Advertisement

The Efficiency of the Italian Judicial System: A Two Stage Data Envelopment Analysis Approach

  • Eugenia Nissi
  • Massimiliano Giacalone
  • Carlo Cusatelli
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

During the last two decades there was great attention for improved performance in the public sector. We know how important a good judicial system is: it permits to keep the peaceful coexistence between the citizens of a nation and, above all, the rights and duties that are necessary for each. In this paper our aim is to examine the Italian judicial efficiency, to check any territorial differences. For this purpose we use a two stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) model. In the first stage we evaluate performance of the 140 Ordinary Courts by mean of DEA, while in the second stage we explore determinant of efficiency/inefficiency using fractional regression model. Before doing this, we will prepare the reader presenting the basic concepts of efficacy and efficiency, explaining the method DEA and its various applications and finally we will also talk about the literature on the efficiency of the judiciary, which is a topic in Italy, despite the numerous ISTAT data, it did not find the right recognition. A bit will also be carried out on the international literature on the subject. At the end of all this will be shown in practical terms what has been done.

Keywords

Italian judicial system Data envelopment analysis Fractional regression Statistical indicators Ordinary court 

References

  1. Antonucci, L., Crocetta, C., d’Ovidio, F. D., & Toma, E. (2011). Valutazione dell’efficienza amministrativa del sistema giudiziario tramite Data Envelopment Analysis. Annali del Dipartimento di Scienze Statistiche “Carlo Cecchi” dell’Università degli Studi di Bari, 10, 288–296.Google Scholar
  2. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binford, W. W. H., Greene, P. C., Schmidkofer, M. C., & Wilsey, R. M. (2007). Seeking best practices among intermediate courts of appeal: A nascent journey. Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 9, 37.Google Scholar
  5. Bripi, F. Carmignani, A., & Giordano, R. (2011). La qualità dei servizi pubblici in Italia. Banca d'Italia. Questioni di Economia e Finanza. Occasional Paper, Issue 84.Google Scholar
  6. Carmignani, A. (2004). Funzionamento della giustizia civile e struttura finanziaria delle imprese: il ruolo del credito commerciale (No. 497). Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.Google Scholar
  7. Carmignani, A., & Giacomelli, S. (2009). Italian civil justice: Regional disparities. Bank of Italy Occasional Paper No. 40. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1396255.
  8. ​Carmignani A., & Giacomelli, S. (2010). Too many lawyers? Litigation in italian civil courts. Bank of Italy Temi di Discussione (Working Paper) No. 745. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1669988.
  9. Castro, M. F., & Guccio, C. (2012). Searching for the source of technical inefficiency in Italian judicial districts: An empirical investigation. European Journal of Law and Economics, 38(3), 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cauthen, J. N., & Latzer, B. (2008). Why so long? Explaining processing time in capital appeals. Justice System Journal, 29(3), 298–312.Google Scholar
  11. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Golany, B., Seiford, L., & Stutz, J. (1985). Foundations of data envelopment analysis for Pareto–Koopmans efficient empirical production functions. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1–2), 91–107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(85)90133-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L., & Stutz, J. (1982). A multiplicative model for efficiency analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 16(5), 223–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(82)90029-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, Y., Cook, W. D., Kao, C., & Zhu, J. (2013). Network DEA pitfalls: Divisional efficiency and frontier projection under general network structures. European Journal of Operational Research, 226(3), 507–515.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2011). Data envelopment analysis: History, models, and interpretations. In International series in operations research and management science (Vol. 164, pp. 1–39). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6151-8_1.
  16. Cooter, R. D. (1983). The objectives of private and public judges. Public Choice, 41(1), 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Destefanis, S., & Maietta, O. W. (2009). The productivity of volunteer labour: DEA-based evidence from Italy. In S. Destefanis & M. Musella (Eds.), Paid and Unpaid Labour in the Social Economy. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Deyneli, F. (2012). Analysis of relationship between efficiency of justice services and salaries of judges with two-stage DEA method. European Journal of Law and Economics, 34(3), 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., & Guse, A. J. (2012a). Trust, perceptions of corruption, and demand for regulation: Evidence from post-socialist countries. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(3), 292–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Sustersic, J., & Zajc, K. (2012b). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Zajc, K., & Sustersic, J. (2012c). Judicial incentives and performance at lower courts: Evidence from Slovenian judge-level data. Review of Law & Economics, 8(1), 215–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dyson, R. G., Allen, R., Camanho, A. S., Podinovski, V. V., Sarrico, C. S., & Shale, E. A. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research, 132(2), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Felli, L., Tria, G., Londono-Bedoya, D., & Solferino, N. (2007). The “Demand for Justice” in Italy: Civil litigation and the judicial system. In F. Padovano & R. Ricciuti (Eds.), Italian institutional reforms. A public choice perspective. (pp. 162–173). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Ganley, J. A., & Cubbin, J. S. (1992). Public sector efficiency measurement: Applications of data envelopment analysis. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  25. Giacalone, M. (2009). Manuale di Statistica Giudiziaria. Roma: Bel-Ami Edizioni.Google Scholar
  26. Ippoliti, R. (2014). La competitività del mercato forense e l’efficienza giudiziaria. Economia Pubblica, 53–90.  https://doi.org/10.3280/EP2014-002003.
  27. Kleine, A. (2004). A general model framework for DEA. Omega, 32(1), 17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2003.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, J. S., Lu, L. Y. Y., Lu, W. M., & Lin, B. J. Y. (2013). A survey of DEA applications. Omega, 41(5), 893–902.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2012.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maietta, O. W., & Sena, V. (2004). Profit-sharing, technical efficiency change and finance constraints. In Perotin V, Robinson A (Ed.), Employee participation, firm performance and survival advances in the economic analysis of participatory & labor-managed firms (Vol. 8, pp. 149–167). Emerald Group Publishing LimitedGoogle Scholar
  30. Marchesi, D. (2003). Litiganti, avvocati e magistrati: diritto ed economia del processo civile. Collana Studi e Ricerche. Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  31. Marselli, R.,  Vannini, M. (2004). L'efficienza tecnica dei distretti di Corte d'Appello italiani: aspetti metodologici, benchmarking e arretrato smaltibile, Working Paper CRENoS 200409. Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.Google Scholar
  32. McDonald, J. (2009). Using least squares and tobit in second stage DEA efficiency analyses. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(2), 792–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pedraja-Chaparro, F., & Salinas-Jimenez, J. (1996). An assessment of the efficiency of Spanish Courts using DEA. Applied Economics, 28(11), 1391–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peyrache, A., & Zago, A. (2012). Large courts, small justice: The inefficiency and the optimal structure of the Italian justice sector. Omega, 64, 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Posner, R. A. (1993a). The material basis of jurisprudence. Indiana Law Journal, 69, 1.Google Scholar
  36. Posner, R. A. (1993b). The problems of jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Ramseyer, J. M. (2012). Talent matters: Judicial productivity and speed in Japan. International Review of Law and Economics, 32(1), 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider, M. R. (2005). Judicial career incentives and court performance: An empirical study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal. European Journal of Law and Economics, 20, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136(1), 31–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. St. Aubyn, M. (2002). Evaluating Efficiency in the Portuguese Health and Education Sectors. IMF Working Paper. Bank of Portugal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University G d’Annunzio Chieti-PescaraPescaraItaly
  2. 2.University of Naples “Federico II”NapoliItaly
  3. 3.University of Bari “Aldo Moro”BariItaly

Personalised recommendations