Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-684bc48f8b-v5sh4 Total loading time: 0.351 Render date: 2021-04-13T20:16:58.970Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
Japanese Journal of Political Science Japanese Journal of Political Science

Article contents

Measuring Judicial Independence Reconsidered: Survival Analysis, Matching, and Average Treatment Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2015

KENTARO FUKUMOTO  and
MIKITAKA MASUYAMA
KENTARO FUKUMOTO
Affiliation:
Gakushuin University, Japan Washington University in St. Louis, USAKentaro.Fukumoto@gakushuin.ac.jp
MIKITAKA MASUYAMA
Affiliation:
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Japanmmasuyama@grips.ac.jp
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Kentaro.Fukumoto@gakushuin.ac.jp
mmasuyama@grips.ac.jp
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reconsiders how to judge judicial independence by using the Japanese judicature, one of the allegedly-most dependent judiciary branches. In their influential work, Ramseyer and Rasmusen (2003) argue that judges who once belonged to a leftist group take longer to reach a ‘moderately prestigious status’ under the long-term conservative rule of Japan. Their method does not, however, deal appropriately with the possibility of judges not reaching this position because the judge dies, retires early, or is still at the early stage of her career. Ramseyer and Rasmusen also mistakenly assume that all judges will eventually obtain this position. This article develops a survival analysis model of judicial careers and attempts to solve the problems of censoring, left truncation, and split population. We also offer a way to utilize a matching procedure to estimate average treatment effects on censored time-to-event as well as event occurrence. We re-analyze a corrected version of Ramseyer and Rasmusen's data using their and our methods. One of the most important findings is that, contrary to what Ramseyer and Rasmusen argue, leftist judges are not discriminated against in terms of the timing of promotion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 16 , Issue 1: Who Does or Does Not Respond to Whom or What in a Democracy? The Case of Japan , March 2015 , pp. 33 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Becker, Rolf and Saalfeld, Thomas (2004), ‘The Life and Times of Bills’, in Doring, Herbert and Hallerberg, Mark (eds.), Patterns of Parliamentary Behavior: Passage of Legislation across Western Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 57–90.Google Scholar
Bland, J. Martin and Altman, Douglas G. (1994), ‘Matching’, British Medical Journal, 309:1128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet and Jones, Bradford (2004), Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Radcliffe, Peter M., and Bartels, Brandon L. (2006), ‘The Incidence and Timing of PAC Contributions to Incumbent US House Members, 1993–94’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30 (4): 549–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, David H. and Regan, Patrick M. (2003), ‘Opportunities to Fight: A Statistical Technique for Modeling Unobservable Phenomena’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47 (1): 94–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Alexis and Sekhon, Jasjeet S. (2013), ‘Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 95 (3): 932–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack (1998), The Choices Justices Make, Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, John, Rosenbluth, Frances, and Shipan, Charles (2007), ‘Comparative Judicial Politics’, in Boix, Charles and Stokes, Susan Carol (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 727–51.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. (2006), ‘Judicial Institutions’, in Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, Sarah A., and Rockman, Bert A., The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 514–34.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom (2003), Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Kermit L. (2005), ‘Judicial Independence and the Majoritarian Difficulty’, in Hall, K. L. and McGuire, K. T., The Judicial Branch, Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, pp. 60–85.Google Scholar
Hettinger, Virginia A. and Zorn, Christopher (2005), ‘Explaining the Incidence and Timing of Congressional Responses to the US Supreme Court’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30 (1): 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel, Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth (2007), ‘Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference’, Political Analysis, 15 (3): 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Paul W. (1986), ‘Statistics and Casual Inference’, Journal of American Statistical Association, 81: 945–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary and Zeng, Langche (2007), ‘When Can History be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference’, International Studies Quarterly, 51 (1): 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitra, Pushkar and Smyth, Russell (2004), ‘Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers: An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court’, European Journal of Law and Economics, 17 (2): 209–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masuyama, Mikitaka (2001), ‘Agenda Power in the Japanese Diet: A Duration Analysis of Lawmaking’, Ph. D. Dissertaton, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Masuyama, Mikitaka (2005), ‘Saibankan kyaria no seizon bunseki [Survival Analysis of Judicial Career]’, Seikei Hogaku, 61: 411–56.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W. (2004), ‘The Government Agenda in Parliamentary Democracies’, American Journal of Political Science, 48 (3): 445–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nihon Minshu Horituka Kyokai Shiho Seido Iinkai (1998), Zensaibankan keireki soran [Biographical Information on All Judges], 3rd edn, Tokyo: Kojinsha.Google ScholarPubMed
Ramseyer, J. Mark and Rasmusen, Eric B. (2003), Measuring Judicial Independence: The Political Economy of Judging in Japan, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark and Rasmusen, Eric B. (2006), ‘The Case for Managed Judges: Learning from Japan after the Political Upheaval of 1993’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154: 1879–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark and Rosenbluth, Frances M. (1993), Japan's Political Marketplace, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J. Mark and Rosenbluth, Frances M. (1998), The Politics of Oligarchy: Institutional Choice in Imperial Japan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salzberger, Eli and Fenn, Paul (1999), ‘Judicial Independence: Some Evidence from the English Court of Appeal’, Journal of Law and Economics, 42 (2): 831–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shetreet, Shimon and Deschênes, Jules (1985), Judicial Independence: The Contemporary Debate, Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Kenkyusho, Shiso Undo (1969), Osorubeki saiban [Fearsome Trials], Tokyo: Zenbosha.Google Scholar
Solomon, Peter H. (2007), ‘Courts and Judges in Authoritarian Regimes’, World Politics, 60 (1): 122–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 58
Total number of PDF views: 174 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 13th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Measuring Judicial Independence Reconsidered: Survival Analysis, Matching, and Average Treatment Effects
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Measuring Judicial Independence Reconsidered: Survival Analysis, Matching, and Average Treatment Effects
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Measuring Judicial Independence Reconsidered: Survival Analysis, Matching, and Average Treatment Effects
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *