Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
We use NOMINATE (Nominal ThreeStep Estimation) Rosenthal, 1983, 1997) to estimate ideal points for all Supreme Court Justices in Brazil from 2002 to 2012. Based on these estimated preferences we identify the nature of the two main dimensions along which disagreements tend to occur in this Court. These estimates correctly predict over 95% of the votes on constitutional review cases in each of the compositions of the Court which we analyze. The main contribution of the paper is to identify that the main dimension along which preferences align in the Brazilian Supreme Court is for and against the economic interest of the Executive. This is significantly different than the conservative-liberal polarization of the US Supreme Court. Our estimates show that along this dimension the composition of the Court has been clearly favorable to the Executive's economic interests, providing the setting in which the dramatic transformation in institutions and policies that the country has undergone in last two decades could take place. ResumoEste trabalho usa o procedimento NOMINATE (Nominal Three-Step Estimation) (Poole and Rosenthal, 1983, 1997) para estimar pontos ideais que representem as preferências de todos os ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal no Brasil de 2002 a 2012. Estas preferências estimadas são usadas para identificar a natureza das duas principais dimensões ao longo das quais discordâncias tendem a se manifestar neste tribunal. Estas estimativas preveem corretamente mais de 95% dos votos em casos de revisão Constitucional (ADINs). O trabalho mostra que a principal dimensão na qual se alinham as preferências diz respeito a questões de interesse econômico do Executivo, refletindo a estrutura das instituições políticas no Brasil. Isto é significativamente diferente da polarização conservador-liberal que se observa na Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos. Os resultados mostram que ao longo desta dimensão ଝ Bernardo Mueller acknowledges funding from the CNPq. a Corte tem sido claramente favorável aos interesses econômicos do Executivo, criando condições propícias para a dramática transformação em instituições e políticas pela qual o Brasil tem passado nas últimas duas décadas.
We use NOMINATE (Nominal ThreeStep Estimation) Rosenthal, 1983, 1997) to estimate ideal points for all Supreme Court Justices in Brazil from 2002 to 2012. Based on these estimated preferences we identify the nature of the two main dimensions along which disagreements tend to occur in this Court. These estimates correctly predict over 95% of the votes on constitutional review cases in each of the compositions of the Court which we analyze. The main contribution of the paper is to identify that the main dimension along which preferences align in the Brazilian Supreme Court is for and against the economic interest of the Executive. This is significantly different than the conservative-liberal polarization of the US Supreme Court. Our estimates show that along this dimension the composition of the Court has been clearly favorable to the Executive's economic interests, providing the setting in which the dramatic transformation in institutions and policies that the country has undergone in last two decades could take place. ResumoEste trabalho usa o procedimento NOMINATE (Nominal Three-Step Estimation) (Poole and Rosenthal, 1983, 1997) para estimar pontos ideais que representem as preferências de todos os ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal no Brasil de 2002 a 2012. Estas preferências estimadas são usadas para identificar a natureza das duas principais dimensões ao longo das quais discordâncias tendem a se manifestar neste tribunal. Estas estimativas preveem corretamente mais de 95% dos votos em casos de revisão Constitucional (ADINs). O trabalho mostra que a principal dimensão na qual se alinham as preferências diz respeito a questões de interesse econômico do Executivo, refletindo a estrutura das instituições políticas no Brasil. Isto é significativamente diferente da polarização conservador-liberal que se observa na Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos. Os resultados mostram que ao longo desta dimensão ଝ Bernardo Mueller acknowledges funding from the CNPq. a Corte tem sido claramente favorável aos interesses econômicos do Executivo, criando condições propícias para a dramática transformação em instituições e políticas pela qual o Brasil tem passado nas últimas duas décadas.
How does a court's policy-making authority shape the nature of judicial behavior? We argue that judicial systems that limit policy-making authority also discourage the politicization of courts, encouraging judges to think narrowly about the interests of litigating parties. In contrast, granting a court high policy-making authority-affecting potentially thousands of cases and other branches of government-naturally encourages judges to consider broader ideological principles. Typically, unraveling cause and effect would be difficult, as judicial behavior and institutions are usually stable and endogenous. But an especially stark sequence of political and institutional changes in Brazil affords analytic leverage to explore these questions. A series of judicial reforms greatly expanded the Brazilian Supreme Court's authority, and our analysis of judicial decisions shows the emergence of a political cleavage on the court after these reforms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.