Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Courts Voluntary Networks

  • Sylwia Morawska
  • Joanna KuczewskaEmail author
  • Przemysław Banasik
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_658

Abstract

Although the legal framework for their establishment and operation is identical, courts are marked by diversity. And it is not just about the differences arising from the court’s place in the hierarchy. Courts not only differ in the tangible resources (depending on size) and intangible resources (the knowledge and skills of employees) they possess but also in the organizational culture and the ability to learn (Banasik and Brdulak 2015) and the reputation they have, as well as in the network of contacts (Banasik and Morawska 2016). Courts are embedded in the dense structure of relations with the environment (Czakon 2007), including with other courts. The interorganizational cooperation between courts takes place not only within hierarchical, i.e., regulatory, networks (regulated courts networks) with regard to the tasks imposed by the legislature but also within heterarchical, i.e., voluntary, networks (voluntary courts networks). Courts should strive to harmonize the services they offer, as opposed to companies, where resources together with the core competencies built upon them serve to build a competitive advantage in the market. Courts do not compete for customers on their products or services. Jurisdiction is determined by regulations. What is more, the citizen has the right to the same services in each court. What may help standardization are voluntary courts networks, where courts will exchange good practices, managerial and organizational. Networking can also contribute to the organizational efficiency of courts of general jurisdiction through the rational use of resources and the harmonious interaction of all the elements of the organization.

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

References

  1. Banasik P (2015) Organizacja wymiaru sprawiedliwości w strukturze sieci publicznej – możliwe interakcje. E – mentor 2(59):56. http://www.e-entor.edu.pl/artykul/index/numer/59/id/1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banasik P, Brdulak J (2015) Organisational culture and change management in courts, based on the examples of the Gdańsk area courts. Int J Contemp Manag 14:33–50Google Scholar
  3. Banasik P, Morawska S (2016) The Courts’ public image – the desired direction of change. Int J Court Adm 8(1):2–11Google Scholar
  4. Czakon W (2007) Dynamika więzi międzyorganizacyjnych przedsiębiorstwa. Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej im. Karola Adameckiego w Katowicach, KatowiceGoogle Scholar
  5. Heclo H (1978) Issue networks and the executive establishment. In: King A (ed) The new American political system. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, p 103Google Scholar
  6. Heclo H, Wildavsky A (1974) The private government of public money. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Hill M, Hupe P (2002) Implementing public policy: governance in theory and practice. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Kickert WJM, Klijn EH, Koppenjan JFM (eds) (1997) Managing complex networks. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Kooiman J (ed) (1993) Modern governance: new government – society interactions. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Mandell MP, Keast R (2008) Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks. Developing a framework for revised performance measures. Public Manag Rev 10(6):715–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mandell M, Keast RL (2009) A new look at leadership in collaborative networks: process catalysts. In: Raffel J, Leisink P, Middlebrooks A (eds) Public sector leadership: international challenges and perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 163–178Google Scholar
  12. March JG, Olsen JP (1995) Democratic governance. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Marin B, Mayntz R (eds) (1991) Policy networks: empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt-am-MainGoogle Scholar
  14. Müller-Seitz G (2012) Leadership in Interorganizational networks: a literature review and suggestions for future research. Int J Manag Rev 14:428–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pierre J, Peters BG (2000) Governance, politics and the state. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  17. Scharpf FW (1994) Games real actors negative coordination in embedded negotiations. J Theor Politics 6(1):27–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sorensen E, Torfing J (eds) (2007) Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke/New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylwia Morawska
    • 1
  • Joanna Kuczewska
    • 2
    Email author
  • Przemysław Banasik
    • 3
  1. 1.Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Business AdministrationWarszawaPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of GdanskSopotPoland
  3. 3.Faculty of Management and EconomicsGdansk University of TechnologyGdańskPoland