Pressure on judges: How managerialisation and evolving professional standards affect judges’ autonomy, efficiency and stress
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1672Keywords:
performance management, court management, professional standards, judicial administration, judges’ autonomy, efficiency, courts’ budgetingAbstract
In recent decades, many judicial systems have witnessed the "managerialisation" of justice—a phenomenon involving the application of private sector techniques to enhance court functioning. These techniques encompass engaging professional managers, reorganizing services, implementing performance measures, and adopting performance-based budgeting. Balancing these approaches with judges' professional standards, as independence and quality, raises critical questions. How does managerialisation affect judges' organization, autonomy, work quality, efficiency, and work-related stress? A survey conducted from June to December 2020 among first-instance judges in Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands, with distinct budgeting models, aimed to understand the impact. The questionnaire explored pressure sources, perceived stress levels, and mechanisms mitigating pressure and stress. Results showed significant differences in work organization, performance targets, and judge autonomy. However, similarities emerged in perceived pressure, work-related stress, and motivation. The study suggests that while not a panacea, managerialisation doesn't inherently increase pressure and stress. It may improve court organization, clarifying the interplay between professional standards and financial considerations.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
13(S1)_Viapiana_et_al_OSLS 292
XML_13(S1)_Viapiana_et_al_OSLS 25
References
Akerlof, G.A., 1983. Loyalty filters. American Economic Review, 73(1), 54–63.
Bakker, A.B., and Demerouti, E., 2017. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology [online], 22(3), 273–285. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Baumeister, R.F., and Leary, M.R., 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin [online], 117(3), 497–529. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Berendsen, R., et al., 2015. Tegenlicht: De rechterlijke organisatie tegen het licht. Nederlands Juristen Blad, 40, 2005.
Bull, C., Schotter, A., and Weigelt, K., 1987. Tournaments and piece rates: An experimental study. Journal of Political Economy [online], 95(1), 1–33. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/261439
Bunjevac, T., 2017. From Individual Judge to Judicial Bureaucracy: The Emergence of Judicial Councils and the Changing Nature of Judicial Accountability in Court Administration. University of New South Wales Law Journal [online], 40(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.53637/LRPZ2542
Casaleiro, P., Relvas, A.P., and Dias, J.P., 2021. A Critical Review of Judicial Professionals Working Conditions’ Studies. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 12(1), 2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.334
Ciocoiu, M.S., Cojocaru, M., and Ciocoiu, S.V., 2010. Implications of levels of stress factors in the magis¬trate’s activity. Romanian Biotechnological Letters, 15(3), 126–133.
Contini, F., ed., 2017. Handle with care Assessing and designing methods for evaluation and development of the quality of justice. Bologna: IRSIG – CNR
Contini, F., and Carnevali, R., 2010. The quality of justice in Europe: Conflicts, dialogue and politics. Paper presented at the SISP Conference 2010, Venice.
Contini, F., and Mohr, R., 2008. Reconciling independence and accountability in judicial systems. Utrecht Law Review [online], 3(2), 26–43. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.46
Council of Europe, 1950. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
De Santis, L.G., Emery, Y., and Egloff, L., 2016. Culture (sub-project 5). In: A. Lienhard and D. Kettiger, eds., The judiciary between management and the rule of law, Results of the research project Basic research into court management in Switzerland. Bern: Stämpfli/Nomos/Jan Sramek.
Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior [online]. New York: Plenum. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Demerouti, E., et al., 2001. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology [online], 86(3), 499–512. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), 2022. ENCJ Survey on the Independence of Judges 2022 [online]. Brussels: ENCJ. Available at: https://www.encj.eu/node/620
Fabri, M., and Langbroek, P., eds., 2000. The Challenge of Change for Judicial Systems. Developing a Public Administration Perspective. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Fabri, M., Langbroek P., and Pauliat, H., eds., 2003. The Administration of Justice in Europe: Towards the Development of Quality Standards. Bologna: Lo Scarabeo.
Fehr, E., and Gächter, S., 2000. Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives [online], 14(3), 159–181. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.159
Ferreira, A.C., et al., 2014. Quem são os nossos magistrados? Caracterização profissional dos juízes e magistrados do Ministério Público em Portugal. Coimbra, CES/UC.
Frissen, P., et al., 2014. Governance in de rechtspraak. Raad voor de rechtspraak Research Memoranda, 10/1.
Fruytier, B., et al., 2013. Werkdruk Bewezen: Eindrapport Werkdrukonderzoek Rechterlijke Macht. Hogeschool Utrecht.
Gneezy, U., Meier, S., and Rey-Biel, P., 2011. When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives [online], 25(4), 191–210. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191
Holvast, N.L., and Doornbos, N., 2015. Exit, voice and loyalty within the judiciary: judges’ response to new managerialism in the Netherlands. Utrecht Law Review [online], 11(2), 49–63. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.317
Hood, C., 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration [online], 69(1), 3–19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
Lienhard, A., and Kettiger, D., 2017. Between Management and the Rule of Law. Results of the Research Project “Basic Research into Court Management in Switzerland”. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 8(2), 7–19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.219
Maier, P., 1999. New Public Management in der Justiz: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer wirkungsorientierten Gerichtsführung aus betriebswirtschaftlicher und rechtlicher Perspektive. Bern: Haupt.
McBarnet, D.J., 1983. Two tiers of justice. In: D.J. McBarnet, Conviction [online]. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05142-7
Minkler, L., 2004. Shirking and motivations in firms: survey evidence on worker attitudes. International Journal of Industrial Organization [online], 22(6), 863–884. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2004.03.003
Na, C., Choo, T., and Klingfuss, J.A., 2018. The Causes and Consequences of Job-Related Stress among Prosecutors. American Journal of Criminal Justice [online], 43(2), 329‑353. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9396-4
Newman, J., 2014. Professionals, power and the reform of public services. In: M. Noordegraaf and B. Steijn, eds., Professionals under Pressure: The Reconfiguration of Professional Work in Changing Public Services [online]. Amsterdam University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt4cg5m6.6
Noordegraaf, M., and Steijn, B., eds., 2014. Professionals under Pressure: The Reconfiguration of Professional Work in Changing Public Services [online]. Amsterdam University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt4cg5m6
Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T., 1992. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Pekkanen, P., 2011. Delay reduction in courts of justice – possibilities and challenges of process improvement in professional public organisations. Doctoral Dissertation. Lappeenranta University of Technology.
Posner, R.A., 2008. How judges think. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Rizos, A., and Kapopoulos, P., 2021. Judicial Efficiency and Economic Growth: Evidence based on EU data. MPRA Paper 107861. University Library of Munich.
Robinson, M., 2007. Performance Budgeting: Linking Funding and Results (Procyclicality of Financial Systems in Asia). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, M., and Brumby, J., 2005. Does Performance Budgeting Work?: An Analytical Review of the Empirical Literature [online]. IMF Working Paper. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.888079
Rogers, J.E., Freeman, S., and LeSage, P., 1991. The Occupational Stress of Judges. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry [online], 36(5), 317–322. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/070674379103600501
Schneider, M.R., 2005. Judicial career perspectives and court performance: an empirical study of the German labour courts of appeal. European Journal of Law and Economics [online], 20(2), 127–144. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-005-1733-2
Seawright, J., and Gerring, J., 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly [online], 61(2), 294. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077
Van Dijk, F., 2014. Improved performance of the Netherlands Judiciary: Assessment of the Gains for Society. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 6(1), 83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.133
Van Dijk, F., Sonnemans, J., and Van Winden, F., 2001. Incentive systems in a real effort experiment. European Economic Journal [online], 45(2), 187–214. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(00)00056-8
Van Dijk, F., Sonnemans, J., and Van Winden, F., 2002. Social ties in a public good experiment. Journal of Public Economics [online], 85(2), 275–299. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00090-1
Van Winden, F., 2015. Political economy with affect: on the role of emotions and relationships in political economics. European Journal of Political Economy [online], 40(part B), 298–311. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.05.005
Vecchi, G., 2018. La valutazione della performance negli uffici giudiziari come strumento di politica pubblica. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Viapiana, F., 2018. Pressure on judges: how the budgeting system can impact on Judge’s autonomy. Laws [online], 7(4), 38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/laws7040038
Viapiana, F., 2019. Funding the judiciary: how budgeting system shapes justice. A comparative analysis of three case studies. International Journal for Court Administration [online], 10(1), 23–33. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijca.295
Viapiana, F., 2020. A performance-based budget in the judiciary: allocation of resources and performance variability in first instance courts. An analysis of three case studies. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management [online], 33(2), 177–206. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-03-2020-0031
Visser, M., Schouteten, R., and Dikkers, J., 2019. Controlling the Courts: New Public Management and the Dutch Judiciary. Justice System Journal [online], 40(1), 39–53. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2018.1539645
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Federica Viapiana, Frans van Dijk, Bart Diephuis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
