Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Inferring individual preferences from group decisions: judicial preference variation and aggregation in asylum appeals


Hangartner, Dominik; Lauderdale, Benjamin E; Spirig, Judith (2019). Inferring individual preferences from group decisions: judicial preference variation and aggregation in asylum appeals. online: online.

Abstract

While many democracies nominate partisan judges, empirical research has struggled to assess whether such judges adhere to Aristotle’s maxim that like cases should be treated alike. One fundamental problem hindering empirical research is that many courts only report decisions of panels, not the opinions of individual judges. We propose a methodology that tests which of several decision-theoretic models of group decision-making best fit the panel decisions, infers judges’ individual preferences, and quantifies the proportion of cases that would be decided differently if the courts’ consensus were consistently applied (an inconsistency rate). Applying this methodology to the Swiss asylum appeal process, where cases are assigned conditionally at random and have a common, unidimensional structure, we find a persistent inconsistency rate of about 5% due to variation in decision-making between judges, and that judges’ estimated preferences are correlated with party membership in expected ways.

Abstract

While many democracies nominate partisan judges, empirical research has struggled to assess whether such judges adhere to Aristotle’s maxim that like cases should be treated alike. One fundamental problem hindering empirical research is that many courts only report decisions of panels, not the opinions of individual judges. We propose a methodology that tests which of several decision-theoretic models of group decision-making best fit the panel decisions, infers judges’ individual preferences, and quantifies the proportion of cases that would be decided differently if the courts’ consensus were consistently applied (an inconsistency rate). Applying this methodology to the Swiss asylum appeal process, where cases are assigned conditionally at random and have a common, unidimensional structure, we find a persistent inconsistency rate of about 5% due to variation in decision-making between judges, and that judges’ estimated preferences are correlated with party membership in expected ways.

Statistics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 13 Oct 2021
1 download since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Published Research Report
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Political Science
Dewey Decimal Classification:320 Political science
Language:English
Date:24 June 2019
Deposited On:13 Oct 2021 16:32
Last Modified:13 Oct 2021 16:32
Publisher:online
OA Status:Green
Official URL:https://benjaminlauderdale.net/files/papers/SwissAsylumPanels.pdf

Download

Green Open Access

Download PDF  'Inferring individual preferences from group decisions: judicial preference variation and aggregation in asylum appeals'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Language: English
Filetype: PDF
Size: 404kB