Legal Theory Blog

Legal Theory Lexicon: Welfare, Well-Being, and Happiness

Introduction

Normative legal theory is concerned with the ends and justifications for the law as a whole and for particular legal rules.  Previous entries in the legal have examined exemplars of the three great traditions in normative theory--consequentialist, deontological, and aretaic (or virtue-centered) perspectives.  There are important differences between these three families of theories at a very general and abstract level: for example, deontologists emphasize rights and wrongs while consequentialists emphasize the goodness or badness of states of affairs.  And there are differences between particular theories within the broad families: within consequentialism, for example, welfarists emphasize preference satisfaction, whereas hedonistic utiliarians emphasize pleasure and pain.

Despite these disagreements, I think it is fair to say that many or most of the reasonable views about normative theory agree that what is good or bad for individual humans is morally salient.  Welfarists believe that humans are better off if their preferences are satisified.  Hedonistic utilitarians believe an individual is better off if she experiences more pleasure and less pain.  Aristotle believed that humans flourish if they live lifes of social and rational activity that expresses the human excellences or virtues under conditions of peace and prosperity.  A deontologist who believes that autonomy is the central value might believe that humans are better off if they are autonomous and worse off if they are not  In other words, a wide variety of moral theories agree that what is good for humans is morally salient.

This entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon will examine three related concepts that are related to the good for humans, welfare, well-being, and happiness--and along the way we will explore some related ideas like pleasure, satisfaction, pain, flourishing, and eudaimonia.  Of course, the nature of the human good is a deep topic--one that that has been debated by philosophers, psychologists, economists, theologians, and others for millennia.  All of the great moral and political philosopher, from Plato and Aristotle, through Hobbes, Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Mill, to contemporary figures like Thomas Scanlon and Derek Parfit have engaged in debates about the nature of the human good.  This entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon will only scratch the surface of these debates.  As always, the Lexicon is aimed at law students, especially first-year law students with an interest in legal theory.

Three Concepts

Let's begin by saying a few words about each of the three concepts.  Our aim in this section is not to provide a canonical definition, but instead is to give a sense for the way these terms are used in normative legal theory:

Welfare--The term "welfare" is heavily theory laden.  For contemporary law-and-economics scholars, welfare sometimes operates as a technical term.  One's welfare is a function of one's utility, and most contemporary economists understand utility as a function of one's preferences over states of affairs.  If I prefer a world in which I eat an ice cream cone after lunch to one in which I am abstemious, then the ice cream cone increases my welfare.  But the term "welfare" is also used in a much broader sense, in which my "welfare" is a function of what is good (and bad) for me.  In this sense, my "welfare" might be synonymous with my "well-being" or "flourishing or "happiness."  We might say that there are competing conceptions of the general concept of welfare.

Well-Being--The term "well-being" is similar to "welfare" in the broad and nontechnical sense.  In ordinary language, we frequently associate "well-being" with health--primarily physical health but mental health as well.  Philosophers use this term to refer to what is noninstrumentally good for someone.

Happiness--In ordinary language, the term "happiness" is frequently used to refer to a mental state.  One might think of happiness as a feeling of pleasure, contentment, satisfaction, or enjoyment.  But the word "happiness" is also used as a translation for the Greek word "flourishing," and even in ordinary talk the use of phrases like "true happiness" suggests that not one can have pleasant feelings from moment to moment, but lack "happiness."  Some theorists would reserve the term "happiness" for a stable or enduring quality that is produced by the appropriate features of one's life.  Thus, it might be the case that "a job well done" can make you "happy," but a delicious desert can only give you "pleasure" or "enjoyment."

As is apparent from this very brief introduction of these three concepts, they are connected with others like "pleasure," "pain," "preference," "utility," "flourishing," "enjoyment," and so forth.  But rather than defining each of these concepts, we will now move to a more abstract level and discuss three general views about the nature of human well-being (or welfare in the broad sense).  These three views are offered only as illustrations.  I am not going to attempt to provide a comprehensive catalog.

Three Theories of the Human Good

One way for us to get a better handle on the concepts of welfare, well-being, and happiness is to examine three particular theories of the good for humans:

Hedonism: Philosophical hedonism (which may or may not be related to the view that the good human life is produced by lots of sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll) is the view that the good for humans is pleasure (or more generally positive or enjoyable mental states) and bad for humans is pain (or negative mental states).  Hedonists might believe that pleasure is a distinctive brain state that varies continuously, with the intense pleasure induced by opiates or cocaine at one end of the spectrum, and that pain is similar, with the intense pain of passing a kidney stone at the other end.  But some hedonists believe that pains are differ qualitatively.  John Stuart Mill, for example, thought that there were higher pleasures (e.g., from listening to great music or reading a great novel) and lower pleasures (e.g., from strong drink, drugs, or playing video games).  There are deep questions about the nature of pleasure and pain, but for our purposes let us simplify greatly and assume that all hedonic values (positive or negative) consist of mental states (or brain states, which may or may not be equivalent) that are experienced as positive or negative.

Welfarism: In the legal academy, "welfarism" is strongly associated with normative law and economics.  (But in other disciplines, the terms "welfare" and "welfarism" have other meanings.)  Of course, economists differ among themselves on the nature of welfare, but let us stipulate (for the sake of simplicity) that "welfare" in the economic sense is a function of "utility" and that utility for an individual is a function of the individual's ordinal preferences among states of affairs.  If my preferences are satisfied, then my utility and welfare goes up.  If the world moves in a direction that I would rank lower (and hence disprefer), then my level of welfare goes down.  We might call this theory of "welfare" a "preference satisfaction" theory.

Eudaimonism: The third view that I will outline is based on Aristotle's claim that the highest humanly achievable good is "eudaimonia," which I will translate as "flourishing".  Aristotle believed that humans flourished if they both fared well (lived under the right circumstances) and did well (engaged in valuable activities): hence, Aristotle's claim was that eudaimonia consisted in faring well and doing well.  Let's put faring well aside, and focus on doing well.  Aristotle believed that the nature of "doing well" depends on human nature.  Humans are rational and social creatures.  So a flourishing human life consists of rational and social activities done well.  "Done well" for Aristotle means "expressing the human excellences or virtues."  In sum, a flourishing human life is a life of rational and social activity that expresses the human excellences, and hence a life under conditions of peace and prosperity sufficient to support or enable such activity.

Let's try to make this more concrete by offering examples of three different lives:

The Life of Pleasure: The first life is lived by Ben, who takes great pleasure in sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll.  Ben does what it takes to get enough money to party hard.  He is careful not to overdo or to party so hard that he screws up his life.  Ben's wits are somewhat dulled, and his social interactions might be a bit superficial, but he has a ton of fun almost every day.  It turns out that lots of the time, things don't go the way that Ben prefers--his favorite bands always break up, he doesn't get job he wants, his girlfriends cheat on him.  But Bob doesn't let disappointment interfere with pleasure--if things don't go well, he grabs a brewski, takes a couple of tokes, and chills.

The Life of Satisfaction:  Alice has many preferences about how things should go.  She wants her children to get a good education and live up to their potential.  She wants her city to care for the homeless.  She wants endangered species to be saved.  She works for those things, and as a result of her efforts, her kids do well.  For reasons that were largely out of her control, her city does care for the homeless and many endangered species are saved.  Things go as she wants them to go, but because Alice worries a lot, her satisfaction is only rarely translated into pleasure.  Some of Alice's friends observe that she had the potential to do more with her life, as things turned out, she has what she wants.

The Life of Accomplishment:  Phillipa grows up in an loving and nurturing family and gets an excellent education.  As a result, she becomes an adult who is smart, wise, courageous, temperate, good tempered, caring, responsible: she is a truly excellent human beings, or to put it differently, she is virtuous.  She is reasonable fortunate in her life circumstances as well, so she has a good and stable relationship with her partner, many friends, and meaningful work as an architect.  She lives a balanced life, with periods of intense and difficult work, but also times for fun.  Many of her preferences are satisfied, but many are not.

I hope the description of the three lives is not so oversimplified that it becomes unrealistic.  The point is that the three theories we have described will evaluate the three lives differently.  At least some varieties of hedonism will count Ben's life as the best life--it is a life of pleasure.  There may be pleasure in Alice and Philippa's lives as well, but not as much as in Ben's.  A welfarist who counts all preferences equally might view Alice's life as the life that goes the best: her preferences are satisfied.  Although she doesn't get as much pleasure as Ben, she doesn't prefer a life of pleasure; likewise, she doesn't want to live up to her potential for excellence: she is satisfied with a more passive life.  Philippa gets much of what she wants and experiences her share of pleasures, but as things turn out, her life is worse than Ben and Alice's lives are if the scale is either pleasure or preference satisfaction.  A eudaimonist or virtue theorist will nonetheless say that Philippa's life is the best life.

The Conceptual Space of Debates about the Nature of the Good for Humans

Things are about to get abstract, so watch out.  The next step we will take involves mapping the ways in which the three theories of human good differ.  This is not the only way we could map the conceptual space, but it illuminates some of the important issues.  This map is going to rely on a distinction between the subjective (which is associated with our minds or inner lives) and the objective (which is associated with the world, including our bodies and our environment).  That distinction will then be applied in two dimensions: one concerned with the source of the standards for value and the other concerned with the things that can satisfy those standards.  I warned you--this is abstract, but bear with me.

Objective and Subjective Views of the Sources of the Standards for Human Good: What is the source of our criteria for well-being, happiness, welfare, or the human good?  One possibility is the standards are subjective--they are relative to what we think or feel.  Another possibility is that the standards are objective--they depends on the nature of the world and not our feelings or beliefs about it.

Objective and Subjective Views of the Conditions to Which the Standards for Human Good Are Applied: Once we have standard for human good, we need to apply them to something.  We could apply them to things that are subjective--to our mental states.  Or we could apply them to things that are objective--to states of the world.

OK.  Now we can characterize our three theories of value in light of the two dimensions in which a theory of human value can be objective or subjective.

Hedonisim is usually understood as having both a subjective understanding of the sources of value and a subjective understanding of what those standards apply to.  Our mental states determine what is good or bad for us: it depends on what we get our kicks from and what makes us feel bad.  And our mental states or subjective experiences are what the standards apply to.  So hedonism is subjective in both senses.

Welfarism is committed to a subjective view of what is good and bad for humans.  Our preferences (which are mental states) provide the criteria or standards by which utility and welfare are judged.  But welfarists are objectivists about what these standards are applied to.  Utility is a function of preference over states of the world.  My utility goes up if the world moves to a state I prefer.

Eudaimonism as I have described is a hybrid theory on both levels.  The basic standard of a flourishing life is objective--it is derived from an account of human nature and the virtues.  But for any particular individual, a flourishing life will also be a function of that individuals plans and goals and also a function of what that individual finds satisfying, rewarding, and to some extent pleasurable.  Likewise, a virtue-centered theory of human flourishing takes how one fares (faring well) and how one does (doing well) as the conditions to which the theory is applied.  So the conditions are partially objective.  But the human virtues involve subjective states.  Doing well involves doing the right actin for the right reason.  A flourishing human being has the right preferences and takes enjoyment from the right kinds of things: for this reason, the conditions to which the criteria for the human good are applied are partially subjective.

In other words, hedonism is a subjective-subjective view, welfarism is a subjective-objective view, and eudaimonism is a hybrid-hybrid view.  One can imagine views that might be objetive-objective: for example, if you believed that well-being was cashed out by a list of objective goods, such as health, meaningful work, and an active social life, you might have a view that the standards for human good are objective and that they are satisfied by objective features of particular human lives.

Arguing About (or Investigating) the Nature of Welfare, Well-Being, and Happiness

Which of these rival accounts is the best one?  Of course, the nature of the human good has been the subject of philosophical debate and cultural strife for more than two millennia.  So it will surprise no one that the Legal Theory Lexicon will just skim to the surface of the arguments that can be made for and against various conceptions of welfare, well-being, and happiness.

Let's begin with methodology.  What kinds of reasons might be offered for and against various conceptions of the human good?  Now that is a big topic in itself, but we can identify three of the common strategies used to advance our thinking about this topic:

Reflective Equilibrium: One strategy is to attack the problem directly using the method of reflective equilibrium.  We can begin with intuitions (our unreflective beliefs and the opinions of others) about the topic at hand.  Some of those beliefs will be general and abstract (e.g. "happiness is a feeling").  And some of those beliefs will be quite particular: a serious illiness involves a loss of well-being even if the pain is completely managed).  We can then attempt to formulate a theory of the good for humans (or of welfare, well-being, or happiness) that best fits those intuitions.  Some of our intuitions may need to be revised in light of the tentative theory, and some aspects of the theory may need to be revised in light of recalcitrant intuitions.  Eventually, we can reach a reflective equilibrium between beliefs that have become well-considered judgments and our general theory.

Ethical Theory & Metaethics:  There is a second method that we might employ.  We might begin with our best understanding of metaethics (at what we might think of as the highest level or "top" of normative theory.)  We could then work down through ethical theory to our conception of the human good.  For example, if we adopted an internalist view of moral motivation (i.e., that what is morally good necessarily provides motivation) then we might conclude that our view of the human good must have a certain form if it is to play this motivational role.  We might call this the top-down strategy: we proceed from axioms of metaethics to deduce the postulates and lemmas of our theory of the human good.

Thought Experiments: The notion of a thought experiment (or "hypothetical") is familiar to all legal theorists.  One of the problems of the method of reflective equilibrium may be the tendency of various conceptions of human good to coincide or converge in particular cases.  Our preferences and subjective experiences of happiness may align with elements of objective well-being such as health.  In order to pry these things apart, we might want to construct thought experiments in which force us to evaluate cases in which our subjective happiness diverges from our preferences or health.

The Experience Machine

Robert Nozick is famous for a thought experiment that can be used to test the subjective exerience conception of well-being.  Suppose you have a choice between two lives.  One is roughly equivalent to your current life (or a typical human life).  You experience pleasure and pain; some of your preferences are satisfied and some aren't.  The other life involves your being attached to an experience machine that directly feeds experiences into your brain.  You will be given an amnesiac when you are attached so that you will forget the fact that you are on the experience machine: it will seems as if you current life is continuing.  But your life on the experience machine will be supremely good from the subjective point of view.  You will feel supremely happy.  You will be successful, adored by your friends and partners, and everything that makes you feel good (whether it be career success or Jimmy Choo shoes) will come your way.  This life will involve very little or no pain, frustration, or disappointment.  Finally, the experience machine is well tested, and you are truly convinced that it will cause you no serious physical harm.  Which life would you choose?

Many people would choose a normal life with real experiences and would believe that there life on the experience machine would go very badly--although it would seem as if it were going well.  If you have this reaction to the thought experiments, then you have a reason to believe that you have metaethical intuitions that are inconsistent with a hedonistic-subjectivist conception of well-being.

Of course, this thought experiment can be criticized in various ways.  It might be argued that you aversion to the experience machine is improperly influence by a reaction that being on the machine would be "yucky"--when (by hypothesis) it would not be.  Or it might be the cases that you distrust the long-range effectiveness of the machine.  These issues have to be considered carefully before we place too much stock in the results of a thought experiment.

There is so much more to be said about the inquiry into the nature of the human good, and my discussion of methodology and one thought experiment does not even begin to scratch the surface.  Nonetheless, I hope I have given you an idea of how you might begin to think and argue about this topic.

Why Does the Human Good Matter to Legal Theory?

I imagine that most readers of the Lexicon can see that the nature of the human good has important implications for legal policy.  If the preference satisfaction view of welfare were correct, then normative law and economics might provide the correct methodology for normative legal theory.  If the hedonistic approach were correct, then we would want to pay close attention to empirical research on subjective happiness.  Normative evaluation of legal policy is one of the central activities of legal scholars, and one's views about the human good surely plays a big rule in such evaluations.  Of course, some normative theories (e.g., consequentialism) will given the human good a decisive role in the evaluation of legal policy, whereas others, e.g., deontological or rights based theories might give the human good a less prominent role.

Can We Do Normative Legal Theory Without a Conception of the Human Good?

Given the difficulty of arriving at confident conclusions about the nature of the human good, you might ask, "Can we ever reach confident conclusions in applied normative legal theory?"  Or to put the question differently, "If I can't make up my mind about the nature of the human good, can I still reach confident conclusions about what legal rules are better than others?"  One answer to this question might invoke the Rawlsian idea of an overlapping consensus.  There may be a wide range of cases where the most plausible theories of the human good converge, and legal theorists might focus on those cases.  A related strategy might invoke the idea of "public reasons," and argue that controversial conceptions of the human good are inappropriate as reasons for public policy.  Another strategy might involve a kind of what is called "pragmatism."  (I am using the scare quotes, because I have doubts about the use of that term, but those doubts can be set aside for now.)  That is, we could invoke the theory of the human good that seems most appropriate or salient for each context.  When we do tax policy, we might use the welfarist conception of the human good, but when we are thinking about health policy, we might focus on objective health outcomes.  Of course, there is always the option of abandoning normative theory altogether.  You might come to the conclusion that legal scholars can only describe existing doctrine and provide information about the probably effects of changing that doctrine.

Conclusion

As usual, the Lexicon is both too short and too long.  Too short to even give you and elementary introduction to the issues, but too long for a one minute read.  Nonetheless, I hope to have given you the tools that can help you to identify questions about the human good and to read intelligently about this topic.

Related Entries in the Lexicon

• Legal Theory Lexicon 008: Utilitarianism
• Legal Theory Lexicon 010: Deontology
• Legal Theory Lexicon 012: Virtue Ethics
• Legal Theory Lexicon 016: Positive and Normative Legal Theory
• Legal Theory Lexicon 025: Social Welfare Functions
• Legal Theory Lexicon 028: Concepts and Conceptions
• Legal Theory Lexicon 041: Metaethics
• Legal Theory Lexicon 060: Efficiency, Pareto, and Kaldor-Hicks

Other Resources on the Web

• Roger Crisp, Well-Being, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Andrew Moore, Hedonism, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bibliography

• Bentham, J., (1789), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
• Feldman, F. (2004) Pleasure and the Good Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
• Griffin, J. (1986) Well-being (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
• Mill, J.S., (1863), Utilitarianism.
• Nozick, R., (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
• Nussbaum, M and A. Sen (ed.) (1993) The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Scanlon, T. (1998) What Do We Owe to Each Other?, Harvard: Belknap Press.
• Sumner, W. (1996) Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

(This entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon was last revised on May 31, 2009.)

Glöckner & Engel on Intuitive Jurors

Andreas Glöckner and Christoph Engel (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods and Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods) have posted Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Jury members do not normally have the privilege of a complete, unbiased picture of the case. To make the best of patently incomplete evidence, they cannot but at least partially rely on their intuition. We provide evidence for this claim based on self-report data as well as more subtle measures of unconscious modifications of the evidence in order to fit the favoured interpretation (coherence shifts). In three experiments we investigated whether members of a mock jury apply standards of proof in a normatively appropriate way, how well they take into account explicitly stated probability information, and which factors influence the size of coherence shifts. We found a mixed pattern of results: manipulation of the standard of proof influences conviction rates in the intended direction, but there are fewer convictions in both standard of proof conditions than normatively expected. When asked to indicate the minimum probability of guilt necessary for conviction, subjects do not sufficiently discriminate between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence". Even substantial manipulations of the posterior probability of guilt had very little effect on conviction rates. Reliance on intuitive processes seems to reduce the influence of explicitly stated probabilities. We furthermore found effects of verdict and of the probability manipulation on the size of coherence shifts. We argue that the performance of jury members could be improved by providing them with supplementary information on context, such that they are able to put explicit information on probabilities in perspective.

Eisenberg & Lanvers on Settlement Rates

Theodore Eisenberg and Charlotte Lanvers (Cornell University - School of Law and Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Inc.) have posted What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care? on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

This article first shows that different research questions can yield different settlement rates. Using data gathered from about 3,300 federal cases in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) and the Northern District of Georgia (NDGA), differing measures of settlement emerge depending on whether one is interested in (1) settlement as a proxy for plaintiffs' litigation success or (2) settlement as a measure of litigated disputes resolved without final adjudication. Using settlement as a proxy for plaintiff success, we estimate the aggregate settlement rate across case categories in the two districts to have been 66.9% in 2001-02. Regardless of the method of computing settlement rates, no reasonable estimate of settlement rates supports an aggregate rate of over 90% of filed cases, despite frequent references to 90% or higher settlement rates. The aggregate rate for the EDPA alone was 71.6% and for the NDGA alone was 57.8%, suggesting significant interdistrict variation, which persists even within case categories. We report separate settlement rates for employment discrimination, constitutional tort, contract, and tort cases in the two districts. The highest settlement rate was 87.2% for tort cases in the EDPA and the lowest was 27.3% for constitutional tort cases in the NDGA. Our results, consistently with prior settlement research, suggest a hierarchy of settlement rates. Of major case categories, tort cases tend to have the highest settlement rates, then contract cases, then employment discrimination cases, followed by constitutional tort cases. Attorney fee structure and the nature of the parties may explain settlement rate variation. Our findings provide no evidence of a material change in aggregate settlement rates over time.

Highly recommended.

Cox & Miles on Judicial Ideology & Voting Rights Jurisprudence

Adam B. Cox & Thomas J. Miles (University of Chicago - Law School) have posted Judicial Ideology and the Transformation of Voting Rights Jurisprudence (University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 75, 2008) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

For two decades, the doctrinal test laid out in Thornburg v. Gingles has been the centerpiece of vote dilution litigation in the United States. Gingles defined a sequential, two-part framework combining a set of rule-like preconditions to liability with a standard-like inquiry into the totality of the circumstances. Despite this elaborate framework, emerging empirical work shows that political ideology connects closely with how judges have decided vote dilution cases; Democratic appointees have proven much more likely than Republican appointees to favor liability under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This work raises the question of what role the Gingles framework really plays in voting rights litigation. More basically, it raises the fundamental question of whether legal doctrine actually constrains judicial decisionmaking. Using a dataset of every Section 2 decision issued since Gingles, this Article explores these twin puzzles. It finds substantial evidence that legal rules are indeed more ideologically constraining than standards. Ideological divisions are much more pronounced in the standard-like second step of Gingles than under the more rule-like preconditions. Moreover, the Article shows that the doctrinal dynamics of vote dilution litigation have changed dramatically over the past two decades. As the representational and political implications of vote dilution claims have shifted, the Gingles factors that both judges and scholars claim are central to the liability inquiry have become far less important. Courts' sharp movement away from the centrality of the Gingles factors amounts to a largely unrecognized second transformation of voting rights litigation.

And from the paper:

Our findings provide support for two of the central theoretical intuitions about rules and standards. First, they indicate that rules indeed may, to a greater extent than standards, limit discretion and suppress ideological disagreements among judges. Second, they suggest that the flexibility preserved by standards may make it easier for adjudicators to respond to changing circumstances over time.

These findings have important implications for the long‐standing debate about whether (and how) legal rules actually constrain judges. But our results also lead to a number of specific insights about the operation of the Voting Rights Act and the protection of minority voting rights. The doctrinal structure that Justice Brennan created in Gingles may well have been intended to encourage judicial intervention in the wake of Congress’s amendments to Section 2. By establishing a set of relatively objective preconditions to liability, Brennan gave lower courts a steadier foothold for liability findings. Nonetheless, as these preconditions over time became a potential threat to substantive minority representation and the Democratic party, Brennan’s two‐stage analytic framework became more meaningful as a safety valve against liability than a spur to it. This safety valve may have allowed courts to respond more easily to changing social conditions and political consequences. But the cost has been the growing irrelevance of the Gingles preconditions themselves. Today the preconditions are surprisingly disconnected from the liability determination. Liability follows from a finding that the preconditions are satisfied only slightly more often than it would follow from a coin flip.

All this suggests that the Supreme Court’s effort to provide an objective test for identifying minority vote dilution has been largely unsuccessful.115 The lack of success is important for ongoing debates about the structure of the Voting Rights Act. Recently, both Congress and the Supreme Court have confronted legal issues relating to how rule‐like the Act should be. In 2006, Congress amended Section 5 of the Act to make more rigid the test for measuring minority political opportunity. 116 Similar changes may soon follow for Section 2. A case currently pending before the Supreme Court raises the question of whether prong 1 of the Gingles preconditions (which requires minority voters be “sufficiently numerous” in the area where they claim a violation) should be made even more rule‐like—by requiring minority voters to constitute at least 50 percent of the voting age population of the district whose creation they seek under Section 2.117 Our results show that these changes might help suppress ideological disagreements among judges, even if these disagreements continue to beset the public conversation about voting rights. But to the extent changes to Section 2 or Section 5 do cabin ideological disagreements, they may also make it more difficult for lower courts to adjust the Act to changing social conditions.

This paper is important on its narrow topic, but even more significant for its attempt to integrate theoretical constructs derived from general jurisprudence into the judicial behavior literature.  Highly recommended!  Download it while its hot!

Choi, Gulati, and Posner Rank State Courts

Stephen J. Choi , G. Mitu Gulati and Eric A. Posner (New York University - School of Law , Duke University - School of Law and University of Chicago - Law School) have posted Which States Have the Best (and Worst) High Courts? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper ranks the high courts of the fifty states, based on their performance during the years 1998-2000, along three dimensions: opinion quality (or influence as measured by out-of-state citations), independence (or non-partisanship), and productivity (opinions written). We also discuss ways of aggregating these measures. California and Delaware had the most influential courts; Georgia and Mississippi had the most productive courts; and Rhode Island and New York had the most independent courts. If equal weight is given to each measure, then the top five states were: California, Arkansas, North Dakota, Montana, and Ohio. We compare our approach and results with those of other scholars and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose influential rankings are based on surveys of lawyers at big corporations.

A bit more from the paper:

In earlier work, we showed that the relationship between institutional design and judicial quality is complex, and does not lend much support to the conventional wisdom. Appointed judges write more frequently-cited opinions than elected judges do, but elected judges are more productive, while there seems to be no difference between their levels of independence.18 Judicial pay has little effect on judicial quality, except among elected judges, who are more productive when paid more.19 It is not the purpose of this Article to review or reproduce these findings. Our goal instead is to generate a ranking of the state high courts on the basis of the data that we collected for the earlier studies. We will argue that our ranking overcomes many of the defects of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce study, as well as those of earlier academic work.

Rankings make people uneasy. They seem to trivialize activities that are of public importance, and they may stimulate the ranked agents or institutions to engage in destructive competition or demoralize those that have no ability to escape from the bottom. The most serious objection to rankings is that they unavoidably rely on measures that neglect hard-toobserve but important aspects of performance. If nonetheless those who achieve a high ranking are rewarded with resources or public esteem, institutions will distort their missions so as to do well on whatever measures are used.20

We address this objection by making our rankings as transparent and flexible as possible. Readers might disagree about how to weight the different measures that we use, and we show how such disagreements may lead to different rankings of the state courts. The alternative to rankings is, as a practical matter, virtually no information, and public institutions that are not carefully monitored and evaluated will rarely have strong incentives to perform well. Rankings, however imperfect, serve an important information-forcing function.21 Institutions that do poorly on rankings should have the burden of coming forth with an explanation for their performance; but if the explanation is plausible, then the ranking should be discounted. Better still, if the stakes are high enough – and the amounts of money spent by institutions like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on commissioning rankings suggest there are22 – competitor rankings should emerge that improve upon the prior ones.

A must read.  And even if these rankings are imperfect, they are certainly a huge improvement over the status quo.  Bravo!

Niblett, Posner, and Shleifer on Evolution of a Legal Rule

Anthony Niblett (Harvard University - Faculty of Arts and Sciences), Richard A. Posner (United States Court of Appeals) & Andrei Shleifer (Harvard University - Department of Economics) have posted The Evolution of a Legal Rule on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The efficiency of common law rules is central to achieving efficient resource allocation in a market economy. While many theories suggest reasons why judge-made law should tend toward efficient rules, the question whether the common law actually does converge in commercial areas has remained empirically untested. We create a dataset of 465 state-court appellate decisions involving the application of the Economic Loss Rule in construction disputes and track the evolution of law in this area from 1970 to 2005. We find that over this period the law did not converge to any stable resting point and evolved differently in different states. We find that legal evolution is influenced by plaintiffs‘ claims, the relative economic power of the parties, and nonbinding federal precedent.

Very interesting. 

Benforado & Hanson on Situationalism

Adam Benforado and Jon D. Hanson (Harvard Law School) have posted The Great Attributional Divide: How Divergent Views of Human Behavior are Shaping Legal Policy (Emory Law Journal, Vol. 57, 2008) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This article, the first of a multipart series, argues that a major rift runs across many of our major policy debates based on our attributional tendencies: the less accurate dispositionist approach, which explains outcomes and behavior with reference to people's dispositions (i.e., personalities, preferences, and the like), and the more accurate situationist approach, which bases attributions of causation and responsibility on unseen influences within us and around us. Given that situationism offers a truer picture of our world than the alternative, and given that attributional tendencies are largely the result of elements in our situations, identifying the relevant elements should be a major priority of legal scholars. With such information, legal academics could predict which individuals, institutions, and societies are most likely to produce situationist ideas¿in other words, which have the greatest potential for developing the accurate attributions of human behavior that are so important to law.

A good introduction.  I have grave doubts about the situationalist program based on extensive reading of the underlying social psychology literature, but this is interesting work and this paper is certainly recommended.

Eisenberg & Heise on an Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal

Theodore Eisenberg and Michael Heise (Cornell University - School of Law and Cornell Law School) have posted Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Two findings dominate prior empirical studies of federal civil appeals. First, appeals courts are more likely to disrupt jury verdicts than bench decisions. Second, trial court defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. But federal cases are limited by subject matter and comprise a small fraction of the nation's civil litigation activity. This study, which exploits a uniquely comprehensive database of state court trials and civil appeals, presents the first statistical models of the appeals process for a comprehensive set of state court civil trials. Using data from 46 large counties consisting of 8,038 trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that state court appellate reversal rates for jury trials and appeals by defendants exceed the reversal rates for bench trials and appeals by plaintiffs. The reversal rate for trials appealed by plaintiffs is 21.5% compared to 41.5% for trial outcomes appealed by defendants. The reversal rate for jury trials is 33.7% compared to 27.5% for judge trials. Both descriptive analyses as well as more formal selection models point to appellate judges' attitudes toward trial-level adjudicators as an important explanation for these asymmetric outcomes of civil appeals in state courts. Our results are generally consistent with prior research on federal court appeals but also suggest a higher reversal rate of trial outcomes in state court compared to federal court.