Public confidence in the judiciary: the interaction between political awareness and level of democracy

Judicial Performance and Trust in Legal Systems: Findings from a Decade of Surveys in over 20 European Countries

“…Looking first at sociodemographic characteristics, we can see that women and younger respondents tend to lend greater trust to the judicial system, replicating the results of previous studies (Bühlmann and Kunz, 2011; Roussey and Deffains, 2012; Salzman and Ramsey, 2013; Aydın Çakır and Şekercioğlu, 2016; Garoupa and Magalhães, 2020). Furthermore, like Aydın Çakır and Şekercioğlu (2016) and Boateng and Ajorlolo (2019)—but contrary to Salzman and Ramsey (2013)—we also find that trust seems to increase with respondents’ education.…”

“…Next, moving to attitudinal variables, interpersonal trust (as in Aydın Çakır and Şekercioğlu, 2016) and, particularly, trust in parliament (as in Bühlmann and Kunz, 2011; Garoupa and Magalhães, 2020) are powerfully and positively related with one's level of trust in the judicial system. The effect of trust in parliament is particularly large: moving from the lowest (0) to the highest (10) value of trust in parliament yields a predicted increase in trust in the legal system of about 5.4 points, about 2 standard deviations in the dependent variable.…”

“…Salzman and Ramsey (2013), in their study of confidence in Latin American courts, employ a measure of “judicial system quality,” combining measures of judicial independence and impartiality from the Global Competitiveness Reports Executive Survey. Similarly, Aydın Çakır and Şekercioğlu (2016) employ a variable capturing “overall performance and quality of the judicial system,” based on the Legal System and Property Rights Index of the Economic Freedom in the World Report. However, besides relying on subjective assessments of experts or business leaders, these variables tend to collapse “procedural” and “performance” considerations into a single measure.…”

“…However, besides relying on subjective assessments of experts or business leaders, these variables tend to collapse “procedural” and “performance” considerations into a single measure. While the measure used by Salzman and Ramsey (2013) is based on a double‐barreled question about “efficient and clear, neutral process,” the one used by Aydın Çakır and Şekercioğlu (2016) conflates impartiality‐related aspects (“judicial independence” and “impartial courts”) with effectiveness‐related aspects (“regulatory costs,” “legal enforcement of contracts,” or “business costs of crime,” for example).…”

“…On the other hand, existing comparative studies of trust in the judicial system have not been conclusive about the role of judicial performance either. Some have employed measures that effectively collapse procedural and performance considerations (Salzman and Ramsey, 2013; Aydın Çakır and Şekercioğlu, 2016), making it difficult to discern their independent role. Others have ignored judicial performance altogether (Bühlmann and Kunz, 2011; Boateng and Adjorlolo, 2019; Garoupa and Magalhães, 2020).…”