Gender differences in judicial decisions under incomplete information: Evidence from child support cases

Abstract

We study gender differences in child support rulings by judges in cases where defendants (fathers) may work in either the formal or informal sector. Our identification strategy exploits the random assignment of cases to courts presided over by individual judges. We find that female judges award child support amounts that are 0.18 standard deviations lower than those awarded by male judges. When focusing on defendants working in the informal sector (who constitute over 70% of the cases), the gap appears to stem from female judges’ greater skepticism toward what they perceive as inflated claims by plaintiffs, influencing their beliefs about defendants’ earnings. We further explore four potential mechanisms behind the gap that also include formal cases: bias against female plaintiffs, workplace masculinization, interactions with other judge characteristics, and differences in legal objectives. We do not find conclusive statistical support for these mechanisms.