov & Stefan Voigt, 2014. "Constitutional verbosity and social trust," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 91-112, October.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4km7l02j139aj8hl7kcccmqk9s is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Voigt, Stefan, 2020. "Mind the Gap – Analyzing the Divergence between Constitutional Text and Constitutional Reality," ILE Working Paper Series 32, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    2. Jacek LEWKOWICZ & Katarzyna METELSKA-SZANIAWSKA, 2021. "De Jure and De Facto Institutions: Implications for Law and for Economics," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 6, pages 758-776.
    3. Jerg Gutmann & Stefan Voigt, 2023. "Militant constitutionalism: a promising concept to make constitutional backsliding less likely?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 195(3), pages 377-404, June.
    4. Ramos Maqueda,Manuel & Chen,Daniel Li, 2021. "The Role of Justice in Development : The Data Revolution," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9720, The World Bank.
    5. Hayo, Bernd & Voigt, Stefan, 2019. "The long-term relationship between de jure and de facto judicial independence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Hayo, Bernd & Voigt, Stefan, 2023. "Judicial independence: Why does de facto diverge from de jure?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    7. Hayo, Bernd & Voigt, Stefan, 2018. "The Puzzling Long-Term Relationship Between De Jure and De Facto Judicial Independence," ILE Working Paper Series 18, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    8. Jan Fałkowski & Jacek Lewkowicz, 2022. "In practice or just on paper? Some insights on using alphabetical rule to assign judges to cases," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 405-430, 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. Brandon N. Cline & Claudia R. Williamson, 2020. "Trust, regulation, and contracting institutions," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 26(4), pages 859-895, September.
    2. Niclas Berggren & Christian Bjørnskov, 2017. "The Market‐Promoting and Market‐Preserving Role of Social Trust in Reforms of Policies and Institutions," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(1), pages 3-25, July.
    3. Kee Hoon Chung & Hyeok Yong Kwon, 2021. "Trust and the protection of property rights: evidence from global regions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 189(3), pages 493-513, December.
    4. Niclas Berggren & Jerg Gutmann, 2020. "Securing personal freedom through institutions: the role of electoral democracy and judicial independence," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 165-186, April.
    5. Cline, Brandon N. & Williamson, Claudia R. & Xiong, Haoyang, 2021. "Culture and the regulation of insider trading across countries," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. Davis, Lewis S. & Williamson, Claudia R., 2016. "Culture and the regulation of entry," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 1055-1083.
    7. Lewis Davis & Claudia R. Williamson, 2018. "Open Borders for Business? Causes and Consequences of the Regulation of Foreign Entry," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(2), pages 508-536, October.
    8. Pitlik, Hans & Rode, Martin, 2017. "Individualistic values, institutional trust, and interventionist attitudes," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 575-598, September.
    9. Niclas Berggren & Christian Bjørnskov & David Lipka, 2015. "Legitimacy and the cost of government," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 307-328, March.
    10. Jerg Gutmann & Stefan Voigt, 2023. "Militant constitutionalism: a promising concept to make constitutional backsliding less likely?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 195(3), pages 377-404, June.
    11. Claudia R. Williamson, 2021. "Culture, democracy and regulation," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 98-126, March.
    12. Brandon N. Cline & Claudia R. Williamson & Haoyang Xiong, 2022. "Trust, regulation, and market efficiency," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 190(3), pages 427-456, March.
    13. Hans Pitlik & Martin Rode, 2021. "Radical Distrust: Are Economic Policy Attitudes Tempered by Social Trust?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 485-506, December.
    14. Jacek LEWKOWICZ & Katarzyna METELSKA-SZANIAWSKA, 2021. "De Jure and De Facto Institutions: Implications for Law and for Economics," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 6, pages 758-776.
    15. Pál Czeglédi, 2022. "Why does the confidence in companies, but not the confidence in the government, affect the demand for regulation differently across countries?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 211-231, December.
    16. Jerg Gutmann & Katarzyna Metelska-Szaniawska & Stefan Voigt, 2024. "The comparative constitutional compliance database," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 95-115, January.
    17. Markus Leibrecht & Hans Pitlik, 2014. "Generalised Trust, Institutional and Political Constraints on the Executive and Deregulation of Markets," WIFO Working Papers 481, WIFO.
    18. Justin Callais & Andrew T. Young, 2021. "Does constitutional entrenchment matter for economic freedom?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 808-830, October.
    19. Matthias Bürker & G. Alfredo Minerva, 2014. "Civic capital and the size distribution of plants: short-run dynamics and long-run equilibrium," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 797-847.
    20. Nguenda Anya, Saturnin Bertrand & Nzepang, Fabrice, 2022. "The role of the separation of democratic powers on structural transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 46(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    judicial independence; EU Justice Scoreboard; informal institutions; culture;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General
    • O40 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - General
    • P51 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Comparative Economic Systems - - - Comparative Analysis of Economic Systems

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:ilewps:4. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/irhamde.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.