How to Place Non-Majoritarian Institutions and Political Actors in a Common Policy Space: Spatial Modeling of Court–Executive Interactions

How can we estimate positions of non-majoritarian institutions in a common policy space? To answer this question, we take the highest courts as examples of powerful non-majoritarian institutions and develop a new scaling approach to estimate their positions in a common policy space with other political actors. In contrast to previous research, our approach neither relies on individual votes of justices nor assumes that justices “inherit” positions from political actors who nominated them. Instead, for each court decision, we use the positions of political actors expressed in written statements as well as the courts’ decision outcome to estimate comparable policy positions. In two applications, we position the German Federal Constitutional Court with different German governments and the European Court of Justice with different European governments in common policy spaces and validate them. Finally, we show how our common policy scores can be used to study court–executive relations and interinstitutional interactions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Journal of Politics
Published
2024-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/732980
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.07
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How to Place Non-Majoritarian Institutions and Political Actors in a Common Policy Space: Spatial Modeling of Court–Executive Interactions

Thomas Gschwend, Benjamin G. Engst, David M. Grundmanns
1 citations
The Journal of Politics
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
4.07
article

How to Place Non-Majoritarian Institutions and Political Actors in a Common Policy Space: Spatial Modeling of Court–Executive Interactions

Thomas Gschwend, Benjamin G. Engst, David M. Grundmanns
article en
1 citations

Abstract

How can we estimate positions of non-majoritarian institutions in a common policy space? To answer this question, we take the highest courts as examples of powerful non-majoritarian institutions and develop a new scaling approach to estimate their positions in a common policy space with other political actors. In contrast to previous research, our approach neither relies on individual votes of justices nor assumes that justices “inherit” positions from political actors who nominated them. Instead, for each court decision, we use the positions of political actors expressed in written statements as well as the courts’ decision outcome to estimate comparable policy positions. In two applications, we position the German Federal Constitutional Court with different German governments and the European Court of Justice with different European governments in common policy spaces and validate them. Finally, we show how our common policy scores can be used to study court–executive relations and interinstitutional interactions.

The Journal of PoliticsVol. 87(4)
University of Mannheim (DE), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
4.07
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

How to Place Non-Majoritarian Institutions and Political Actors in a Common Policy Space: Spatial Modeling of Court–Executive Interactions — Thomas Gschwend, Benjamin G. Engst, et al. · The Journal of Politics (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS