Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:01:15.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bias, insecurity and the level of trust in the judiciary: the case of Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2018

LUCIANA L. YEUNG
LUCIANA L. YEUNG*
Affiliation:
Insper, São Paulo, Brazil
*
*Email: LucianaY@insper.edu.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are judges biased in their decisions? If so, what are the consequences? We propose a conceptual model that estimates the effects of judicial bias and insecurity on the trustworthiness of courts. Additionally, we empirically assess evidence of bias among justices at the Superior Court (STJ). For this purpose, we analyzed 1,412 decisions from 1998 to 2008. Results do not show consistent strong bias toward either the debtor or the creditor. We test a second hypothesis: that Brazilian courts are unpredictable, creating high levels of judicial insecurity. Empirical results corroborate this idea. Finally, we relate the empirical results found in this paper with the conceptual model initially developed, and provide evidence measured by a nationwide survey on the trustworthiness of the judiciary. As our model predicted, preliminary results indicate that citizens have lower levels of trust in the judicial system if courts and judges are biased and unpredictable.

Type
Symposium on the Empirics of Judicial Institutions
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 163 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Arida, P., Bacha, E. L., and Lara-Rezende, A. (2005). Credit, Interests, and Jurisdictional Uncertainty: Conjectures on the Case of Brazil. In Giavazzi, F., Goldfajn, I., and Herrera, S. (eds), Inflation Targeting, Debt, and the Brazilian Experience, 1999 to 2003 (pp. 265–93). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ballard, M. (1999). The Clash between Local Courts and Global Economics: The Politics of Judicial Reform in Brazil. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 17 (2), 230–76.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. L., Epstein, L., and Martin, A. D. (2010). Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54 (2), 389–411.Google Scholar
Buscaglia, E., and Ulen, T. (1997). A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficiency of the Judicial Sector in Latin America. International Review of Law and Economics, 17 (2), 272–91.Google Scholar
Calabresi, G. (2016). The Future of Law and Economics: Essays in Reform and Recollection. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Casillas, C. J., Enns, P. K., and Wohlfarth, P. C. (2011). How Public Opinion Constrains the US Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 55 (1), 74–88.Google Scholar
Castelar Pinheiro, A. (2005). Segurança Jurídica, Crescimento e Exportações. Texto para Discussão No. 1125. Rio de Janeiro: IPEA.Google Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.Google Scholar
Cooter, R. D. (1983). The Objectives of Private and Public Judges. Public Choice, 41, 107–32.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., Landes, W. M., and Posner, R. A. (2013). The Behavior of Federal Judges. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., and Martin, A. D. (2010). Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court? Possibly Yes (But We're Not Sure Why). Journal of Constitutional Law, 12 (2), 263–81.Google Scholar
Epstein, L., and Kobylka, J. F. (1992). The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty (Thornton H. Brooks Series in American Law & Society). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Farhang, S., and Wawro, G. (2004). Institutional Dynamics on the US Court of Appeals: Minority Representation under Panel Decision Making. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 20 (2), 299–330.Google Scholar
Garoupa, N. and Pargendler, M. (2014). A Law and Economics Perspective on Legal Families. European Journal of Legal Studies, 7 (2), 33.Google Scholar
Gibler, D. M., and Randazzo, K. A. (2011). Testing the Effects of Independent Judiciaries on the Likelihood of Democratic Backsliding. American Journal of Political Science, 55 (3), 696–709.Google Scholar
Giles, M. W., Blackstone, B., and Vining, R. L. (2008). The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making. Journal of Politics, 70 (2), 293–306.Google Scholar
Gonçalves, F. M., Holland, M., and Spacov, A. (2007). Can Jurisdictional Uncertainty and Capital Controls Explain the High Level of Real Interest Rates in Brazil? Evidence from Panel Data. Revista Brasileira de Economia, 61 (1), 49–75.Google Scholar
Hammergren, L. (2007). Envisioning Reform – Improving Judicial Performance in Latin America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Keefer, P. (2007). Beyond Legal Origin and Checks and Balances: Political Credibility, Citizen Information and Financial Sector Development. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper WPS 4154.Google Scholar
King, K. L., and Greening, M. (2007). Gender Justice or Just Gender? The Role of Gender in Sexual Assault Decisions at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Social Science Quarterly, 88 (5), 1049–71.Google Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopes‐de‐Silanes, F., and Schleifer, A.(2008). Economic Consequences of Legal Origins. Journal of Economic Literature, 46 (2), 285–332.Google Scholar
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Schleifer, A., and Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and Finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106 (6), 1113–55.Google Scholar
Manne, H. G. (1965). Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control, Journal of Political Economy, 73 (2), 110–20.Google Scholar
Peltzman, S. (2005). Aaron Director's Influence on Antitrust Policy, Journal of Law and Economics, 48 (2), 313–30.Google Scholar
Peresie, J. L. (2005). Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decision-making in the Federal Appellate Courts, Yale Law Journal, 114 (7), 1759–90.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. (2003[1973]). Economic Analysis of Law (6th edn). New York: Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. (2008). How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. H. (1968). Public Law and Judicial Behavior. Journal of Politics, 30 (2), 480–509.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, I. C. (2006). Robin Hood vs. King John Redistribution: How Local Judges Decide Cases in Brazil? Paper presented in the European School on New Institutional Economics. Corsega, Spain.Google Scholar
Sherwood, R. M. (2004). Judicial Performance: Its Economic Impact in Seven Countries. Paper presented in the 8th Annual Conference da International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE), Tucson, USA. Available at: https://www.sioe.org/conference/past (accessed 20 November 2017).Google Scholar
Tate, C. N. (1983). The Methodology of Judicial Behavior Research: A Review and Critique. Political Behavior, 5 (1), 51–82.Google Scholar
Weder, B. (1995). Legal Systems and Economic Performance: The Empirical Evidence. In Rowat, M., Malik, W. H., and Dakolias, M. (eds) Judicial Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean – Proceedings of a World Bank Conference. World Bank Technical Paper Number 280. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
World Bank (2004). Brazil Making Justice Count – Measuring and Improving Judicial Performance in Brazil. Report No. 32789-BR, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit, Latin America and the Caribbean Region.Google Scholar