Networked Justice: Judges, the Diffusion of Ideas, and Legal Reform Movements in Mexico

Abstract

two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. I am also grateful for ongoing collaborations with Lisa Hilbink, whose influence-in good network fashion-shaped many of the ideas presented here, and to James Fowler, for opening his research group during a fellowship at UC San Diego in [2009][2010]. Lastly, I thank the judges of Michoacán: without their participation none of this would be possible. The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Chancellor's Office and the Joseph P. Healey Endowment provided support for data collection. The Kellogg Institute provided writing support. ABSTRACTExisting research shows that the ideas of judges matter for judicial behavior both on the bench (decision making) and off the bench (lobbying and mobilization for institutional change). Yet there is little empirical evidence regarding the content and distribution of these ideas and even less evidence and fewer theoretical propositions regarding the manner in which ideas transfer or diffuse among judges. Addressing these empirical and theoretical gaps, I survey judges in the Mexican state of Michoacán and apply techniques of network analysis. The project makes four main contributions: (1) original data on the attitudes of judges regarding prominent institutional and jurisprudential changes shaping the legal landscape in Mexico; (2) egocentric data on network structure for the sampled judges; (3) sociocentric data on network structure at the level of judicial district, state supreme court, and entire state generated by aggregating the egocentric data; and (4) a mixed-methods analysis of the causal relationship between network features and judicial attitudes, drawing on egocentric methods, sociocentric methods, and personal interviews with focal individuals. Complementing literatures on political socialization, policy diffusion, and complex systems, the analysis clarifies our understanding of the role of judicial networks in strengthening democracy and the rule of law. RESUMENInvestigaciones existentes demuestran que las ideas de los jueces motivan el comportamiento judicial dentro de los juzgados (en la toma de decisiones) y fuera de estos (en el cabildeo institucional y las movilizaciones en torno a distintas reformas). Sin embargo, existe poca evidencia empírica en cuanto al contenido y la distribución de estas ideas, y aun menos evidencia y teorías sobre el modo en que las ideas se transfieren o difunden entre los jueces. Para dar cuenta de estas limitaciones empíricas y teóricas en la literatura, este trabajo desarrolla una encuesta a jueces en la entidad federativa mexicana de Michoacán, aplicando técnicas de análisis de redes. El proyecto hace cuatro contribuciones principales: (1) datos originales sobre las actitudes de jueces en cuanto a cambios importantes en las instituciones y la jurisprudencia que moldean el paisaje jurídico mexicano; (2) datos ego-céntricos sobre la estructura de redes entre los jueces encuestados; (3) datos socio-céntricos sobre la estructura de redes judiciales a nivel de distrito judicial, tribunal super...

Courts and informal networks: Towards a relational perspective on judicial politics outside Western democracies

“…From this perspective, informal ties take centre stage. It questions whether decisions really depend on individual characteristics alone, looking instead at the interactions among judges themselves, and between them and other individual and collective actors (Ellett, 2013;Ingram 2016aIngram , 2016b.…”

“…For instance, ideational and professional networks can promote institutional reform and meritocratic practices (e.g. in Mexico, see Ingram, 2016aIngram, , 2016b. Moreover, the negative effect of networks may have been reduced in countries where there have been efforts to enhance the transparency of judicial selection, promotion and demotion.…”

“…Scholars have also commented on informal dynamics of interest within the judiciary, such as specialised courts (Klein, 2003;Pompe, 2005). Other studies, concerned with the dynamics of judicial protection of rights in comparative perspective (Epp, 1998;Hilbink and Woods, 2009;Hirschl, 2004), have illuminated the role of ideational networks of judges in legal change (Hilbink, 2007;Ingram, 2016aIngram, , 2016bNunes, 2010). However, studies of patronage networks remind us that networks may have limited ability to resist change (see Rios-Figueroa and Pozas Loyo, 2018).…”

The Informal Dimension of Judicial Politics: A Relational Perspective

“…The relational approach assumes that the shape and character of informal networks influence a range of phenomena of interest for judicial politics, such as the decisions judges make, public perceptions of how they do their jobs, and political actors' attitudes toward the judiciary. Although this would seem to invite the use of network analysis, few studies so far have explicitly used formal network analysis to investigate judicial politics (Dressel & Inoue 2016, Ingram 2016b, Pozas-Loyo & Rios-Figueroa 2016, Stroh 2016. Part of the reason might be the lack of the necessary framework and terminology for defining axes along which informal ties may be ordered and judicial networks may be described and mapped.…”

“…Indeed, studies of factors that motivate judges to take a stand for or against institutional reform have explicitly brought attention to the role of informal networks. Drawing on established scholarship on the rights-oriented expansion and contraction of the judicial agenda in Western democracies and beyond (Epp 1998, Hilbink 2009, Hirschl 2004), these studies have highlighted the role of ideational networks of judges in animating and sustaining judicial and legal change (Hilbink 2007, Ingram 2016b, Nunes 2010. For instance, Ingram (2016a) shows how close contacts among judges in Mexican subnational courts shape their own subjective, nonmaterial commitments to reform, thus providing empirical evidence for how ideational networks can shape, or hinder, the introduction of institutional change, such as judicial councils, and of new legal and jurisprudential practices.…”