A replication study worth replicating: A comment on Salmanowitz and Spamann

William H.J. Hubbard

International Review of Law and Economics, 2019, vol. 58, issue C, 1-2

Abstract: In “Does the Supreme Court Really Not Apply Chevron When It Should?,” Natalie Salmanowitz and Holger Spamann provide an excellent example of what replication studies in law and economics can and should do. They follow in the footsteps of a highly cited study (Eskridge and Baer, 2008), illuminate its methodological limitations, and with a compelling research design, obtain distinctive results. Importantly, Salmanowitz and Spamann’s methodology is itself reproducible, and it suggests a template for researchers looking to replicate other studies or conduct original research on similar topics.

Keywords: Replication; Empirical legal studies; Chevron (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818818302886
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:58:y:2019:i:c:p:1-2

DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2018.12.002

Access Statistics for this article

International Review of Law and Economics is currently edited by C. Ott, A. W. Katz and H-B. Schäfer

More articles in International Review of Law and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().