Post on 06-Jan-2016
description
Diagnostic Tools for Judicial Reform
Moving Beyond the Sector Assessment
January, 2004
Some Personal Biases
• We are doing development projects, not just making loans
• Projects should aim at resolving societally significant problems with effective remedies
• Judicial reform projects could do better here – impacts as opposed to just outputs
• Information and analysis are key
Why we need better tools
• Sector assessments give overview
• Methodology emphasizes “what everyone knows”
• Perspectives of the usual suspects
• Remedies reflect fads and too often produce Christmas trees
• No baseline for measuring progress
Alternatives
• Not to replace SA, but to expand on and validate its contents
• All have strengths and weaknesses
• Applicability depends on resources and problems to be explored
• While offer more “precision,” it is important to recognize their limitations
Public Opinion Surveys
• Examples: WBI country surveys, cross-country governance indicators, Investment Climate Analyses, cross national polls like Latinobarometro
• Strengths: demonstrate perceived problem, can put in comparative perspective, get leaders’ attention
• Weaknesses: perceptions, insufficiently specific, may reflect past not present, don’t tell you what to do.
Related tools
• “Sherwood” focus on costs of justice
• Doing Business
• Strengths: same as above, but look more “scientific”
• Weaknesses: quality of data, question of what they are measuring, do respondents interpret the questions the same way?
Analysis of Aggregate Statistics
• Where any are available, they can test some conventional wisdom (Are workloads excessive? Are budgets too small? Is litigation rate high?)
• Also identify some unsuspected trends• Interpretation requires comparative data• Poor quality calls for caution – incomplete,
inconsistent categories, bad data entry• Work best in more developed systems or most
developed sectors of underdeveloped
Analysis of Raw Data
• With more automation, increasingly possible to access data on individual cases
• Allows to disaggregate categories, cross variables, give better picture of what is happening to workload.
• Same cautions as above – poorly managed systems contain many errors, inconsistent or unintelligible classifications
• Still, over time will replace next example – sampling of case files
Case File Analysis
• Here, manual style– random sample of physical case files drawn and analyzed
• Data extracted on characteristics of interest (e.g. times, parties, amounts, stages)
• Strengths – best way of tracking what happens to real cases
• Weaknesses: expensive, slow, works best in more organized courtrooms, requires courts’ permission
Case File Analysis: Examples
• Can test common beliefs – all plaintiffs are bankers, there is much delay, judicial bias
• Can uncover unsuspected trends – most cases are not resolved, delays are in enforcement, attachment is an obstacle.
• Can use flow charts to demonstrate alternative trajectories of cases
• With a large enough sample can do statistical analysis of sections – crossing variables to identify internal trends
In-depth Institutional Analysis
• Methodology like sector assessment, but problem focus (informed by other studies)
• Combines inputs from various sources, statistics, interviews, informed observation
• Best done by experienced specialist, but also requires multi-disciplinary approach and appreciation for broader impacts.
• Probably a second-stage tactic, after initial problem identification
A Note on Judicial Governance
• Focus has been on reform projects, for donors and dialogue with counterparts.
• However, analysis is important for judicial managers, as part of their standard repertoire.
• Their involvement in process, discussion of product can help reorient ideas about management.
• Good management requires good information – at least in LAC, this is the forgotten element.
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
AGGREGATE STATISTICS
FIGURE I: Comparative Statistics on Judicial Workloads
Country
Filings (dispositions) per 100,000 Population
Judges per 100,00
Population
Filings (dispositions)
per Judge Honduras 1,200 8.8 136 Venezuela 2,375 6.3 377 El Salvador 2,454 11.8 208 México, Federal District only 2,600 4.0 650
Brazil (federal, labor, and state only—military, electoral and juizados especiais not included)
7,171 5.3 1,357
Argentina 9,459 10.9 875 Colombia 3,298 7.7 430 Costa Rica 21,000 15.9 1,320 England and Wales (concluded) (9,800) 11 (891) France (concluded) (6,200) 13 (477) Italy (concluded) (14,000) 20 (700) Germany (concluded) (15,600) 23 (678) US, District of Colombia (civil only)
20,321 10.21 1,992
US, Maine (civil only) 2,821 1.29 2,187
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
AGGREGATE STATISTICS
FIGURE II: Comparative Statistics from Brazil’s National and State Court Systems (excluding juizados especiais
Court system 1st instance judges
1st instance filings
Average filings per
judge
Population 2002
1st Instance
Judges per 100,000
inhabitants Federal courts 766 1,097,964 1433 169,799,170 0.5 Labor courts 2,070 1,742,571 842 169,799,170 1.2 State courts -- all 6,190 9,489,657 1533 169,799,170 3.6 São Paulo 1,599 3,720,381 2327 37,032,403 4.3 Rio de Janeiro 567 910,913 1607 14,391,282 3.9 Pará 160 107,580 672 6,192,307 2.6
Ceará 355 213,107 600 7,430,661 4.8
Pernambuco 340 135,166 398 7,918,344 4.3
Rio Grande do Sul 531 1,088,087 2049 10,187,798 5.2
Brasilia 136 184,143 1369 2,051,146 6.8
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
AGGREGATE STATISTICS,DISAGGREGATED BY MATERIAL
FIGURE III: Brazil, Annual First Instance Filings per Judge (1999-2003)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
trabalhista federal comun
FIGURE IV: Brazil, Annual First Instance Dispositions per Judge
(1999-2003)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
trabalhista federal comun
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
AGGREGATE STATISTICS,DISAGGREGATED BY MATERIAL
FIGURE V: Brazil, First Instance Filings Over Time
(Labor Courts 1941—2003; Federal Courts 1967—2003; State Courts 1990—2003)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
Mil
ho
es
trabalhista federal comun
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLSAGGREGATE STATISTICS,
DISAGGREGATED BY MATERIAL
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
CASE FILE DATA
FIGURE VI: Brazil, Ratio of Second Instance Filings to First Instance Dispositions
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Federal Comun Trabalho
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
CASE FILE DATA
FIGURE VII: Mexico, Juicios ejecutivos MERCANTILES (JEM)
TYPE OF PLAINTIFF IN CIVIL AND PEACE COURTS,
PERCENTAGES, FILED CASES
Type of Plaintiff Civil Peace Financial Institution 25.20 4.30 Other type of firm 43.10 42.00 Other type of organization 3.00 0.70 Individual 28.70 53.00 Total 100 100
FIGURE VIII: Mexico, JEM, Value of Claims
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
CASE FILE DATA
Graph IX-1: Distribution by Size of Claim
38.40%
45.00%
14.60%
2.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Filed
CATEGORIES
PE
RC
EN
T
1 ($ 0.00 to $14,000)
2 ($ 14,001 to $ 150,000)
3 ($ 150,001 to $ 1,550,000)
More than $1,550,000
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
CASE FILE DATA
FIGURE IX: Mexico, JEM, Duration from initiation to closure
Period
Median (days)
Minimum (days)
Maximum (days)
Cases concluded before Judgment
Filing to End-of-Trial Decree (withdrawal of complaint, expiration, payment or settlement)
176 3 819
Filing- Admission 3 0 397 Admission- notification 52.5 0 678
Notification – Judgment
111 10 959
Filing- Judgment 223.5 29 977 Admission –Judgment 199.5 22 975
Period of Trial
Final summons – Judgment
9 0 45
Judgment - Accrued Interest Calculation
182 15 990
Accrued Interest Calculation- First Bid
268 250 822
Period of Execution
Verdict- First Bid 467 224 948
TABLES ILLUSTRATING USE OF DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS
CASE FILE DATA
FIGURE X Mexico, Juicios Ejecutivos:
Characteristics associated with an increase in the time to judgment
Characteristic Prevalence (ratio of cases having the referred characteristic)
Pearson’s Correlation
Sig. bilateral
Cases with more than one defendant
30% .247 >.00
Cases requiring action by another judge (exhorto)
37% .231 >.00
Cases in which the debtor responds to the complaint
47% .398 >.00
Cases with interlocutory appeals
19% .317 >.00
Cases where the amount in dispute was larger than average
NA .169 >.00
FIGURE X Mexico, Juicios Ejecutivos:
Characteristics associated with an increase in the time to judgment
Embargo & Notification
38%
Judgments 54%
Auction or Appropriation
3.6%
Out of 100 Admitted
Out of 100 Notified
FORMAL EXIT 19%
Dismissal 12% Formal Withdrawal 66% Payment 4% Settlement 18%
INFORMAL EXIT 43%
De fact withdrawal 56% Exhortos 25% Debtor refuses notice 13% Debtor cannot be found 6%
FORMAL EXIT 23.3%
Payment 35% Settlement 15% Plaintiff desists 50%
INFORMAL EXIT 76%
No information
FORMAL EXIT 15%
Formal Withdrawal 36% Payment 43% Settlement 21%
INFORMAL EXIT 31% Informal withdrawal or lack of further action
Of 100 judgments that favor the plaintiff