Abstract
Different judges, doctors, loan officers, and patent examiners make different decisions, generating costly uncertainty over ultimate outcomes. In this paper, I use multiple-stage decisionmaking institutions to identify nonparametric bounds on disagreement between decision-makers. I bound disagreement to at least 17% of all Canadian refugee appeals, 150% larger than the estimate using existing methods and substantial relative to an average approval rate of 14%. I aggregate disagreement into judge-specific measures of quality, and find that quality improves with experience, declines with workload, and is higher for judges appointed under a nonpartisan regime. Finally, I adopt my method to test and reject the typical examiner-assignment monotonicity assumption.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
