Gender Differences in Judicial Decisions under Incomplete Information: Evidence from Child Support Cases

Roberto Asmat and Lajos Kossuth ()
Additional contact information
Lajos Kossuth: CEMFI, Centro de Estudios Monetarios y Financieros, https://www.cemfi.es/

Working Papers from CEMFI

Abstract: We compare decisions by female and male judges in child support trials where a judge decides on the child support amount to be paid by the father. Leveraging the random assignment of cases to judges, we show that female judges set lower child support awards. We find no evidence that this gap is explained by pervasive views on traditional gender norms, nor by female and male judges pursuing alternative judicial goals. Instead, we offer a new perspective on gender differences in judicial decision-making by focusing on cases where the defendant’s income is non-observable due to labor market informality. In these cases, judges must form beliefs about the income before deciding on a child support award. Eliciting such beliefs, we find that female judges rely less on the plaintiff’s claim to form beliefs about the defendant’s income, which explains the gender gap in child support awards.

Keywords: Gender; judicial decisions; informality. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: J16 J46 K15 K36 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023-05
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-gen and nep-law
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cemfi.es/ftp/wp/2303.pdf (application/pdf)

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:cmf:wpaper:wp2023_2303

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers from CEMFI Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Araceli Requerey ().