Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Suggested Approach

  • Chapter
Access to Justice

  • 158 Accesses

Abstract

The following section addresses a number of potential approaches to testing policy. They are not intended to be an exclusive list, but are research instruments which have particular resonance with this area of policy or, for reasons which are explained, have been excluded from consideration. They are a controlled pilot, possibly incorporating large data sets; evaluative studies; isomorphism; a counterfactual; laboratory experiments; a simulation or a combination of different approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. L. Haynes, O. Service, B. Goldacre & D. Torgerson, Behavioural Insights Team (2012), Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/test-learn-adapt-developing-public-policy-randomised-controlled-trials, accessed 5 December 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nudging is of interest to the current coalition government. It came to wide notice following the publication of R. Thaler & C. Sunstein (2009), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness (London: Penguin). A simple (or even crass) example is to require applicants for driving licences to tick a box agreeing, or not, to become an organ donor before they can get their licence. The insights are essentially those of behavioural economics, such as anchoring, discussed on p. 123. Glennerster (see endnote 3) points to the huge advantage in cost– benefit terms in improving school student test results by the simple nudge of publishing test scores in Pakistan compared with vast investment in Tennessee (USA).

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Peysner (1999), ‘Focus Groups & Analogue Vignettes: Modelling and Piloting in Civil Procedural Reform’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 18 pp. 113–131. This was based on an earlier paper, J. Peysner & I. McLachlan ‘Learning the Rules by Playing the Game’, West Indian Law Journal ISBN 0253–7370 given at the Commonwealth Legal Education Association Conference 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J.S. Kakalik, T. Dunworth, L.A. Hill, D.F. McCaffrey, M. Oshiro, N.M. Pace & M.E. Vaiana (1966), Implementation of the Civil Justice Reform Act in Pilot and Comparison Districts (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Conclusion of J. Peysner & M. Seneviratne (2006), ‘The Management of Civil Cases: A Snapshot’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 25 p. 312.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See J. Peysner & M. Seneviratne (2006), ‘The Management of Civil Cases: A Snapshot’, based on J. Peysner & M. Seneviratne, ‘The Management of Civil Cases: The Courts and the Post-Woolf Landscape’, Research Department, Department of Constitutional Affairs 2005, pp. 1–84.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Fenn & N. Rickman (2011), ‘Fixing Lawyers’ Fees Ex Ante: A Case Study in Policy and Empirical Legal Studies’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(3) pp. 533–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. J. Peysner (2003), ‘Finding Predictable Costs’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 22 pp. 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  9. US Judge Vanderbilt quoted in R. Marcus, ‘Deja Vu All Over Again? An American Reaction to the Woolf Report’, and M. Zander, ‘Why Lord Woolf’s Proposed Reforms of Civil Procedure Should Be Rejected’ in A. Zuckerman & R. Cranston (1995), Reform of Civil Procedure: Essays on ‘Access to Justice’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press) makes the point that there have been 60 or more reports into civil justice in England since the mid-19th century (p. 79).

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. Peysner & M. Seneviratne (2006), ‘The Management of Civil Cases: A Snapshot’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 25 pp. 312–326.

    Google Scholar 

  11. This approach must be differentiated from another current in comparative procedure, which is harmonisation, for example, Storme’s attempt to produce a unified European code of civil procedure (M. Storme (Ed.) (2003), Procedural Laws in Europe. Towards Harmonisation (Antwerp: Maklu)). This is, in the author’s view, a flawed and hopeless project. (By way of comparison, see similar comments on the attempt to create harmonisation of tax policies across Europe in

    Google Scholar 

  12. C. Radaelli (2000), ‘Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of Legitimacy’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1) p. 35.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Jolowicz (2000), On Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p. 4.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. C. Hodges, I. Benöhr & N. Creutzfeldt-Banda (2012), Consumer ADR in Europe (Oxford: Hart);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. C. Hodges, S. Vogenenaur & M. Tulibacka, The Costs and Funding of Civil Litigation (Oxford: Beck/Hart) and C. Rodgers (Ed.) (2014), Competition Law: Comparative Private Enforcement and Collective Redress in the EU (Amsterdam: Kluwer) (The author has chapters in the latter two books.)

    Google Scholar 

  16. H. Bochel & S. Duncan (2007), Making Policy In Theory & Practice (Policy Press: Bristol), p. 49. Isomorphism is a phenomenon which is widely recognised across the natural sciences and in computing, including social policy modelling using data sets. For the purposes of this volume, the discussion is based on non-mathematical social policy insights.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. Kingdon (1984), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (New York: Harper Collins) p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A system of taking a party’s experts and ‘immersing’ them in joint discussions in an attempt to achieve consensus. Discussed in H. Genn (2013), ‘Getting to the Truth: Experts and Judges in the “hot tub”’, Civil Justice Quarterly, l32 (2) p. 275.

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. Corby & P. Latreille (2012), ‘Employment Tribunals and the Civil Courts: Isomorphism Exemplified’, Industrial Law Journal, 41(4) pp. 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. R. Moorhead (2010), ‘An American Future? Contingency Fees, Claims Explosions and Evidence from Employment Tribunals’, The Modern Law Review, 73 pp. 752–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Philip K. Dick (1999), The Man in the High Castle (new edition) (London: Penguin).

    Google Scholar 

  22. World War II, perhaps because its outcome was in doubt until Stalingrad and the result was fundamental to the 20th-century world, has been a rich source of counterfactual literature. See, for example, Philip Roth (2004), The Plot against America (London: Vintage), where Roosevelt loses the presidential election.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See, for example, R. Cowley (Ed.) (1999) ‘What if? Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been (New York: Berkley Trade/Penguin Group) (reproduced articles from MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History Spring 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Review by R. Lebow (2000), World Politics, 52(4) pp. 550–585 of

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. N. Ferguson (1999), What’s So Different about a Counterfactual? Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (New York: Basic Books) and

    Google Scholar 

  26. N. Ferguson (1999), The Pity of War: Explaining World War I (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  27. A more complex factual change is illustrated in J. Fearon (1991), ‘Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science’, World Politics, 43(2) pp. 169–195, 182 (quoting S. Evera (1984), ‘The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War’, International Security, 9 pp. 58–107, 105), addressing the argument that it was the cult of the offensive in military doctrine that inexorably drove the countries to war in 1914: ‘The consequences of the cult of the offensive are illuminated by imagining the politics of 1914 had European leaders recognized the actual power of the defense …. All European states would have been less tempted to mobilize first, and each could have tolerated more preparations by adversaries before mobilizing themselves, so the spiral of mobilization and counter-mobilization would have operated more slowly, if at all. If armies mobilized, they might have rushed to defend their own trenches and fortifications, instead of crossing frontiers, divorcing mobilization from war. Mobilizations could more easily have been confined to single frontiers, localizing the crisis. Britain could more easily have warned the Germans and restrained the Russians, and all statesmen could more easily have recovered and reversed mistakes made in haste or on false information. Thus the logic that led Germany to provoke the 1914 crisis would have been undermined, and the chain reaction by which the war spread outward from the Balkans would have been very improbable. In all likelihood, the Austro-Serbian conflict would have been a minor and soon-forgotten disturbance on the periphery of European politics.’

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. A.J.P. Taylor (1991), The Origins of the Second World War (new edition) (London: Penguin Books).

    Google Scholar 

  29. A.J.P. Taylor (1954), The Struggle for the Mastery in Europe, 1848–1918 (London: Oxford University).

    Google Scholar 

  30. P. Tetlock & A. Belkin (Eds) (1966), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives (Princetown: Princetown University Press) (fn. 7) pp. 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  31. The role of these constructs in the context of future studies, and particularly the relationship between futures academics and the practitioner community in various fields, is discussed in L. Mermet, T. Fuller & R. van der Helm (2009), ‘Introduction’, Futures, 41 (2009) pp. 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. P. Tetlock & A. Belkin (Eds) (1996), Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  33. A. Riley & J. Peysner (2006), ‘Damages in EC Antitrust Actions: Who Pays the Piper?’, European Law Review, (31) pp. 748–761. J. Peysner (2006), ‘Costs and Financing in Private Third Party Competition Damages Actions’, Competition Law Review (http://www.clasf.org/CompLRev/); M. Hviid & J. Peysner, ‘Comparing Economic Incentives to Pursue Private Actions across EU Member States’, chapter in B. Rodgers (Ed.) (2014) 3rd Party Damage Claims (Amsterdam: Kluwer).

    Google Scholar 

  34. They are also widely used in other jurisdictions, including the UK, Australia and New Zealand. This is accepted (although the model is criticised) by C. Veljanovski (2013), ‘Market Power and Counterfactuals in New Zealand’, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 9(1) pp. 171–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. For illustration of the economic approach and the use of counterfactuals, see K. Hüschelrath & K. Müller (2013), ‘Concrete Shoes for Competition: The Effect of the German Cement Cartel on Market Price’, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 9(1) pp. 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. P. De Smedt, K. Borch & T. Fuller (2013), ‘Future Scenarios to Inspire Innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3) pp. 432–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. N. Rickman (1995), ‘The Economics of Cost-Shifting Rules’, in A. Zuckerman & R. Cranston (Eds), Reform of Civil Procedure (Oxford: OUP) pp. 327–345. This chapter refers to the core US literature.

    Google Scholar 

  38. B. Main & A. Park (2001), ‘Cost Shifting and Pre-trial Settlement’, Hume Papers on Public Policy, 8(3) pp. 42–67. ISBN: 0 7486 1548 2;

    Google Scholar 

  39. B. Main & A. Park (1999), ‘The Impact of Defendant Offers into Court on Negotiation in the Shadow of the Law: Experimental Evidence’ (http://www.econ.ed.ac.uk/papers/paper2.pdf);

    Google Scholar 

  40. B. Main (2002), International Review of Law and Economics, 22 pp. 177–192 (http://www.business-school.ed.ac.uk/about/people/65/Brian/Main#_staffpublications-1), accessed 24/7/ 2014. ISSN: 0144–8188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. B. Main & A. Park (2003), ‘An Experiment with Two-way Offers into Court: Restoring the Balance in Pre-trial Negotiation’, Journal of Economic Studies, 30(2) pp. 125–143 (http://www.business-school.ed.ac.uk/about/people/65/Brian/Main#_staffpublications-1), accessed 24/7/2014. ISSN: 0144–3585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 10, D-53113 Bonn (http://www.coll.mpg.de/). See C. Eisenberg & C. Engel (2014), ‘Assuring Civil Damages Adequately Deter: A Public Good Experiment’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(2) pp. 301–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. J. Peysner (1999), ‘Focus Groups & Analogue Vignettes: Modelling and Piloting in Civil Procedural Reform’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 18 pp. 113–131.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The author was first course leader as well as a co-developer. As noted in the article (J. Peysner, ‘Focus Groups & Analogue Vignettes: Modelling and Piloting in Civil Procedural Reform’ p. 125), the theoretical basis of this type of experiential learning was the influential work of D.A. Kolb (1984), Experimental Learning (London: Prentice Hall, London), amongst others. Earlier models were not full-blown role-playing games but ‘moderated hypotheticals’ with a chairperson leading panels through a problem. This was based on a Harvard model.

    Google Scholar 

  45. AA Poythress et al. (1993), ‘Procedural Justice Judgments of Alternative Procedures for Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23 p. 1693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lincoln Law School, University of Lincoln, UK

    John Peysner (Professor of Civil Justice)

Authors
  1. John Peysner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2014 John Peysner

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peysner, J. (2014). A Suggested Approach. In: Access to Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137397232_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation