[Aaken, v. A., Feld, L., Voigt, S. (2010). DoIndependent Prosecutors Deter Political Corruption? An Empirical Evaluation across Seventy-eight Countries. American Law and Economics Review, 12(1), 204–244.10.1093/aler/ahq002]Search in Google Scholar
[Afonso, A., Furceri, D. (2010). Government size, composition, volatility and economic growth. European Journal of Political Economy, 26(4), 517–532.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.02.002]Search in Google Scholar
[Alesina, A., Perottti, R., Tavares, J. (1998). The Political Economy of Fiscal Adjustments. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 197–248.10.2307/2534672]Search in Google Scholar
[Alesina, A., Carloni, D., Lecce, G. (2011). The Electoral Consequences of Large Fiscal Adjustments. NBER Working Paper, 17655.10.3386/w17655]Search in Google Scholar
[Angrist, J., Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400829828]Search in Google Scholar
[Bergh, A., Karlsson, M. (2010). Government size and growth: Accounting for economic freedom and globalization. Public Choice, 142, 195–213.10.1007/s11127-009-9484-1]Search in Google Scholar
[Bossuyt, M. (2008). The Belgian Constitutional Court and the re-enacting of an annulled law. International Almanac Constitutional Justice in the New Millennium, 200–217.]Search in Google Scholar
[Brender, A. (2003). The Effect of Fiscal Performance on Local Government Election Results in Israel: 1989–1998. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2187–2205.10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00045-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Caldeira, G. (1987). Public Opinion and The U.S. Supreme Court: FDR’s Court-Packing Plan. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1139–1153.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cárdenas, M., Mejía, C., Olivera, M. (2009). Changes in Fiscal Outcomes in Colombia: The Role of the Budget Process. In Hellerberg Mark, Scartascini Carlos and Stein Ernesto (eds.). Who Decides the Budget? A Political Economy Analysis of the Budget Process in Latin America. Inter-American Development Bank.]Search in Google Scholar
[Casillas, Ch., Enns, P., Wohlfarth, P. (2011). How Public Opinion Constrains the U.S. Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 74–88.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00485.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Conseil, F. (2000). Message sur le frein à l’endettement Le président de la Confédération Adolf Ogi et La chancelie`re de la Confédération Annemarie Huber-Hotz du 5 juillet 2000. 4295–4368.]Search in Google Scholar
[De Vries, C., Hobolt, S. (2012). Do Voters Blame Governments for Social Spending Cuts? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/documents/epop/pa-pers/DeVriesHobolt EPOP2012.pdf (accessed on October 24, 2012).]Search in Google Scholar
[Deener, D. (1952). Judicial Review in Modern Constitutional Systems. The American Political Science Review, 46(4), 1079–1099.10.2307/1952114]Search in Google Scholar
[Dotan, Y. (1998). Judicial Review and Political Accountability: The Case of the High Court of Justice in Israel. Israel Law Review, 32(3), 448–474.10.1017/S0021223700015740]Search in Google Scholar
[Eslava, M. (2006). The Political Economy of Fiscal Policy: Survey. Inter-American Development Bank. Working Paper 583.10.2139/ssrn.1820060]Search in Google Scholar
[Eurobarometer (1998). Citizens and health systems: main results from a Eurobarometer survey. Employment & social affairs.]Search in Google Scholar
[Eurobarometer (2009). Intergenerational solidarity. Analytical report. Flash Eurobarometer 269 – The Gallup Organisation.]Search in Google Scholar
[Fallon, R. (2008). The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review. Harvard Law Review, 121(7), 1693–1736.]Search in Google Scholar
[Feld, L., Voigt, S. (2003). Economic Growth and Judicial Independence: Cross Country Evidence Using a New Set of Indicators. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 497–527.10.1016/S0176-2680(03)00017-X]Search in Google Scholar
[Feld, L., Voigt, S. (2006). Judicial Independence and Economic Growth: Some Proposals Regarding the Judiciary. In Congleton Roger and Swedenborg Birgitta (eds.). Democratic Constitutional Design and Public Policy, Analysis and Evidence. Cambridge: MIT Press, 251–288.]Search in Google Scholar
[Flemming, R., Wood, D. (1997). The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods. American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 468–498.10.2307/2111773]Search in Google Scholar
[Forum of Federations (2012). Federalism by Country. http://www.forumfed.org/en/federa-lism/federalismbycountry.php (accessed on October 30, 2012).]Search in Google Scholar
[Friedman, B. (2005). The Politics of Judicial Review. Texas Law Review, 84(2), 257–337.]Search in Google Scholar
[Garlicki, L. (2007). Constitutional courts versus supreme courts. International Journal Constitutional Law, 5(1), 44–68.10.1093/icon/mol044]Search in Google Scholar
[Garoupa, N. (2011). Empirical Legal Studies and Constitutional Courts. Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(1), 25–64.]Search in Google Scholar
[Garoupa, N., Ginsburg, T. (2012). Building Reputation in Constitutional Courts: Party and Judicial Politics. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 28(3), 539–568.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gely, R., Spiller, P. (1990). A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 6(2), 263–300.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gely, R., Spiller, P. (1992). The Political Economy of Supreme Court Constitutional Decisions: The Case of Roosevelt’s Court-Packing Plan. International Review of Law and Economics, 12, 45–67.10.1016/0144-8188(92)90005-C]Search in Google Scholar
[Giles, M., Blackstone, B., Vining, R. (2008). The Supreme Court in American Democracy: Unraveling the Linkages between Public Opinion and Judicial Decision Making. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 293–306.10.1017/S0022381608080316]Search in Google Scholar
[Ginsburg, T. (2006). Economic Analysis and the Design of Constitutional Courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 3,1.]Search in Google Scholar
[Ginsburg, T. (2008). The Global Spread of Constitutional Review. In Whittington Keith, Kelemen Daniel, Caldeira Gregory (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, 81.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199208425.003.0006]Search in Google Scholar
[Ginsburg, T., Elkins, Z. (2009). Ancillary Powers of Constitutional Courts. University of Texas Law Review, 87, 1430–1461.]Search in Google Scholar
[Golder, M. (2000). Democratic Electoral Systems around the World, 1946–2000. Retrieved from https://files.nyu.edu/mrg217/public/elections.html (accessedon November 17, 2012).]Search in Google Scholar
[Gutmann, J., Hayo, B., Voigt, S. (2011). Determinants of Constitutionally Safeguarded Judicial Review – Insights Based on a New Indicator. Working Paper. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1947244 (accessed on October 23, 2012).]Search in Google Scholar
[Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., Hall, J. (2012). Economic Freedom of the World: 2012 Annual Report. Fraser Institute.]Search in Google Scholar
[Von Hagen, J. (1992). Budgeting Procedures and Fiscal Performance in the European Communities. Commission of the European Communities. DG ECFIN. European Economy Paper No. 96.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hansen, J.M. (1998). Individuals, Institutions, and Public Preferences over Public Finance. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 513–531.10.2307/2585478]Search in Google Scholar
[Hayo, B., Voigt, S. (2007). Explainingde facto judicial independence. International Review of Law and Economics, 27, 269–290.10.1016/j.irle.2007.07.004]Search in Google Scholar
[Henisz, W. (2000). The Institutional Environment for Economic Growth. Economics and Politics, 12(1), 1–31.10.1111/1468-0343.00066]Search in Google Scholar
[Jolls, Ch., Sunstein, C., Thaler, R. (1998). A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1547.10.2307/1229304]Search in Google Scholar
[Kelsen, H. (1942). Judicial Review of Legislation. The Journal of Politics, 4(2), 183–200.10.2307/2125770]Search in Google Scholar
[Kirchgässner, G. (2005). Sustainable Fiscal Policy in a Federal State: The Swiss Example. Swiss Political Science Review, 11(4), 19–46.10.1002/j.1662-6370.2005.tb00369.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Landes, W., Posner R. (1975). The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective. Journal of Law and Economics, 18(3). Economic Analysis of Political Behavior: Universities-National Bureau Conference Series Number 29. 875–901.10.3386/w0110]Search in Google Scholar
[Link, M. (1995). Tracking Public Mood in the Supreme Court: Cross-Time Analyses of Criminal Procedure and Civil Rights Cases. Political Research Quarterly, 48(1), 61–78.10.1177/106591299504800104]Search in Google Scholar
[McGuire, K., Stimson, J. (2004). The Least Dangerous Branch Revisited: New Evidence on Supreme Court Responsiveness to Public Preferences. The Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1018–1035.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00288.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Mehrhoff, J. (2009). A solution to the problem of too many instruments in dynamic panel data GMM. Deutsche Bundesbank. Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies. No 31.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mishler, W., Sheehan, R. (1993). The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions. The American Political Science Review, 87(1), 87–101.10.2307/2938958]Search in Google Scholar
[Mishler, W., Sheehan, R. (1994). Popular Influence on Supreme Court Decisions. The American Political Science Review, 88(3), 716–24.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mishler, W., Sheehan, R. (1996). Public Opinion, the Attitudinal Model, and Supreme CourtDecision Making: AMicro-Analytic Perspective. Journal of Politics, 58(1), 169–200.10.2307/2960354]Search in Google Scholar
[Mueller, D. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813771]Search in Google Scholar
[Mukherjee, B. (2003). Political Parties and the Size of Government in Multiparty Legislatures. Examining Cross-Country and Panel Data Evidence. Comparative Political Studies, 36(6), 699–728.10.1177/0010414003254240]Search in Google Scholar
[Nannestad, P. (2008). What Have We Learned About Generalized Trust, If Anything? Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 413–437.10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135412]Search in Google Scholar
[Padovano, F., Sgarra, G., Fiorino, N. (2003). Judicial Branch, Checks and Balances and Political Accountability. Constitutional Political Economy, 14, 47–79.10.1023/A:1022347908667]Search in Google Scholar
[Peltzman, S. (1992). Voters as Fiscal Conservatives. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2), 327–361.10.2307/2118475]Search in Google Scholar
[Persson, T., Tabellini, G. (2003). Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2591.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Persson, T., Tabellini, G. (2004). Constitutional Rules and Fiscal Policy Outcomes. The American Economic Review, 94(1), 25–45.10.1257/000282804322970689]Search in Google Scholar
[Pommerehne, W., Schneider, F. (1978). Fiscal Illusion, Political Institutions, and Local Public Spending. Kyklos, 31(3), 381–408.10.1111/j.1467-6435.1978.tb00648.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Posner, R. (2008). How Judges Think. Harvard University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Prohl, S., Schneider, F. (2009). Does Decentralization Reduce Government Size? A Qualitative Study of the Decentralization Hypothesis. Public Finance Review, 37(6), 639–664.10.1177/1091142109345264]Search in Google Scholar
[Raudla, R. (2010). Constitution, Public Finance, and Transition. Theoretical Developments in Constitutional Public Finance and the Case of Estonia. Finanzsoziologie 4, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-653-00342-0]Search in Google Scholar
[Raudla, R. (2011). Effects of a Constitution on Taxation: The Role of Constitutional Review in the Development of Tax Laws in Estonia. Halduskultuur – Administrative Culture, 12(1), 76–105.]Search in Google Scholar
[Romero-Àvila, D., Strauch, R. (2008). Public finances and long-term growth in Europe: Evidence from a panel data analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 24(1), 172–191.10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2007.06.008]Search in Google Scholar
[Roodman, D. (2006). How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata. Center for Global Development. Working Paper Number 103.10.2139/ssrn.982943]Search in Google Scholar
[Roodman, D. (2009). Practitioners’ Corner. A Note on the Theme of Too Many Instruments. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 71(1).]Search in Google Scholar
[Sadurski, W. (2002). Constitutional Justice, East and West. Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in A Comparative Perspective. Kluwer Law International.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schauer, F. (2012). The Political Risks (if any) of Breaking the Law. Journal of Legal Analysis, 4(1), 83–101.10.1093/jla/las010]Search in Google Scholar
[Schäfer, H.-B., Ott, C. (2004). The Economic Analysis of Civil Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.]Search in Google Scholar
[Schuknecht, L. (1994). Political Business Cycles and Expenditure Policies in Developing Countries. IMF Working Paper 121.10.5089/9781451854312.001]Search in Google Scholar
[Schwartz, H. (2002). The struggle for constitutional justice in post-communist Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Segal, J., Spaeth, H. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615696]Search in Google Scholar
[Soto, M. (2009). System GMM estimation with a small sample. Barcelona Economics Working Paper Series Working Paper no. 395.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stimson, J., MacKuen, M., Erikson, R. (1995). Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543–65.10.2307/2082973]Search in Google Scholar
[Stone, A. (1995). Coordinate Construction in France and Germany. In Tate Neal and Vallinder Torbjörn (eds.). The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York University Press: New York, London. 205–229.]Search in Google Scholar
[Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with Judges. Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198297718.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Stone Sweet, A. (2007). The politics of constitutional review in France and Europe. International Journal of Constitutional Review, 5(1), 69–92.10.1093/icon/mol041]Search in Google Scholar
[Tonelson, A. (2002). The Race to the Bottom. Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards. Boulder: Westview Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tridimas, G. (2005). Judges and Taxes: Judicial review, judicial independence and the size of government. Constitutional Political Economy, 16, 5–30.10.1007/s10602-005-5850-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Trybunał K. (2003). Prawo podatkowe w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w 2002 r. Wydawnictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego. 15–27.]Search in Google Scholar
[Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400831456]Search in Google Scholar
[Tushnet, M. (2010). How Different are Waldron’s and Fallon’s Core Cases for and against Judicial Review? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1), 49–70.10.1093/ojls/gqq003]Search in Google Scholar
[Ura, J., Wohlfarth, P. (2010). “An Appeal to the People”: Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme Court. The Journal of Politics, 72(4), 939–956.10.1017/S0022381610000459]Search in Google Scholar
[Vallinder, T. (1995). When the Courts Go Marching In. In Tate Neal and Vallinder Torbjörn (eds.). The Global Expansion of Judicial Power. New York University Press: New York, London. 13–26.]Search in Google Scholar
[Vanberg, G. (2005). The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Vaubel, R. (1996). Constitutional Safeguards Against Centralization in Federal States: An International Cross-Section Analysis. Constitutional Political Economy, 7, 79–102.]Search in Google Scholar
[Vaubel, R. (2009). Constitutional courts as promoters of political centralization: lessons for the European Court of Justice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 28, 203–222.10.1007/s10657-009-9108-8]Search in Google Scholar
[Volcansek, M. (2000). Constitutional Politics in Italy: The Constitutional Court. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press and New York: St. Martin’s Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[Volcansek, M. (2001). Constitutional courts as veto players: Divorce and decrees in Italy. European Journal of Political Research, 39, 347–372.10.1111/1475-6765.00580]Search in Google Scholar
[Wagner, R. (1976). Revenue Structure, Fiscal Illusion, and Budgetary Choice. Public Choice, 25, 45–61.10.1007/BF01726330]Search in Google Scholar
[Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Review, 115, 1346–1406.10.2307/20455656]Search in Google Scholar
[Welch, S. (1985). The “More for Less” Paradox: Public Attitudes on Taxing and Spending. Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(3).10.1086/268929]Search in Google Scholar
[Wittrup, J. (2010). Budgeting in the Era of Judicial Independence. International Journal For Court Administration. April.10.18352/ijca.40]Search in Google Scholar
[Wooldridge, J. (2009). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. South-Western Cengage Learning.]Search in Google Scholar