LEGAL CLARITY AND IMPARTIALITY An Experimental Study of Consistency in Decision Making Among Government Officials Worldwid

Abstract

The language used in legal texts is often ambiguous, hindering bureaucrats' ability to understand, interpret, and apply the law consistently, thereby threatening impartiality. The Quality of Government (QoG) literature foregrounds the importance of impartiality. However, it largely overlooks how legal language clarity affects this principle in practice. This thesis bridges two unconnected literatures: QoG and legal scholarship. Although legal origin theory links legal traditions to government performance, it overlooks the role of legal clarity. Legal research highlights the importance of clarity for legal comprehension, yet it does not address its implications for bureaucratic decision-making. This thesis addresses this gap by asking: How does the clarity of legal language affect bureaucratic impartiality? It advances a theoretical argument linking legal clarity to impartiality via the mechanism of consistent application. To test the argument empirically, the study conducted an online survey experiment with over 900 former and current government officials worldwide. Participants were randomly assigned to read a case based on a real-life scenario where the law was framed in either ambiguous or clearer legal language. The findings provide empirical support to the proposed theory that legal clarity promotes impartiality: individuals exposed to ambiguous wording applied the law less consistently. The thesis broadens the prevailing perception of QoG by advancing a nuanced understanding of impartiality, which considers the role of legal language clarity.