Información del artículo
RESUMO
A inovação – um novo produto ou processo tecnológico, organizacional ou de marketing – tem como pressuposto a melhoria do desempenho. Quando se trata de serviços públicos, notadamente no Judiciário, a inovação configura-se como um fenômeno mais complexo e multifacetado. Neste caso, a literatura acadêmica deveria ser mais bem explorada sob a ótica da inovação. O objetivo do presente ensaio é realizar uma discussão articulada sobre os constructos inovação e desempenho no judiciário, demonstrar suas relações, lacunas conceituais e metodológicas e propor uma agenda de pesquisa. Foi analisado o estado da arte correspondente a esses conceitos, que permitiu classificar os estudos nesses temas em três dimensões: organizacional-gerencial, político-legal e tecnológico. Os resultados indicam que: (i) existem variáveis similares entre os constructos; (ii) a literatura de desempenho é mais volumosa e consolidada; (iii) contribuições importantes para a dimensão organizacional-gerencial foram encontradas nos estudos da corrente denominada direito e economia; (iv) as principais intersecções foram encontradas na dimensão tecnológica, especificamente entre inovação, desempenho e Tecnologias da Informação e Comunicação – TICs. Ao final é apresentada uma agenda de pesquisa visando preencher lacunas identificadas.
Palavras-chave:
Inovação
Desempenho
Judiciário
Administração Pública
ABSTRACT
Innovation – a new product or technological, organizational or marketing process – presupposes performance improvement. In public services, especially in the Judiciary, innovation appears as a more complex and multifaceted phenomenon. The literature could be better explored from the innovation perspective. The aim of this paper is to build an articulate discussion on the constructs innovation and performance in the Judiciary in order to show their relationships, conceptual and methodological gaps and propose a research agenda. It is analyzed the state of the art of these concepts, which allowed classifying topics in three dimensions: organizational-managerial, political-legal and technological. The results indicate that: (i) there are similar variables on both constructs, (ii) the literature on performance is more voluminous and consolidated, (iii) important for organizational-managerial dimension contributions were seen in studies of law and economics perspective, (iv) major intersections were found in the technological dimension, specifically amongst innovation, performance and Information and Communication Technologies – ICTs. A research agenda is proposed aiming to fulfill identified gaps.
Keywords:
Innovation
Performance
Judiciary
Public Management
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
REFERÊNCIAS
[Abramo, 2010]
C.W. Abramo.
Tempos de espera no Supremo Tribunal Federal.
Revista Direito GV, 6 (2010), pp. 423-441
[Alves, 2010]
F.L.R. Alves.
Processo eletrônico no juizado especial e a ampliação do acesso à justiça, (2010),
[Anderson, 2011]
R. Anderson IV.
Distinguishing judges: An empirical ranking of judicial quality in the United States Court of Appeals.
Missouri Law Review, 76 (2011), pp. 315-348
[Appleby, 1949]
P.H. Appleby.
Big democracy, Alfred A. Knopf, (1949),
[Armytage, 2011]
L. Armytage.
Judicial reform in Asia case study of ADB’s experience: 1990-2007.
Hague Journal on The Rule of Law, 3 (2011), pp. 70-105
[Barnes, 2008]
J. Barnes.
Courts and the puzzle of institutional stability and change: Administrative drift and judicial innovation in the case of asbestos.
Political Research Quarterly, 61 (2008), pp. 636-648
[Beard, 1966]
C.A. Beard.
Filosofia, ciência e arte da administração.
Problemas e aspectos da administração pública, pp. 97-102
[Beenstock and Haitovsky, 2004]
M. Beenstock, Y. Haitovsky.
Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary?.
International Review of Law & Economics, 24 (2004), pp. 351-369
[Bertran, 2001]
M. Bertran.
Judiciary ombusman: Solving problems in the courts.
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29 (2001), pp. 2099-2116
[Binford et al., 2007]
W.W. Binford, P.C. Greene, M.C. Schmidlkofer, R.M. Wilsey, H.A. Taylor.
Seeking best practices among intermediate courts of appeal: A nascent journey.
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 9 (2007), pp. 37-119
[Bloch, 2010]
C. Bloch.
Copenhagen Manual: Towards a conceptual framework for measuring public sector innovation, MEPIN, (2010),
[Borins, 2001]
S. Borins.
Encouraging innovation in the public sector.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2 (2001), pp. 310-319
[Buscaglia and Ulen, 1997]
E. Buscaglia, T. Ulen.
A quantitative assessment of the efficiency of the judicial sector in Latin America.
International Review of Law & Economics, 17 (1997), pp. 275-291
[Carrubba et al., 2008]
C.J. Carrubba, M.G. Gabel, C. Hankla.
Judicial behavior under political constraints: Evidence from the European Court of Justice.
American Political Science Review, 102 (2008), pp. 435-452
[Chemin, 2009a]
M. Chemin.
Do judiciaries matter for development? Evidence from India.
Journal of Comparative Economics, 37 (2009), pp. 230-250
[Chemin, 2009b]
M. Chemin.
The impact of the judiciary on entrepreneurship: Evaluation of Pakistan’s “access to justice programme.”.
Journal of Public Economics, 93 (2009), pp. 114-125
[Chen et al., 2010]
F. Chen, K.K. Yee, Y.K. Yoo.
Robustness of judicial decisions to valuation-method innovation: An exploratory empirical study.
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 37 (2010), pp. 1094-1114
[Choi et al., 2013]
S.J. Choi, M. Gulati, E.A. Posner.
How well do measures of judicial ability predict judicial performance?: A case study using securities class actions.
International Review of Law & Economics, 33 (2013), pp. 37-53
[Christensen and Szmer, 2012]
R.K. Christensen, J. Szmer.
Examining the efficiency of the U. S. courts of appeals: Pathologies and prescriptions.
International Review of Law & Economics, 32 (2012), pp. 30-37
[Cleveland, 1913]
F.A. Cleveland.
Organized democracy: an introduction to the study of American politics, Longmans, Green, and Co., (1913),
[Contini and Mohr, 2007]
F. Contini, R. Mohr.
Reconciling independence and accountability in judicial systems.
Utrecht Law Review, 3 (2007), pp. 26-43
[da Costa et al., 2006]
S.G. da Costa, C.L. Martinewski, L.J.M. Vieira, N. Michel, R. Michel.
Mensuração da carga de trabalho de magistrados: Uma análise comparativa do estudo realizado no Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul com experiências internacionais.
Revista Da Faculdade de Direito Da Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, 26 (2006), pp. 1-30
[Crunkilton, 2009]
D.D. Crunkilton.
Staff and client perspectives on the journey mapping online evaluation tool in a drug court program.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 32 (2009), pp. 119-128
[Czarniawska, 2008]
B. Czarniawska.
Organizing: How to study it and how to write about it.
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 3 (2008), pp. 4-20
[Damanpour and Aravind, 2011]
F. Damanpour, D. Aravind.
Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents.
Management and Organization Review, 8 (2011), pp. 423-454
[Daschbach and Swain, 1977]
J.M. Daschbach, J.J. Swain.
The computer in measuring judicial productivity.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 1 (1977), pp. 263-271
[Denhardt, 2012]
R.B. Denhardt.
Teorias da administração pública, Cengage Learning, (2012),
[Denhardt and Denhardt, 2000]
R.B. Denhardt, J.V. Denhardt.
The new public service: Serving rather than steering.
Public Administration Review, 60 (2000), pp. 549-559
[Deyneli, 2012]
F. Deyneli.
Analysis of relationship between efficiency of justice services and salaries of judges with two-stage DEA method.
European Journal of Law and Economics, 34 (2012), pp. 477-493
[Di Vita, 2012]
G. Di Vita.
Normative complexity and the length of administrative disputes: Evidence from Italian regions.
European Journal of Law and Economics, 34 (2012), pp. 197-213
[Dimitrova-Grajzl et al., 2012]
V. Dimitrova-Grajzl, P. Grajzl, J. Sustersic, K. Zajc.
Court output, judicial staffing, and the demand for court services: Evidence from Slovenian courts of first instance.
International Review of Law & Economics, 32 (2012), pp. 19-29
[Fagan and Malkin, 2002]
J. Fagan, V. Malkin.
Theorizing community justice through community courts.
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30 (2002), pp. 897-953
[Fagernäs, 2010]
S. Fagernäs.
Labor law, judicial efficiency, and informal employment in India.
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7 (2010), pp. 282-321
[Gallouj, 1997]
F. Gallouj.
Towards a neo-Schumpeterian theory of innovation in services?.
Science and Public Policy, 24 (1997), pp. 405-420
[Geoff, 2006]
M. Geoff.
The process of social innovation.
Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1 (2006), pp. 145-162
[Giles et al., 2001]
M.W. Giles, V.A. Hettinger, T. Peppers.
Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas.
Political Research Quarterly, 54 (2001), pp. 623-641
[Gillespie, 1975]
R.W. Gillespie.
An analysis of the allocation of judicial resources: The Illinois experience.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 3 (1975), pp. 207-216
[Gilling and Jolley, 2012]
D. Gilling, M. Jolley.
A case suty of an English community court.
British Journal of Community Justice, 10 (2012), pp. 55-69
[Goldkamp, 1994]
J.S. Goldkamp.
Miami’s treatment drug court for felony defendants: Some implications of assessment findings.
Prison Journal, 74 (1994), pp. 110-166
[Goodman et al., 1999]
G.S. Goodman, J.A. Quas, J. Bulkley, C. Shapiro.
Innovations for child witnesses: A national survey.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5 (1999), pp. 255-281
[Greene et al., 2010]
C. Greene, J.B. Sprott, N.S. Madon, M. Jung.
Punishing processes in Youth Court: Procedural justice, court atmosphere and youth’s views of the legitimacy of the justice system.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice/La Revue Canadienne de Criminologie et de Justice Pénale, 52 (2010), pp. 527-544
[Guimaraes et al., 2011]
T.A. Guimaraes, C.C. Odelius, J.J. Medeiros, J.A.V. Santana.
Management innovation at the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice.
The American Review of Public Administration, 41 (2011), pp. 297-302
[Gulick, 1937]
L. Gulick.
Notes on the theory of organizaion.
Papers on the science of administration,
[Halvorsen, 2005]
T. Halvorsen.
On innovation in the Public Sector, Publin/NIFU/STEP, (2005),
[Hara, 2007]
N. Hara.
Information technology support for communities of practice: How public defenders learn about winning and losing in court.
Journal of The American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (2007), pp. 76-87
[Hauknes, 2005]
J. Hauknes.
Some thoughts about innovation in the public and private sector compared, Publin/NIFU/STEP, (2005),
[He, 2013]
X. He.
Judicial innovation and local politics: Judicialization of administrative governance in East China.
The China Journal, 69 (2013), pp. 20-42
[Ho and Ross, 2009]
D.E. Ho, E.L. Ross.
Did liberal justices invent the standing doctrine? An empirical study of the evolution of standing, 1921-2006.
Stanford Law Review, 62 (2009), pp. 591-667
[Joia, 2008]
L.A. Joia.
The impact of government-to-government endeavors on the intellectual capital of public organizations.
Government Information Quarterly, 25 (2008), pp. 256-277
[Joia, 2009]
L.A. Joia.
Governo eletrônico e capital intelectual nas organizações públicas.
Revista de Administração Pública, 43 (2009), pp. 1379-1405
[Karotkin, 1994]
D. Karotkin.
Effect of the size of the bench on the correctness of court judgments: The case of Israel.
International Review of Law & Economics, 14 (1994), pp. 371-375
[Kearney and Sheehan, 1992]
R.C. Kearney, R.S. Sheehan.
Supreme Court decision making: The impact of court composition on state and local government litigation.
The Journal of Politics, 54 (1992), pp. 1008-1025
[Kempinen, 2009]
B. Kempinen.
Criminal justice innovations in Wisconsin: Collaborative decision making.
The Justice System Journal, 30 (2009), pp. 327-346
[Kent, 2005]
J.C. Kent.
Getting the best of both worlds: Making partnerships between court and community ADR programs exemplary.
Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23 (2005), pp. 71-85
[Kittelsen and Førsund, 1992]
S.A.C. Kittelsen, F.R. Førsund.
Efficiency analysis of Norwegian district courts.
Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3 (1992), pp. 277-306
[Koch et al., 2006]
P. Koch, P. Cunningham, N. Schwabsky, J. Hauknes.
Summary and policy recommendations, Publin/NIFU/STEP, (2006),
[Kovač, 2013]
P. Kovač.
Effective adjudication through administrative appeals in Slovenia.
Utrecht Law Review, 9 (2013), pp. 39-50
[Landes, 1971]
W. Landes.
An economic analysis of courts.
Journal of Law and Economics, 14 (1971), pp. 61-107
[Leone and Kinkade, 1993]
M.C. Leone, P.T. Kinkade.
Bang for the buck: California court processing and budget allocations: 1976-1986.
The Social Science Journal, 30 (1993), pp. 99-111
[Lewin et al., 1982]
A.Y. Lewin, R.C. Morey, T.J. Cook.
Evaluating the administrative efficiency of courts.
Omega The International Journal of Management Science, 10 (1982), pp. 401-411
[Lutz, 1997]
J.M. Lutz.
Regional leaders in the diffusion of tort innovations among the American states.
Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 27 (1997), pp. 39-58
[Matz et al., 2011]
A.K. Matz, J.H. Adams, D. Williamson.
Understanding culture in Kentucky’s courtrooms: An essential tool for management and long-range planning.
Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 62 (2011), pp. 25-42
[Mays and Taggart, 1986]
G.L. Mays, W.A. Taggart.
Court clerks, court administrators, and judges: Conflict in managing the courts.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 14 (1986), pp. 1-7
[McKechnie, 2003]
D. McKechnie.
The use of the internet by courts and the judiciary: Findings from a study trip and supplementary research.
International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 11 (2003), pp. 109-148
[Mitsopoulos and Pelagidis, 2007]
M. Mitsopoulos, T. Pelagidis.
Does staffing affect the time to dispose cases in Greek courts?.
International Review of Law & Economics, 27 (2007), pp. 219-244
[Moyer and Tankersley, 2012]
L.P. Moyer, H. Tankersley.
Judicial innovation and sexual harassment doctrine in the U. S. Courts of Appeals.
Political Research Quarterly, 65 (2012), pp. 784-798
[Myers, 1981]
M.A. Myers.
Judges, juries, and the decision to convict.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 9 (1981), pp. 289-303
[Nelson and Winter, 2005]
R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter.
Uma teoria evolucionária da mudança econômica, Editora da Unicamp, (2005),
[Nelson and Yates, 1978]
Richard R. Nelson, D. Yates.
Innovation and implementation in public organizations, D. C. Heath and Company, (1978),
[Ng, 2011]
G.Y. Ng.
A discipline of judicial governance?.
Utrecht Law Review, 7 (2011), pp. 102-116
[OCDE, 2005]
OCDE.
Manual de Oslo: Diretrizes para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação, 3rd ed., OCDE/FINEP, (2005),
[Osborne and Gaebler, 1993]
D. Osborne, T. Gaebler.
Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector, Plume, (1993),
[Ostrom and Ostrom, 1971]
V. Ostrom, E. Ostrom.
Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration.
Public Administration Review, 31 (1971), pp. 203-216
[Pedraja-Chaparro and Salinas-Jimenez, 1996]
F. Pedraja-Chaparro, J. Salinas-Jimenez.
An assessment of the efficiency of Spanish Courts using DEA.
Applied Economics, 28 (1996), pp. 1391-1403
[Pekkanen and Niemi, 2013]
P. Pekkanen, P. Niemi.
Process performance improvement in justice organizations-Pitfalls of performance measurement.
International Journal of Production Economics, 143 (2013), pp. 605-611
[Pindick and Rubinfeld, 2002]
R.S. Pindick, D.L. Rubinfeld.
Microeconomia, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, (2002),
[Pinheiro, 2003]
A.C. Pinheiro.
Direito e economia num mundo globalizado: Cooperação ou confronto?, IPEA, (2003), pp. 1-25
[Pinney, 1966]
H. Pinney.
Níveis e medição de eficiência.
Problemas e aspectos da administração pública, pp. 531-537
[Posner, 1973]
R. Posner.
An economic approach to legal procedure and judicial administration.
Journal of Legal Studies, 2 (1973), pp. 399-458
[Ramseyer, 2012]
J.M. Ramseyer.
Talent matters: Judicial productivity and speed in Japan.
International Review of Law & Economics, 32 (2012), pp. 38-48
[Rosa et al., 2013]
J. Rosa, C. Teixeira, J.S. Pinto.
Risk factors in e-justice information systems.
Government Information Quarterly, 30 (2013), pp. 241-256
[Rosales-López, 2008]
V. Rosales-López.
Economics of court performance: An empirical analysis.
European Journal of Law and Economics, 25 (2008), pp. 231-251
[Røste and Miles, 2005]
R. Røste, I. Miles.
Differences between public and private sector innovation, Publin/NIFU/STEP, (2005),
[Sadek, 2004]
M.T. Sadek.
Judiciário: Mudanças e reformas.
Estudos Avançados, 18 (2004), pp. 79-101
[Sadek and Rogério, 1994]
M.T. Sadek, A. Rogério.
A crise do Judiciário e a visão dos juízes.
Revista USP, 21 (1994), pp. 34-45
[Saman and Haider, 2013]
W.S.W.M. Saman, A. Haider.
E-Shariah in Malaysia: Technology adoption within justice system.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7 (2013), pp. 256-276
[Schneider, 2004]
M.R. Schneider.
Performance management by culture in the national labor relations board’s division of judges and the German labor courts of appeal.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14 (2004), pp. 19-32
[Schneider, 2005]
M.R. Schneider.
Judicial career incentives and court performance: An empirical study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal.
European Journal of Law and Economics, 20 (2005), pp. 127-144
[Schumpeter, 1982]
J.A. Schumpeter.
A teoria do desenvolvimento econômico, Abril Cultural, (1982),
[Schumpeter, 2008]
J.A. Schumpeter.
Capitalism, socialism and democracy, Harper Perennial Modern Thought, (2008),
[Sevigny et al., 2013]
E.L. Sevigny, H.A. Pollack, P. Reuter.
Can drug courts help to reduce prison and jail populations?.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647 (2013), pp. 190-212
[Simon, 1966]
H.A. Simon.
O critério de eficiência.
Problemas e aspectos da administração pública, pp. 518-531
[Smyth and Bhattacharia, 2003]
R. Smyth, M. Bhattacharia.
How fast do old judges slow down?: A life cycle study of aging and productivity in the Federal Court of Australia.
International Review of Law & Economics, 23 (2003), pp. 141-164
[Swanson, 2007]
Swanson.
The dynamics of specific and diffuse support for the U.S. Supreme Court: A panel study.
The Social Science Journal, 44 (2007), pp. 645-663
[Tate and Haynie, 1993]
C.N. Tate, S.L. Haynie.
Authoritarianism and the functions of courts: A time series analysis of the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961-1987.
Law and Society Review, 27 (1993), pp. 707-740
[Trawver and Rhoades, 2012]
K.R. Trawver, S.L. Rhoades.
Homesteading a pioneer mental health court: A judicial perspective from the last frontier.
American Behavioral Scientist, 57 (2012), pp. 174-188
[Tulkens, 1993]
H. Tulkens.
On FDH efficiency analysis: Some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit.
The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4 (1993), pp. 183-210
[Velicogna et al., 2011]
M. Velicogna, A. Errera, S. Derlange.
e-Justice in France: The e-Barreau experience.
Utrecht Law Review, 7 (2011), pp. 163-187
[Velicogna et al., 2013]
M. Velicogna, A. Errera, S. Derlange.
Building e-justice in Continental Europe: The TéléRecours experience in France.
Utrecht Law Review, 9 (2013), pp. 38-59
[Vidal and Leaver, 2011]
J.B.i Vidal, C. Leaver.
Are tenured judges insulated from political pressure.
Journal of Public Economics, 95 (2011), pp. 570-586
[Voigt, 2009]
S. Voigt.
The effects of lay participation in courts - A cross-country analysis.
European Journal of Political Economy, 25 (2009), pp. 327-339
[Voigt, 2012]
S. Voigt.
On the optimal number of courts.
International Review of Law & Economics, 32 (2012), pp. 49-62
[Waldo, 1948]
D. Waldo.
The administrative state: A study of the political theory of american public administration, The Ronald Press Company, (1948),
[Waye, 2003]
V. Waye.
Judicial fact-finding: Trial by judge alone in serious criminal cases.
Melbourne University Law Review, 27 (2003), pp. 423-457
[Willoughby, 1929]
W.F. Willoughby.
Principles of judicial administration, The Brookings Institution, (1929),
[Wilson, 1887]
W. Wilson.
The study of administration.
Political Science Quarterly, 2 (1887), pp. 197-222
[Wu, 2013]
K.X. Wu.
Experiences that Count: A comparative study of the ICTY and SCSL in shaping the image of justice.
Utrecht Law Review, 9 (2013), pp. 60-77
[Yeung and Azevedo, 2011]
L.L. Yeung, P.F. Azevedo.
Measuring efficiency of Brazilian courts with data envelopment analysis (DEA).
Journal of Management Mathematics, 22 (2011), pp. 343-356
[Yunker, 1983]
J.A. Yunker.
The effect of decision time and argument complexity on legal judgment.
International Review of Law & Economics, 3 (1983), pp. 161-178
Os autores agradecem o apoio financeiro da CAPES (bolsa de estudos para o primeiro autor) e do CNPq (bolsa de produtividade em pesquisa e financiamento de projeto de pesquisa em Edital Universal para o segundo autor).
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltda. on behalf of Departamento de Administração Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade Universidade de São Paulo ¿ FEA/USP