Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 6 No. 3 (2019): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Performance in small claims courts in Brazil: an analysis of the 2009-2016 period

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v6i3.349
Submitted
September 18, 2018
Published
2019-12-30

Abstract

The main objective of this article is to compare the performance of small claims courts in the Brazilian State Courts, from 2009 to 2016, from the point of view of production and productivity. Small Claims courts are an
institutional framework created in response to pressures arising from problems of judicial slowness and lack of access to justice in Brazil. Recent critics, however, warn that this model of justice already seems to suffer from the same slowness that it sought to combat. The present research seeks to offer contributions to the study of Brazilian judicial performance and to focus the discussion in the context of the small-claims courts. Official secondary data were analyzed using panel econometric regression, using as a dependent variable the Productivity Index of Judges in the Small-Claims Courts. As independent variables, the following ones were used: total number of judicial servants, total number of judges, new lawsuits and workload. The results indicate that the growth of new cases over the years has led to a smaller increase in productivity, while an increase in the number of magistrates is related to a deterioration in the performance of small claims courts. The research complements previous studies with a similar objectives and points to weaknesses in the model of the small claims courts that need to be addressed.

References

  1. Andrade, A., & Joia, L. A. (2012). Information Technology and the Efficiency of the Brazilian Judiciary System (pp. 126–136).
  2. Baltagi B. H., Egger P., Pfaffermayr, M. (2012) A generalized spatial panel data model with random effects. CESifo Working Paper Series N. 3930.
  3. Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, v. 63, n. 5, p. 586-606.
  4. Brasil (2017). Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ). Relatório Justiça em números 2017: Ano-base 2016. Brasília: CNJ, 2017 Disponível em: http://www.cnj.jus.br/programas-e-acoes/pj-justica-em-numeros. Acesso em: 07 nov. 2017.
  5. Castro, M. F., & Guccio, C. (2014). Searching for the source of technical inefficiency in Italian judicial districts: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Law and Economics, 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-012-9329-0
  6. Castro, M. F., & Guccio, C. (2018). Measuring Potential Efficiency Gains from Mergers of Italian First Instance Courts through Nonparametric Model. Public Finance Review, 46(1), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142116652723
  7. Choi, S. J., Gulati, M., & Posner, E. A. (2013). How well do measures of judicial ability predict judicial performance? A case study using securities class actions. International Review of Law & Economics, 33, 37–53.
  8. Costa, G. C. (2012). Curso de Estatística Inferencial e Probabilidade. São Paulo: Atlas.
  9. Cunha, L. G. (2008). Juizado Especial: criação, instalação, funcionamento e a democratização do acesso à Justiça. São Paulo: Saraiva.
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9258-3
  11. Dimitrova-Grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Slavov, A., & Zajc, K. (2015). Courts in a transition economy: Case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria. Economic Systems,. doi:10.1016/j.ecosys.2015.09.002
  12. Dimitrova-grajzl, V., Grajzl, P., Sustersic, J., & Zajc, K. (2012). Court output, judicial staffing, and the demand for court services: Evidence from Slovenian courts of first instance. International Review of Law & Economics, 32(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2011.12.006
  13. El-Bialy, S. V. N. (2016). Identifying the determinants of aggregate judicial performance: taxpayers’ money well spent? European Journal of Law and Economics, 283–319.
  14. Fabri, M. & Langbroek (2000). The challenge for change for judicial systems: developing a public administration perspective. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  15. Falavigna, G., Ippoliti, R., Manello, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2014). Judicial productivity, delay and efficiency: A Directional Distance Function (DDF) approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(2), 592–601.
  16. Ferraz, L. S. (2016). “Acesso à justiça e processamento de demandas de telefonia: o dilema dos juizados especiais cíveis no Brasil”, in Prado, M. M. (org.), O Judiciário e o Estado Regulador Brasileiro. São Paulo: FGV Direito SP.
  17. Gomes, A. O. & Freitas, M. E. (2017). Correlação entre demanda, quantidade de juízes e desempenho judicial em varas da Justiça Federal no Brasil. Revista Direito GV, São Paulo, 13 (2), 567-585.
  18. Gomes, A. O., Guimaraes, T. A., & Akutsu, L. (2016). The Relationship between Judicial Staff and Court Performance: Evidence from Brazilian State Courts. International Journal for Court Administration, 8(1).
  19. Gomes, A. O. & Guimarães, T. A (2013). Desempenho no Judiciário: conceituação, estado da arte e agenda de pesquisa. Revista de Administração Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 47 (2), p. 379-401.
  20. Guerra, A., & Tagliapietra, C. (2017). Does Judge Turnover Affect Judicial Performance? Evidence from Italian Court Records. Justice System Journal, 38(1), 52–77.
  21. Hill, R. C., Griffiths, W. E. e Judge, G. G.. Econometria. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1999.
  22. IPEA (2010). Estado, Instituições e Democracia: República. Livro 9, v. 1, Brasília, p. 131-174.
  23. IPEA (2013). Diagnóstico sobre os juizados especiais cíveis. Brasília: IPEA. Disponível em: http://ipea.gov.br/agencia/images/stories/PDFs/relatoriopesquisa/181013_diagnstico_sobre_juizados.pdf.
  24. Major, W. (2015). Data Envelopment Analysis as an Instrument For Measuring the Efficiency of Courts. Operations Research and Decisions, (4), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.5277/ord150402
  25. Mello, M. P. & Meirelles, D. R. S. (2010). Juizados Especiais: entre a legalidade e a legitimidade – análise prospectiva dos juizados especiais da comarca de Niterói. Revista Direito GV, São Paulo, 6 (2), 371-398.
  26. Nogueira, J. M. M., Oliveira, K. M. M. de, Vasconcelos, A. P. De, & Oliveira, L. G. L. (2012). Estudo exploratório da eficiência dos Tribunais de Justiça estaduais brasileiros usando a Análise Envoltória de Dados. Revista de Administração Pública, 46(5), 1317–1340.
  27. Nogueira, J. M. (2010). A gestão do poder judiciário: uma análise do sistema de mensuração de desempenho do judiciário brasileiro.109 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Administração Pública e Governo) – Fundação Getúlio Vargas, São Paulo. Disponível em: < http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/8218>, acesso em 20 abr 2017.
  28. Pekkanen, P., & Niemi, P. (2013). Process performance improvement in justice organizations — Pitfalls of performance measurement. Intern. Journal of Production Economics, 143(2), 605–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.08.009
  29. Peyrache, A., & Zago, A. (2015). Large courts , small justice! The inefficiency and the optimal structure of the Italian justice sector. Omega, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.11.002
  30. Sadek, M. T. & Oliveira, F. L. (2012). Estudos, pesquisas e dados em Justiça in Oliveira, F. L. (org). Justiça em Foco. Rio de janeiro: Editora FGV.
  31. Santos, B. S. (2005). Os actos e os tempos dos juízes: contributos para construção de indicadores da distribuição processual nos juízos cíveis. Coimbra: Observatório Permanente da Justiça Portuguesa.
  32. Santos, B. S (2007). Por uma revolução democrática da justiça. São Paulo: Cortez.
  33. Voigt, S. (2016). Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey. European Journal of Law and Economics, 42(2), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-016-9531-6
  34. Voigt, S., & El-Bialy, N. (2016). Identifying the determinants of aggregate judicial performance: taxpayers’ money well spent? European Journal of Law and Economics, 41, 283–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-014-9474-8
  35. Yeung, L. (2014). Measuring Efficiency of Courts: An Assessment of Brazilian Courts Productivity. In Managing Service Productivity Using Frontier Efficiency Methodologies and Multicriteria Decision Making for Improving Service Performance (pp. 155–165).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.