解读巡回法院投票模式:一个社会互动框架

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 ECONOMICS Journal of Law Economics & Organization Pub Date : 2015-11-01 DOI:10.1093/JLEO/EWS042
J. Fischman
{"title":"解读巡回法院投票模式:一个社会互动框架","authors":"J. Fischman","doi":"10.1093/JLEO/EWS042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many empirical studies have found that circuit judges’ votes are significantly influenced by their panel colleagues. Although this influence is typically measured in terms of colleagues’ characteristics, this article argues that it is better understood as an effect of colleagues’ votes. Applying the latter interpretation, this article reanalyzes 11 prior studies of panel voting, as well as three novel data sets, and reveals the impact of colleagues’ votes to be strikingly uniform. In almost every type of case, each colleague’s vote increases the likelihood that a judge will vote in the same direction by roughly 40 percentage points. This result is consistent with a strong norm of consensus and can account for nearly all of the perceived impact of colleagues’ party, gender, and race. This finding raises questions about strategic and deliberative models of panel voting and helps clarify measurement issues regarding the relationship between judicial characteristics and voting behavior (JEL C31, K40).","PeriodicalId":47987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Economics & Organization","volume":"116 1","pages":"808-842"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"59","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpreting Circuit Court Voting Patterns: A Social Interactions Framework\",\"authors\":\"J. Fischman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JLEO/EWS042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many empirical studies have found that circuit judges’ votes are significantly influenced by their panel colleagues. Although this influence is typically measured in terms of colleagues’ characteristics, this article argues that it is better understood as an effect of colleagues’ votes. Applying the latter interpretation, this article reanalyzes 11 prior studies of panel voting, as well as three novel data sets, and reveals the impact of colleagues’ votes to be strikingly uniform. In almost every type of case, each colleague’s vote increases the likelihood that a judge will vote in the same direction by roughly 40 percentage points. This result is consistent with a strong norm of consensus and can account for nearly all of the perceived impact of colleagues’ party, gender, and race. This finding raises questions about strategic and deliberative models of panel voting and helps clarify measurement issues regarding the relationship between judicial characteristics and voting behavior (JEL C31, K40).\",\"PeriodicalId\":47987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Economics & Organization\",\"volume\":\"116 1\",\"pages\":\"808-842\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"59\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Economics & Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JLEO/EWS042\",\"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/EWS042","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: 59

摘要

许多实证研究发现,巡回法官的投票受到其小组同事的显著影响。虽然这种影响通常是根据同事的特点来衡量的,但本文认为,最好将其理解为同事投票的影响。采用后一种解释,本文重新分析了之前11项关于小组投票的研究,以及三个新的数据集,发现同事投票的影响是惊人的一致。在几乎所有类型的案件中,每一位同事的投票都会使法官投赞成票的可能性增加大约40个百分点。这一结果与强烈的共识规范是一致的,并且可以解释几乎所有同事的党派、性别和种族的感知影响。这一发现提出了关于小组投票的战略和审议模式的问题,并有助于澄清有关司法特征与投票行为之间关系的测量问题(JEL C31, K40)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Interpreting Circuit Court Voting Patterns: A Social Interactions Framework
Many empirical studies have found that circuit judges’ votes are significantly influenced by their panel colleagues. Although this influence is typically measured in terms of colleagues’ characteristics, this article argues that it is better understood as an effect of colleagues’ votes. Applying the latter interpretation, this article reanalyzes 11 prior studies of panel voting, as well as three novel data sets, and reveals the impact of colleagues’ votes to be strikingly uniform. In almost every type of case, each colleague’s vote increases the likelihood that a judge will vote in the same direction by roughly 40 percentage points. This result is consistent with a strong norm of consensus and can account for nearly all of the perceived impact of colleagues’ party, gender, and race. This finding raises questions about strategic and deliberative models of panel voting and helps clarify measurement issues regarding the relationship between judicial characteristics and voting behavior (JEL C31, 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
期刊最新文献
Organization of the State: Home Assignment and Bureaucrat Performance The Behavioral Effects of (Unenforceable) Contracts† Unintended Consequences of Products Liability: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Market* Is a Corruption Crackdown Really Good for the Economy? Firm-Level Evidence from China Voter Turnout and City Performance: Evidence from Italian Municipalities
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1