Do the "haves" come out ahead in shanghai courts?

Research output: Journal Publications and ReviewsRGC 21 - Publication in refereed journalpeer-review

70 Scopus Citations
View graph of relations

Author(s)

Related Research Unit(s)

Detail(s)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)120-145
Journal / PublicationJournal of Empirical Legal Studies
Volume10
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2013

Abstract

Drawing on 2,724 documents of adjudication decisions from Shanghai courts, this article tests the Galanter thesis that the stronger party tends to prevail over the weaker party in litigation. We find that the stronger parties not only win more often, but also do so by a large margin. Overall, institutional litigants fare better than individual litigants. When the litigants are classified by their organizational and social status, government agencies or government-related companies are the biggest winners, enjoying an enormous advantage, and farmers are the most disadvantaged underdogs, with other individuals and companies in between. When controlling for legal representation, these winning gaps remain significant and sizable. The edge of the stronger parties recurs across categories of cases in different issue areas of the law. Echoing previous comparative studies, we cast doubt on the party capability theory. We speculate that the causes of judicial inequality in China lie not only in resource gaps but also in the roots of the law and the nature of the court. © 2013, the Authors. Journal compilation © 2013, Cornell Law School and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Citation Format(s)

Do the "haves" come out ahead in shanghai courts? / He, Xin; Su, Yang.
In: Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, 03.2013, p. 120-145.

Research output: Journal Publications and ReviewsRGC 21 - Publication in refereed journalpeer-review