Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Judges as Fiscal Activists: Can Constitutional Review Shape Public Finance? Cover

Judges as Fiscal Activists: Can Constitutional Review Shape Public Finance?

Open Access
|Jul 2014

References

  1. Aaken, v. A., Feld, L., Voigt, S. (2010). DoIndependent Prosecutors Deter Political Corruption? An Empirical Evaluation across Seventy-eight Countries. American Law and Economics Review, 12(1), 204–244.10.1093/aler/ahq002
  2. Afonso, A., Furceri, D. (2010). Government size, composition, volatility and economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 26(4), 517–532.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.02.002
  3. Alesina, A., Perottti, R., Tavares, J. (1998). The Political Economy of Fiscal Adjustments. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 197–248.10.2307/2534672
  4. Alesina, A., Carloni, D., Lecce, G. (2011). The Electoral Consequences of Large Fiscal Adjustments. NBER Working Paper, 17655.10.3386/w17655
  5. Angrist, J., Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400829828
  6. Bergh, A., Karlsson, M. (2010). Government size and growth: Accounting for economic freedom and globalization. Public Choice, 142, 195–213.10.1007/s11127-009-9484-1
  7. Bossuyt, M. (2008). The Belgian Constitutional Court and the re-enacting of an annulled law. International Almanac Constitutional Justice in the New Millennium, 200–217.
  8. Brender, A. (2003). The Effect of Fiscal Performance on Local Government Election Results in Israel: 1989–1998. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2187–2205.10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00045-2
  9. Caldeira, G. (1987). Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1139–1153.
  10. Cárdenas, M., Mejía, C., Olivera, M. (2009). Changes in Fiscal Outcomes in Colombia: The Role of the Budget Process. In Hellerberg Mark, Scartascini Carlos and Stein Ernesto (eds.). Who Decides the Budget? A Political Economy Analysis of the Budget Process in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank.
  11. Casillas, Ch., Enns, P., Wohlfarth, P. (2011). How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 74–88.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00485.x
  12. Conseil, F. (2000). Message sur le frein à l’endettement Le président de la Confédération Adolf Ogi et La chancelie`re de la Confédération Annemarie Huber-Hotz du 5 juillet 2000. 4295–4368.
  13. De Vries, C., Hobolt, S. (2012). Do Voters Blame Governments for Social Spending Cuts? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/documents/epop/pa-pers/DeVriesHobolt EPOP2012.pdf (accessed on October 24, 2012).
  14. Deener, D. (1952). Judicial Review in Modern Constitutional Systems. The American Political Science Review, 46(4), 1079–1099.10.2307/1952114
  15. Dotan, Y. (1998). Judicial Review and Political Accountability: The Case of the High Court of Justice in Israel. Israel Law Review, 32(3), 448–474.10.1017/S0021223700015740
  16. Eslava, M. (2006). The Political Economy of Fiscal Policy: Survey. Inter-American Development Bank. Working Paper 583.10.2139/ssrn.1820060
  17. Eurobarometer (1998). Citizens and health systems: main results from a Eurobarometer survey. Employment & social affairs.
  18. Eurobarometer (2009). Intergenerational solidarity. Analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer 269 – The Gallup Organisation.
  19. Fallon, R. (2008). The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review. Harvard Law Review, 121(7), 1693–1736.
  20. Feld, L., Voigt, S. (2003). Economic Growth and Judicial Independence: Cross Country Evidence Using a New Set of Indicators. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 497–527.10.1016/S0176-2680(03)00017-X
  21. Feld, L., Voigt, S. (2006). Judicial Independence and Economic Growth: Some Proposals Regarding the Judiciary. In Congleton Roger and Swedenborg Birgitta (eds.). Democratic Constitutional Design and Public Policy, Analysis and Evidence. Cambridge: MIT Press, 251–288.
  22. Flemming, R., Wood, D. (1997). The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 468–498.10.2307/2111773
  23. Forum of Federations (2012). Federalism by Country. http://www.forumfed.org/en/federa-lism/federalismbycountry.php (accessed on October 30, 2012).
  24. Friedman, B. (2005). The Politics of Judicial Review. Texas Law Review, 84(2), 257–337.
  25. Garlicki, L. (2007). Constitutional courts versus supreme courts. International Journal Constitutional Law, 5(1), 44–68.10.1093/icon/mol044
  26. Garoupa, N. (2011). Empirical Legal Studies and Constitutional Courts. Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(1), 25–64.
  27. Garoupa, N., Ginsburg, T. (2012). Building Reputation in Constitutional Courts: Party and Judicial Politics. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 28(3), 539–568.
  28. Gely, R., Spiller, P. (1990). A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 6(2), 263–300.
  29. Gely, R., Spiller, P. (1992). The Political Economy of Supreme Court Constitutional Decisions: The Case of Roosevelt’s Court-Packing Plan. International Review of Law and Economics, 12, 45–67.10.1016/0144-8188(92)90005-C
  30. Giles, M., Blackstone, B., Vining, R. (2008). The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 293–306.10.1017/S0022381608080316
  31. Ginsburg, T. (2006). Economic Analysis and the Design of Constitutional Courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 3,1.
  32. Ginsburg, T. (2008). The Global Spread of Constitutional Review. In Whittington Keith, Kelemen Daniel, Caldeira Gregory (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, 81.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199208425.003.0006
  33. Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z. (2009). Ancillary Powers of Constitutional Courts. University of Texas Law Review, 87, 1430–1461.
  34. Golder, M. (2000). Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946–2000. Retrieved from https://files.nyu.edu/mrg217/public/elections.html (accessedon November 17, 2012).
  35. Gutmann, J., Hayo, B., Voigt, S. (2011). Determinants of Constitutionally Safeguarded Judicial Review – Insights Based on a New Indicator. Working Paper. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1947244 (accessed on October 23, 2012).
  36. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., Hall, J. (2012). Economic Freedom of the World: 2012 Annual Report. Fraser Institute.
  37. Von Hagen, J. (1992). Budgeting Procedures and Fiscal Performance in the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities. DG ECFIN. European Economy Paper No. 96.
  38. Hansen, J.M. (1998). Individuals, Institutions, and Public Preferences over Public Finance. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 513–531.10.2307/2585478
  39. Hayo, B., Voigt, S. (2007). Explainingde facto judicial independence. International Review of Law and Economics, 27, 269–290.10.1016/j.irle.2007.07.004
  40. Henisz, W. (2000). The Institutional Environment for Economic Growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1), 1–31.10.1111/1468-0343.00066
  41. Jolls, Ch., Sunstein, C., Thaler, R. (1998). A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1547.10.2307/1229304
  42. Kelsen, H. (1942). Judicial Review of Legislation. The Journal of Politics, 4(2), 183–200.10.2307/2125770
  43. Kirchgässner, G. (2005). Sustainable Fiscal Policy in a Federal State: The Swiss Example. Swiss Political Science Review, 11(4), 19–46.10.1002/j.1662-6370.2005.tb00369.x
  44. Landes, W., Posner R. (1975). The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective. Journal of Law and Economics, 18(3). Economic Analysis of Political Behavior: Universities-National Bureau Conference Series Number 29. 875–901.10.3386/w0110
  45. Link, M. (1995). Tracking Public Mood in the Supreme Court: Cross-Time Analyses of Criminal Procedure and Civil Rights Cases. Political Research Quarterly, 48(1), 61–78.10.1177/106591299504800104
  46. McGuire, K., Stimson, J. (2004). The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences. The Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1018–1035.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00288.x
  47. Mehrhoff, J. (2009). A solution to the problem of too many instruments in dynamic panel data GMM. Deutsche Bundesbank. Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies. No 31.
  48. Mishler, W., Sheehan, R. (1993). The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions. The American Political Science Review, 87(1), 87–101.10.2307/2938958
  49. Mishler, W., Sheehan, R. (1994). Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions. The American Political Science Review, 88(3), 716–24.
  50. Mishler, W., Sheehan, R. (1996). Public Opinion, the Attitudinal Model, and Supreme CourtDecision Making: AMicro-Analytic Perspective. Journal of Politics, 58(1), 169–200.10.2307/2960354
  51. Mueller, D. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813771
  52. Mukherjee, B. (2003). Political Parties and the Size of Government in Multiparty Legislatures. Examining Cross-Country and Panel Data Evidence. Comparative Political Studies, 36(6), 699–728.10.1177/0010414003254240
  53. Nannestad, P. (2008). What Have We Learned About Generalized Trust, If Anything? Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 413–437.10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135412
  54. Padovano, F., Sgarra, G., Fiorino, N. (2003). Judicial Branch, Checks and Balances and Political Accountability. Constitutional Political Economy, 14, 47–79.10.1023/A:1022347908667
  55. Peltzman, S. (1992). Voters as Fiscal Conservatives. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 327–361.10.2307/2118475
  56. Persson, T., Tabellini, G. (2003). Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2591.001.0001
  57. Persson, T., Tabellini, G. (2004). Constitutional Rules and Fiscal Policy Outcomes. The American Economic Review, 94(1), 25–45.10.1257/000282804322970689
  58. Pommerehne, W., Schneider, F. (1978). Fiscal Illusion, Political Institutions, and Local Public Spending. Kyklos, 31(3), 381–408.10.1111/j.1467-6435.1978.tb00648.x
  59. Posner, R. (2008). How Judges Think. Harvard University Press.
  60. Prohl, S., Schneider, F. (2009). Does Decentralization Reduce Government Size? A Qualitative Study of the Decentralization Hypothesis. Public Finance Review, 37(6), 639–664.10.1177/1091142109345264
  61. Raudla, R. (2010). Constitution, Public Finance, and Transition. Theoretical Developments in Constitutional Public Finance and the Case of Estonia. Finanzsoziologie 4, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-00342-0
  62. Raudla, R. (2011). Effects of a Constitution on Taxation: The Role of Constitutional Review in the Development of Tax Laws in Estonia. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture, 12(1), 76–105.
  63. Romero-Àvila, D., Strauch, R. (2008). Public finances and long-term growth in Europe: Evidence from a panel data analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(1), 172–191.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2007.06.008
  64. Roodman, D. (2006). How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Center for Global Development. Working Paper Number 103.10.2139/ssrn.982943
  65. Roodman, D. (2009). Practitioners’ Corner. A Note on the Theme of Too Many Instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1).
  66. Sadurski, W. (2002). Constitutional Justice, East and West. Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in A Comparative Perspective. Kluwer Law International.
  67. Schauer, F. (2012). The Political Risks (if any) of Breaking the Law. Journal of Legal Analysis, 4(1), 83–101.10.1093/jla/las010
  68. Schäfer, H.-B., Ott, C. (2004). The Economic Analysis of Civil Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  69. Schuknecht, L. (1994). Political Business Cycles and Expenditure Policies in Developing Countries. IMF Working Paper 121.10.5089/9781451854312.001
  70. Schwartz, H. (2002). The struggle for constitutional justice in post-communist Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  71. Segal, J., Spaeth, H. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615696
  72. Soto, M. (2009). System GMM estimation with a small sample. Barcelona Economics Working Paper Series Working Paper no. 395.
  73. Stimson, J., MacKuen, M., Erikson, R. (1995). Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543–65.10.2307/2082973
  74. Stone, A. (1995). Coordinate Construction in France and Germany. In Tate Neal and Vallinder Torbjörn (eds.). The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York University Press: New York, London. 205–229.
  75. Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with Judges. Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198297718.001.0001
  76. Stone Sweet, A. (2007). The politics of constitutional review in France and Europe. International Journal of Constitutional Review, 5(1), 69–92.10.1093/icon/mol041
  77. Tonelson, A. (2002). The Race to the Bottom. Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards. Boulder: Westview Press.
  78. Tridimas, G. (2005). Judges and Taxes: Judicial review, judicial independence and the size of government. Constitutional Political Economy, 16, 5–30.10.1007/s10602-005-5850-2
  79. Trybunał K. (2003). Prawo podatkowe w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w 2002 r. Wydawnictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. 15–27.
  80. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400831456
  81. Tushnet, M. (2010). How Different are Waldron’s and Fallon’s Core Cases for and against Judicial Review? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1), 49–70.10.1093/ojls/gqq003
  82. Ura, J., Wohlfarth, P. (2010). “An Appeal to the People”: Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme Court. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 939–956.10.1017/S0022381610000459
  83. Vallinder, T. (1995). When the Courts Go Marching In. In Tate Neal and Vallinder Torbjörn (eds.). The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York University Press: New York, London. 13–26.
  84. Vanberg, G. (2005). The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  85. Vaubel, R. (1996). Constitutional Safeguards Against Centralization in Federal States: An International Cross-Section Analysis. Constitutional Political Economy, 7, 79–102.
  86. Vaubel, R. (2009). Constitutional courts as promoters of political centralization: lessons for the European Court of Justice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 28, 203–222.10.1007/s10657-009-9108-8
  87. Volcansek, M. (2000). Constitutional Politics in Italy: The Constitutional Court. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press and New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  88. Volcansek, M. (2001). Constitutional courts as veto players: Divorce and decrees in Italy. European Journal of Political Research, 39, 347–372.10.1111/1475-6765.00580
  89. Wagner, R. (1976). Revenue Structure, Fiscal Illusion, and Budgetary Choice. Public Choice, 25, 45–61.10.1007/BF01726330
  90. Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Review, 115, 1346–1406.10.2307/20455656
  91. Welch, S. (1985). The “More for Less” Paradox: Public Attitudes on Taxing and Spending. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(3).10.1086/268929
  92. Wittrup, J. (2010). Budgeting in the Era of Judicial Independence. International Journal For Court Administration. April.10.18352/ijca.40
  93. Wooldridge, J. (2009). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. South-Western Cengage Learning.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2014-0005 | Journal eISSN: 1804-8285 | Journal ISSN: 1804-6746
Language: English
Page range: 79 - 104
Published on: Jul 7, 2014
Published by: European Association Comenius - EACO
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2014 Jarosław Kantorowicz, published by European Association Comenius - EACO
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.