The relationship between demand and performance of magistrates: investigation of a functional model in the form of an inverted U
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220210027Keywords:
judiciary, performance, quantitative methods, workload, public administrationAbstract
The hypothesis of exogenous productivity points to the relationship between the number of judges and performance as linear. However, several weaknesses have been pointed out, such as the production limit of the judges. Therefore, this work aims to test if the performance of judges related’ to demand has an inverted U functional model. The data used in the research comprise the years from 2009 to 2019. The results were statistically significant for all variables analyzed for both state and labor courts, confirming the hypothesis that performance and judicial demand may respond to an inverted U functional model. Confirming the research hypothesis sheds light on the discussion of how demand affects performance and how they relate. The contribution of this work lies in the discussion and endorsing the conclusions of other authors concerning weaknesses and incongruities of the hypothesis of exogenous productivity for the judiciary. There is empirical evidence that the increase in judicial demand pressures the increase in the performance of judges, but this increase has limits, and after a certain point, this can decline and negatively affect performance.
Downloads
References
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2012). Métodos estatísticos para as ciências sociais (4a ed.). Porto Alegre, RS: Penso.
Beenstock, M., & Haitovsky, Y. (2004). Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary? International Review of Law and Economics, 24(3), 351-369.
Bielen, S., Peeters, L., Marneffe, W., & Vereeck, L. (2018). Backlogs and litigation rates: Testing congestion equilibrium across European judiciaries. International Review of Law and Economics, 53, 9-22.
Blank, J. L. T., & Heezik, A. A. S. (2020). Policy reforms and productivity change in the judiciary system: a cost function approach applied to time series of the Dutch judiciary system between 1980 and 2016. International Transactions in Operational Research, 27(4), 2002-2020.
Christensen, R. K., & Szmer, J. (2012). Examining the efficiency of the U.S. courts of appeals: Pathologies and prescriptions. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 30-37.
Conselho Nacional de Justiça. (2020). Justiça em números 2020. Brasília, DF: Autor.
Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Slavov, A., & Zajc, K. (2016). Courts in a transition economy: case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria. Economic Systems, 40(1), 18-38.
Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Sustersic, J., & Zajc, K. (2012). Court output, judicial staffing, and the demand for court services: evidence from Slovenian courts of first instance. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 19-29.
Falavigna, G., Ippoliti, R., & Ramello, G. B. (2018). DEA-based Malmquist productivity indexes for understanding courts reform. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 62, 31-43.
Fávero, L. P. L., Belfiore, P. P., Silva, F. L., & Chan, B. L. (2009). Análise de dados: modelagem multivariada de dados para tomada de decisões (6a ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Elsevier.
Ferro, G., Romero, C. A., & Romero-Gómez, E. (2018). Efficient courts? A frontier performance assessment. Benchmarking – An International Journal, 25(9), 3443-3458.
Gomes, A. O. (2018). Chegamos ao limite da produtividade no Judiciário brasileiro? In Anais do Encontro da Administração da Justiça, Brasília, DF.
Gomes, A. O., Alves, S. T., & Silva, J. T. (2018). Effects of investment in information and communication technologies on productivity of courts in Brazil. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 480-490.
Gomes, A. O., & Freitas, M. E. M. (2017). Correlação entre demanda, quantidade de juízes e desempenho judicial em varas da Justiça Federal no Brasil. Revista Direito GV, 13(2), 567-585.
Gomes, A. O., & Guimarães, T. A. (2013). Desempenho no Judiciário: conceituação, estado da arte e agenda de pesquisa. Revista de Administração Pública, 47(2), 379-401.
Gomes, A. O., Guimaraes, T. A., & Akutsu, L. (2017). Court caseload management: the role of judges and administrative assistants. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 21(5), 648-665.
Gomes, A. O., Lopes, L. P. F., Zancan, C., Neto, M. C. L., Costa, A. C. S., Dantas, A. B., & Ataide, J. A. R. (2017). Variáveis correlacionadas com a produtividade de juízes da primeira instância da Justiça Estadual de Minas Gerais. Sistemas & Gestão, 12(4), 401-409.
Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2011). Econometria básica (5a ed.). Porto Alegre, RS: Editora Afiliada.
Hill, R. C., Griffiths, W. E., & Judge, G. G. (2006). Econometria (2a ed.). São Paulo, SP: Saraiva.
Jonski, K., & Mankowski, D. (2014). Is sky the limit? Revisiting “exogenous productivity of judges” argument. International Journal for Court Administration, 6(2), 53-72.
Louro, A. C., Santos, W. R., & Zanquetto, H., Filho. (2018). Productivity antecedents of Brazilian courts of Justice: evidence from Justiça em Números. Brazilian Administration Review, 14(4), 1-18.
Maddala, G. S. (2003). Introdução à econometria (3a ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: LTC.
Peyrache, A., & Zago, A. (2016). Large courts, small justice! Omega, 64, 42-56.
Procopiuck, M. (2018). Information technology and time of judgment in specialized courts: What is the impact of changing from physical to electronic processing? Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 491-501.
Ramseyer, J. M. (2012). Talent matters: judicial productivity and speed in Japan. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 38-48.
Ribeiro, M. C. P., & Rudiniki, R., Neto. (2016). Uma análise da eficiência do poder judiciário com base no pensamento de Douglas North. Revista Quaestio Iuris, 9(4), 2025-2040.
Rosales-López, V. (2008). Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis. European Journal of Law and Economics, 25(3), 231-251.
Roussey, L., & Soubeyran, R. (2018). Overburdened judges. International Review of Law and Economics, 55, 21-32.
Santos, S. P., & Amado, C. A. F. (2014). On the need for reform of the Portuguese judicial system: does data envelopment analysis assessment support it? Omega, 47, 1-16.
Sousa, M. D. M., & Guimarães, T. A. (2014). Inovação e desempenho na administração judicial: desvendando lacunas conceituais e metodológicas. Review of Administration and Innovation, 11(2), 321.
Sousa, M. D. M., & Guimaraes, T. A. (2018). Resources, innovation and performance in labor courts in Brazil. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(3), 486-506.
Teixeira, J. C., Bigotte, J. F., Repolho, H. M., & Antunes, A. P. (2019). Location of courts of justice: the making of the new judiciary map of Portugal. European Journal of Operational Research, 272(2), 608-620.
Voigt, S. (2012). On the optimal number of courts. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 49-62.
Werkema, M. C. C. (1996). Análise de regressão: como entender o relacionamento entre as variaveis de um processo. Belo Horizonte, MG: UFMG.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Introdução a econometria: uma abordagem moderna. São Paulo, SP: Cengage Learning.
Yeung, L. L., & Azevedo, P. F. (2011). Measuring efficiency of Brazilian courts with data envelopment analysis (DEA). IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 22(4), 343-356.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The Brazilian Journal of Public Administration (RAP) undertakes to contribute to the protection of authors’ intellectual rights. On this matter:
- It uses the Creative Commons BY (CC-BY) license for all texts it publishes, except when there is indication of specific holders of copyrights and property rights;
- It uses the similarity verification software of content - Plagiarism (Crossref Similarity Check);
- It takes actions to fight against plagiarism and ethical misconduct aligned with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Further information on the Code of Ethics adopted by RAP can be found in Ethical Standards and Code of Conduct.
