Conclusion

Abstract

AbstractDetailed constitutions bind states to the past. In states with the lengthiest constitutions, policymakers flail against these constraints by proposing more constitutional amendments and by taking more actions likely to attract judicial invalidation. No wonder they writhe: constitutional specificity hinders economic performance and reduces state innovativeness. Detailed constitutions also endure longer than shorter ones, but not for good reasons; because negotiating a lengthy constitution involves greater bargaining costs than negotiating a shorter one, states with lengthy constitutions are more willing to tolerate governmental underperformance. A lengthy, frequently amended constitution is not a benign alternative to a short, stable one. Constitutional specificity harms states.