Open Access

Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology

Matej Avbelj
Matej Avbelj
 and 
Janez Šušteršič
Janez Šušteršič
   | Jul 24, 2019
DANUBE's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Published Online: Jul 24, 2019
Page range: 129 - 159
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2019-0007
Keywords
© 2019 Matej Avbelj et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Figure 1

Ideological profile and ideal points of the Constitutional CourtNote: The horizontal axis plots ideological positions along the dimension, the vertical axis measures the intensity of preference (relative frequencies) for each position. The red vertical line and the number present the ideological ideal points.Number of observations – economic dimension: 38 decisions, social: 52, authoritarian: 105.
Ideological profile and ideal points of the Constitutional CourtNote: The horizontal axis plots ideological positions along the dimension, the vertical axis measures the intensity of preference (relative frequencies) for each position. The red vertical line and the number present the ideological ideal points.Number of observations – economic dimension: 38 decisions, social: 52, authoritarian: 105.

Structure of the sample with respect to the subject matter of decisions

Ideological dimensionSubject matter according to content descriptorsNumber in totalShare in totalNumber in sampleShare in sampleSample/Total
EconomicFree economic initiative172.81010.058.8
Property rights, restitution599.61010.016.9
Public good, environment315.144.012.9
Taxation, public finance498.044.08.2
Social and workers’ rights416.777.017.1
SocialFreedom of speech50.822.040.0
Right to privacy122.088.066.7
Children’s and parents’ rights50.811.020.0
Discrimination, minority rights122.099.075.0
Cultural and religious rights40.722.050.0
AuthoritarianPolitical rights, referenda559.01313.023.6
Legality, political system10016.31010.010.0
Law enforcement, human rights22236.32020.09.0
EconomicAll19732.23535.017.8
SocialAll386.22222.057.9
AuthoritarianAll37761.64343.011.4
TotalAll61210016.3

Ideological positions

Ideological dimensionPositions 1 and 2Position 3Positions 4 and 5
EconomicStrong/moderate preference for state intervention and equalityBalancing economic freedom with distributional concerns and state interventionModerate/strong preference for economic freedom
SocialStrong/moderate preference for the rights and freedoms of individuals and minority social groupsBalancing individual and minority freedoms with majoritarian values and collective interestModerate/strong preference for majoritarian social values and collective interest
AuthoritarianStrong/moderate preference for individual human rightsBalancing individual rights with social order and authority of the stateModerate/strong preference for authority of the state and social order

Judges’ ideal points

JudgeEconomic dimensionSocial dimensionAuthoritarian dimension
IPSDIPSDIPSD
Čebulj2.91.22.31.02.51.2
Fišer2.91.12.20.82.41.1
Janko3.01.12.20.82.61.1
Krisper-K.2.91.22.20.82.61.2
Modrijan3.01.12.31.02.61.2
Ribičič3.01.12.10.82.31.0
Škrk2.91.12.00.72.51.1
Tratnik2.81.12.20.92.51.1
Wedam-L.3.11.12.10.82.31.0
The Court3.11.32.10.92.41.2
Median of judges2.92.22.5

Structure of the sample with respect to disagreement among judges

Number in totalShare in totalNumber in sampleShare in sample
Unanimous decisions44676.15959.0
Decisions with at least one judge voting against at least a part of the decision14623.94141.0
Decisions with a separate opinion8013.13939.0

Example of scoring of judges’ positions based on votes and separate opinions

Position 1Position 2Position 3Position 4Position 5
DECISION 1Concurring separate opinionDecisionCounter-decision and dissenting separate opinion
Judges subscribing to concurring opinion2
Judges subscribing to dissenting opinion2
Judges voting in favour0.511
Judges voting against11

Ideal points in contested and unanimous decision

Social dimensionAuthoritarian dimension
JudgeAll decisionsUnanimous decisionContested decisionsAll decisionsUnanimous decisionContested decisions
Čebulj2.31.92.92.52.22.9
Fišer2.21.92.72.42.22.7
Janko2.21.92.62.62.23.0
Krisper-K.2.22.02.62.62.33.1
Modrijan2.31.92.92.62.23.1
Ribičič2.11.82.52.32.22.4
Škrk2.01.82.42.52.32.9
Tratnik2.21.92.82.52.32.8
Wedam-L.2.11.92.42.32.12.6
The Court2.11.53.02.41.92.6
Median of judges2.21.92.62.52.22.9

Example of scoring of judges’ positions based on their votes

Position 1Position 2Position 3Position 4Position 5
DECISION 1DecisionCounter-decision
Judges voting in favour111
Judges voting against11
DECISION 2DecisionCounter-decision
Judges voting in favour110.5
Judges voting against0,511
eISSN:
1804-8285
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Business and Economics, Political Economics, Macroecomics, Economic Policy, Law, European Law, other
Journal RSS Feed