The reform of judicial geography: technical efficiency and demand of justice

Journal title ECONOMIA PUBBLICA
Author/s Roberto Ippoliti
Publishing Year 2016 Issue 2015/2
Language Italian Pages 34 P. 91-124 File size 345 KB
DOI 10.3280/EP2015-002003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The Italian judicial geography, which has remained essentially unchanged since the time of the unification of Italy, underwent a significant transformation with the reform contained in Law no. 148 of 2011 and its implementing decrees no. 155 and 156 of 2012. In detail, the Italian Legislative Decree no. 155 of 2012 established the removal of 31 first instance courts and of 220 sub-sections. Focusing on these first instance courts, this is an empirical work aimed at analyzing the expected impact of this policy, both in terms of technical efficiency and access to the public services. On the one hand, adopting the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), the author tests the hypothesis of economies of specialization, supporting the main target of the reform. On the other one, the author analyses the impact of the courts’ jurisdiction on litigation, i.e. the expected impact of the reform on the demand of justice. Taking the technical efficiency into account, the results confirm the positive impact of the reform. At the same time, the results suggest an expected reduction of the demand of civil justice, which might be due to the courts’ access. However, considering the policy maker’s approach in the detection of the suppressed first instance courts, there are opportunities to improve the analyzed policy.

Keywords: Judicial geography, judicial efficiency, litigiousness, courts

Jel codes: J44, H41, K41

  1. Bae K.H., Goyal V.K. (2009). Creditor rights, enforcement, and bank loans. Journal of Finance, 64(2): 823-860.
  2. Banker Raijiv D., Charnes A., Cooper William W. (1984). Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078-1092.
  3. Barros C.P., Nektarios M., Assaf A. (2010). Efficiency in the Greek insurance industry. European Journal of Operational Research, 205: 431-436.
  4. Beenstock M., Haitovsky Y. (2004). Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary? International Review of Law and Economics, 24: 351-369.
  5. Bianco M., Jappelli T., Pagano M. (2002). Courts and Banks: Effects of Judicial Enforcement on Credit Markets. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 37(2): 223-244.
  6. Binford W.H., Greene P.C., Schmidlkofer M.C., Wilsey, R.M., Taylor, H.A. (2007). Seeking best practices among intermediate courts of appeal: A nascent journey. Journal of Appellate Practice & Process, 9: 37-119.
  7. Bripi F., Carmignani A., Giordano R. (2011). La qualità dei servizi pubblici in Italia. Questioni di Economia e Finanza, Occasional Paper della Banca d’Italia, n. 84.
  8. Carmignani A. (2004). Funzionamento della giustizia civile e struttura finanziaria delle imprese: il ruolo del credito commerciale. Temi di discussione del Servizio Studi – Banca d’Italia, n. 497.
  9. Carmignani A., Giacomelli S. (2009). La giustizia civile in Italia: i divari territoriali. Questioni di Economia e Finanza. Occasional Paper della Banca d’Italia, n. 40.
  10. Carmignani A., Giacomelli S. (2010). Too many lawyers? Temi di discussione del Servizio Studi – Banca d’Italia, n. 745.
  11. Cauthen J.N.G., Latzer B. (2008). Why so long? Explaining processing time in capital appeals. Justice System Journal, 29: 298-312.
  12. Chaparro P.F., Jimenez S.J. (1996). An assessment of the efficiency of Spanish courts using DEA. Applied Economics, 28: 1391-1403.
  13. Charnes A., Cooper W.W., Rhodes E. (1978). Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2: 429-444.
  14. Chemin M. (2009). The impact of the judiciary on entrepreneurship: Evaluation of Pakistan’s “Access to Justice Programme”. Journal of Public Economics, 93: 114-125.
  15. Cheng A., Hwang Y., Shao B. (2005). Measurement and sources of overall and input inefficiencies: Evidences and implications in hospital services. European Journal of Operational Research, 161: 447-468.
  16. Coelli T., Rao Prasada D.S., Battese G.E. (1998). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Noerwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  17. D’Agostino E., Sironi E., Sobbrio G. (2013) The Length of Legal Disputes and the Decision to Appeal in Italian Court. Rivista italiana degli economisti, 1: 47-65.
  18. Daraio C., Simar L. (2007). Advanced Robust and Nonparametric Methods in Efficiency Analysis: Methodology and Application. Berlin: Springer.
  19. 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.
  20. Di Vita G. (2010). Production of laws and delays in court decisions. International Review of Law and Economics, 30(3): 276-281.
  21. 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 and Economics, 32: 19-29.
  22. Djankov S., Hart O., McLiesh C., Shleifer A. (2008). Debt Enforcement around the World. Journal of Political Economy, 116: 1105-1149.
  23. Falavigna G., Ippoliti R., Manello A., Ramello G. (2015). Judicial productivity, delay and efficiency: a Directional Distance Function (DDF) approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 240: 592-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.07.014
  24. Fantini P., Giacomelli S., Palumbo G., Volpe G. (2011). La litigiosità presso giudici di pace: fisiologia e casi anomali. Questioni di Economia e Finanza. Occasional Paper della Banca d’Italia, n. 92.
  25. Farrell M.J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120(3): 253-290.
  26. Felli E.L., Londoñ-Bedoya D.A., Solferino N., Tria G. (2007). The demand for justice: civil litigation and the judicial system. An Italian case study. In Ricciuti R., Padovano F. Italian Institution Reform: a public choice perspective. Springer.
  27. Finocchiaro Castro M., Guccio C. (2012). Searching for the source of technical inefficiency in Italian judicial districts: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming. DOI: 10.1007/s10657-012-9329-0
  28. Hung S.W., Lu W.M, Wang T.P. (2010). Benchmarking the operating efficiency of Asia container ports. European Journal of Operational Research, 203: 706-713.
  29. Ippoliti R. (2014). La competitività del Mercato Forense e l’efficienza giudiziaria. Economia Pubblica – Italian Journal of Public Economics, 2: 53-90. DOI: 10.3280/EP2014-002003
  30. Ippoliti R., Falavigna G. (2012). Efficiency of medical care industry: evidence from the Italian regional system. European Journal of Operational Research, 217: 643-652; DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.10.010
  31. Ippoliti R., Melcarne A., Ramello G. (2014). Judicial Efficiency and Entrepreneurs’ Expectations on the Reliability of European Legal Systems. European Journal of Law and Economics, forthcoming. DOI: 10.1007/s10657-014-9456-x
  32. Ippoliti R., Melcarne A., Ramello G. (2015). The Impact of Judicial Efficiency on Entrepreneurial Action: A European Perspective. Economic notes, 44(1): 57-74.
  33. Kittelsen S.A.C., Førsund F.R. (1992). Efficiency analysis of Norwegian district courts. The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3: 277-306.
  34. Laeven L., Majnoni G. (2005). Does judicial efficiency lower the cost of credit? Journal of Banking & Finance, 29: 1791-1812.
  35. Lewin A.L., Morey R.C., Cook T.C. (1982). Evaluating the administrative efficiency of courts. Omega, 10: 401-411.
  36. Lichand G., Soares Rodrigo R. (2011). Access to Justice and Entrepreneurship: Evidence from Brazil’s Special Civil Tribunals. IZA Discussion Paper, n. 5917.
  37. Lindquist S.A. (2007). Bureaucratization and balkanization: The origins and effects of decision-making norms in the federal appellate courts. University of Richmond Law Review, 41: 659-706.
  38. Marchesi D. (2001). Giustizia: tempi e interazioni con il sistema economico. I temi dei Rapporti Trimestrali dell’ISAE.
  39. Marchesi D. (2003). Litiganti, avvocati e magistrati: diritto ed economia del processo civile. Bologna: il Mulino.
  40. Marselli R., Vannini M. (2004). L’Efficienza Tecnica dei Distretti di Corte di Appello Italiani: Aspetti Metodologici, Benchmarking e Arretrato Smaltibile. CRENOS Working Paper.
  41. Peyrache A., Zago A. (2012). Large Courts, Small Justice! The inefficiency and the optimal structure of the Italian Justice sector. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (CEPA), Working Paper Series WP06/2012.
  42. Ray S.C., Das A. (2010). Distribution of cost and profit efficiency: Evidence from Indian banking. European Journal of Operational Research, 201: 297-307.
  43. Schneider M.R. (2005). Judicial career ıncentives and court performance: An Empirical study of the German labour courts of appeal. European Journal of Law and Economics, 20: 127-144.
  44. Simar L., Wilson P.W. (2002). Stochastics and Statistics Non-parametric tests of returns to scale. European Journal of Operational Research, 139: 115-132.
  45. Simar L., Wilson P.W. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136: 321-364.
  46. Smith P.C., Street A. (2005). Measuring the efficiency of public services: the limits of analysis. Journal of Royal Statistic Society – Series A, 168, Part 2, pp. 401-417.
  47. St. Aubyn M. (2008). Law and Order Efficiency Measurement – A Literature Review. Iseg, Working Paper n. 19.
  48. Staub R., Da Silva Souza G., Tabak B.M. (2010). Evolution of bank efficiency in Brazil: A DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 202: 204-213.
  49. Tulkens H. (1993). On FDH efficiency analysis: some methodological issues and applications to retail banking, courts, and urban transit. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4: 183-210.
  50. Yeung L.L., Azevedo P.F. (2011). Measuring efficiency of Brazilian courts with data envelopment analysis (DEA). IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 22: 343-356.
  51. Zhou P., Ang B.W., Poh K.L. (2008). A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and environmental studies. European Journal of Operational Research, 189: 1-18.

  • Factors affecting judicial system efficiency: a systematic mapping review with a focus on Italy Monica Giancotti, Giorgia Rotundo, Marianna Mauro, in International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management /2024 pp.2951
    DOI: 10.1108/IJPPM-05-2023-0215
  • Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance Greta Falavigna, Roberto Ippoliti, pp.6742 (ISBN:978-3-030-66251-6)
  • L’esperienza Uni4Justice e le prospettive future Le ricerche del team di Ca’ Foscari Michele Zanette, Alessandro Grassi, (ISBN:978-88-6969-766-1)
  • Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance Greta Falavigna, Roberto Ippoliti, pp.1 (ISBN:978-3-319-31816-5)
  • Data envelopment analysis to investigate the Italian legal system and its reform Greta Falavigna, Roberto Ippoliti, in Journal of Public Affairs e2877/2023
    DOI: 10.1002/pa.2877

Roberto Ippoliti, La riforma della geografia giudiziaria: efficienza tecnica e domanda di giustizia in "ECONOMIA PUBBLICA " 2/2015, pp 91-124, DOI: 10.3280/EP2015-002003