A consortium of researchers dedicated to improving the understanding of the human causes and consequences of terrorism

Institutional Paths to Policy Change: Judicial Versus Nonjudicial Repeal of Sodomy Laws

What variables lead judicial and nonjudicial decision-making bodies to intrduce policy change? In the theoretical framework proposed, the path-dependent nature of law has a differential impact on courts and legislatures.  Likewise, certain political institutions including elections and political accountability lead those bodies to introduce policy change under dissimilar circumstances. Global trends, however, affect both institutional paths equally. We test this theory with data for the repeal of sodomy laws in all countries from 1972–2002. Results from two disparate multivariate models overwhelmingly confirm our predictions. The unique institutional position of courts of last resort allows them to be less constrained than legislatures by either legal status quo or political accountability. Globalization, on the other hand, has a comparable effect on both. This work is path breaking in offering a theoretical framework explaining policy change via different institutional paths, systematically testing the framework comparatively and with respect to a policy issue still on the agenda in many countries.

Publication Information

Full Citation:

Sommer, Udi, and Victor Asal, Katie Zuber, Jonathan Parent. 2013. "Institutional Paths to Policy Change: Judicial Versus Nonjudicial Repeal of Sodomy Laws." Law & Society Review (February): 409-439. http://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/udis/files/2013/02/Sommer-et-al.-LSR-…

START Author(s):

Additional Info