We use data from Pakistan to establish a reciprocal exchange relationship between the judiciary and government. We document large transfers in the form of expensive real estate from the government to the judiciary, and large favors in the form of pro-government rulings from the judiciary to the government. Our estimates indicate that the allocation of houses to judges increases pro-government rulings by 50% and reduces decisions on case merits by 30%. The allocation also incurs a cumulative cost of 0.03% of GDP to the government. However, it allows the government to expropriate additional land worth 0.2% of GDP in one year. The results suggest that such transfers within the state deteriorate the rule of law.
How and when does a reform trigger a cascading effect? This paper provides evidence that a judge selection reform in Pakistan, which shifted the appointment power of judges from the government to a committee of judges, had a multiplier effect on anti-government rulings in the decade following its implementation. As the first generation of committee-appointed judges (first-degree of separation from the government) is replaced by the second generation of committee appointees (second-degree of separation from the government), the reform's effect compounds. Nevertheless, as the reform amplifies anti-government rulings, it also increases the concentration of judges hired from a few select law firms. Despite the rise in judges hiring their former colleagues from law firms where they previously practiced as attorneys, there is no observable decline in the quality of judicial decisions. Rulings based on case merits and adherence to due process of law rise with each degree of separation from government appointments. Selection effects of second-generation judges drawing talent from top law schools emerge as a key contributor behind the reform multiplier effect. Overall, our results underscore that measures increasing the independence of the judiciary can have enduring positive effects on judicial autonomy and decision quality, even when they concurrently alter the composition of the judicial elite by making it concentrated.
The strategic use of judicial processes against political rivals, often described as lawfare, has long characterized authoritarian regimes and has more recently drawn attention even within established democracies. The central empirical challenge is whether prosecutions reflect uniform enforcement of wrongdoing or selective targeting for political advantage. Using a regression discontinuity design and newly assembled data from Pakistan, this study provides causal evidence of lawfare and develops an empirical strategy to detect politically motivated prosecution. We show that such strategic deployment of the justice system undermines its effectiveness by displacing legitimate corruption enforcement, particularly in cases involving non-political actors such as career bureaucrats. The evidence further suggests the conditions under which the weaponization of justice is most likely and when it appears to be absent. Overall, our findings highlight how judicial processes can deviate from impartial enforcement and in doing so erode rule-based accountability.
Teaching in public schools is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. We work with one of the largest networks of charter schools to investigate how mental health assistance to teachers impacts their and students' mental health. We provide experimental evidence on how teacher stress can be reduced, how it transmits to student stress, and how it may hold back academic achievement. We randomly assign teachers to mindful meditation, individual cognitive behavioral therapy sessions, and pharmacological aid. Meditation and cognitive behavioral therapy reduce stress, while no impact of pharmacological assistance is observed. In a factorial design, we also cross-randomize teachers to reduce mental health stigma, increasing the acceptability of seeking pharmacological aid. We observe increased take up and impact of pharmacological aid in the cross-randomized group. Overall, we find stress from teacher to student is transmissible and hurts student learning, but these costs can be ameliorated through policy interventions. Social stigma against pharmacological assistance is a key stumbling block beyond financial constraints that hurts teachers' and students' mental health. A social action signaling social acceptance of seeking mental health reduces stigma associated with accepting pharmacological help, increase take-up of pharmacological aid, and reduces the stress in short and medium term.
(on-going) How can technology expand women’s access to justice in settings where social and mobility constraints limit interactions with state institutions? We study a large-scale natural experiment in which all police stations in April 2024 in Punjab, Pakistan, adopted a virtual police station system that enabled women to report gender-based violence through an interactive voice response (IVR) platform. Using administrative call-level (similar to 911 calls) data from 2022–2024 and a difference-in-differences design, we find that the reform led to a sharp increase in reported gender-based violence (GBV) cases, with no comparable change in non-gender crime calls. We also see an increase in the number of formal investigations launched by the police in GBV cases.
We study the altruistic motives behind vaccination intentions. Using data from a field experiment in Pakistan, we find that providing information about the probability of transmitting Covid-19 to others substantially increases vaccination intention. Subjects are more responsive to a treatment that focuses their attention to the loss experienced when they do not get vaccinated and infect others, relative to a treatment that focuses their attention on the gain experienced when they get vaccinated and do not infect others. We explain our findings in a theoretical model that accounts for reference-dependent preferences and loss aversion. Using the model, we estimate subjects’ loss aversion in the context of altruistic preferences to be between 2.2 and 2.9.Overall, our results suggest that loss aversion affects altruistic preferences and can be leveraged to increase vaccination take up.
This paper examines the impact of air pollution on judicial decision-making in district courts across India. Using a novel dataset that combines judicial records with satellite-based pollution and wind data, we exploit exogenous variation in pollution levels caused by upwind pollution sources to identify the causal effect of air quality on court rulings. Our findings indicate that higher levels of air pollution are associated with harsher sentences, longer delays, erratic decisions, and more reversal of decisions at higher courts, consistent with the hypothesis that pollution impairs cognitive function. These results have important implications for understanding the broader societal impacts of environmental degradation.