超越政治:英国上诉委员会的能力与意识形态

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Matias Iaryczower, Gabriel Katz
{"title":"超越政治:英国上诉委员会的能力与意识形态","authors":"Matias Iaryczower, Gabriel Katz","doi":"10.1093/JLEO/EWV009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We argue that a model of judicial behavior that accounts for differences in justices’ ability and ideology provides a fruitful alternative for the empirical analysis of judicial decision-making around the world, and illustrate this by focusing on the case of the United Kingdom. We show that the model explains the decisions of the Lords of Appeal remarkably well, and improves the fit of a purely ideological model. We use our estimates to tackle previously unaddressed questions about the relative role of justices’ preferences and ability in the Appellate Committee. (JEL C11, C13, D71, K40.)","PeriodicalId":47987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Economics & Organization","volume":"5 1","pages":"61-93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"More than Politics: Ability and Ideology in the British Appellate Committee\",\"authors\":\"Matias Iaryczower, Gabriel Katz\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JLEO/EWV009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We argue that a model of judicial behavior that accounts for differences in justices’ ability and ideology provides a fruitful alternative for the empirical analysis of judicial decision-making around the world, and illustrate this by focusing on the case of the United Kingdom. We show that the model explains the decisions of the Lords of Appeal remarkably well, and improves the fit of a purely ideological model. We use our estimates to tackle previously unaddressed questions about the relative role of justices’ preferences and ability in the Appellate Committee. (JEL C11, C13, D71, K40.)\",\"PeriodicalId\":47987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Economics & Organization\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"61-93\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Economics & Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLEO/EWV009\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Economics & Organization","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLEO/EWV009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

我们认为,考虑到法官能力和意识形态差异的司法行为模型为世界各地司法决策的实证分析提供了一个富有成效的选择,并通过关注英国的案例来说明这一点。我们表明,该模型非常好地解释了上诉法官的决定,并提高了纯意识形态模型的拟合性。我们用我们的估计来解决以前未解决的问题,即法官的偏好和能力在上诉委员会中的相对作用。(凝胶c11, c13, d71, k40 .)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
More than Politics: Ability and Ideology in the British Appellate Committee
We argue that a model of judicial behavior that accounts for differences in justices’ ability and ideology provides a fruitful alternative for the empirical analysis of judicial decision-making around the world, and illustrate this by focusing on the case of the United Kingdom. We show that the model explains the decisions of the Lords of Appeal remarkably well, and improves the fit of a purely ideological model. We use our estimates to tackle previously unaddressed questions about the relative role of justices’ preferences and ability in the Appellate Committee. (JEL C11, C13, D71, K40.)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信