The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Global Measure of Judicial Independence, 1948–2012
Abstract
We present a new cross-national measure of de facto judicial independence, which is available for 200 countries from 1948 to 2012. To do so, we introduce a statistical measurement model for uncovering latent concepts commonly encountered in time-series, cross-sectional analyses in comparative politics and international relations. Our approach addresses unique challenges that arise in these data: temporal dependence in the observed and unobserved variables, conceptual boundedness in the latent quantity, and substantial missing data and measurement error in the observable indicators. The resulting measures match a common conceptual definition of independence with greater reliability than existing alternatives. The model is extensible to many concepts in comparative politics and international relations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003) · doi:10.1201/9780429258480 · Cited by 27,276
Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences
Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177011136 · Cited by 16,627
General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations
Brooks, S. P., & Gelman, A. (1998) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1998.10474787 · Cited by 6,045
North, D. C., & Weingast, B. R. (1989) · The Journal of Economic History · doi:10.1017/s0022050700009451 · Cited by 5,300
The Logic of Political Survival
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4292.001.0001 · Cited by 4,217 · cited 1×
“The ratio between the size of the winning coalition and the selectorate must lie on the unit interval ðBueno de Mesquita et al. 2003Þ.”
BackgroundMarkov Chain Monte Carlo Convergence Diagnostics: A Comparative Review
Cowles, M. K., & Carlin, B. P. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476956 · Cited by 2,056
Economic Freedom of the World: 2022 Annual Report
Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., Hall, J., & Murphy, R. (2022) · Fraser Institute eBooks · doi:10.53095/88975001 · Cited by 1,624
The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data
CLINTON, J., JACKMAN, S., & RIVERS, D. (2004) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055404001194 · Cited by 1,153
Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999
Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2002) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/10.2.134 · Cited by 1,144
Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases
Ginsburg, T. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511511189 · Cited by 988
Cited by
Fixing the Past: The Effects of Human Rights Trials on Political Attitudes in Argentina
(2025) · doi:10.1017/s0007123424000206 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Linzer, D. A., & Staton, J. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Law and Courts
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 223-256
- ISSN
- 2164-6570 (ISSN-L)
- 2164-6589
- OpenAlex
- W2255102440
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 240.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Global Measure of Judicial Independence, 1948–2012. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/682150
- The paper
- Linzer, D. A., & Staton, J. K. (2015). A Global Measure of Judicial Independence, 1948–2012. Journal of Law and Courts. https://doi.org/10.1086/682150
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
