Does electronic case-processing enhance court efficacy? New quantitative evidence

IF 7.8 1区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Government Information Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2023.101861
Caio Castelliano , Peter Grajzl , Eduardo Watanabe
{"title":"Does electronic case-processing enhance court efficacy? New quantitative evidence","authors":"Caio Castelliano ,&nbsp;Peter Grajzl ,&nbsp;Eduardo Watanabe","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2023.101861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We empirically investigate the effect of electronic case-processing on court efficacy. We draw on monthly court-level panel data on adjudication and enforcement in Brazilian labor justice<span>, a major pillar of the Brazilian justice system where electronic case-processing is a recent phenomenon and court inefficacy has been a pervasive concern. Using dynamic panel methods and multiple estimation approaches to address endogeneity, we show, first and foremost, that in both adjudication and enforcement a shift to electronic case-processing unequivocally increases judicial productivity and court clearance rate while reducing case disposition times. In adjudication, electronification exhibits diminishing marginal returns: additional electronification does not yield further efficacy gains once the share of electronically-processed court caseload is between 50% and 75%. We do not find similarly stark evidence of plateauing of the effect of electronification in enforcement, a key court activity domain where attaining fully electronic case-processing would thus be especially advantageous. Overall, our findings suggest that electronic case-processing provides one viable path to unclogging courts and enhancing administration of justice.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"40 4","pages":"Article 101861"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Government Information Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X23000618","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We empirically investigate the effect of electronic case-processing on court efficacy. We draw on monthly court-level panel data on adjudication and enforcement in Brazilian labor justice, a major pillar of the Brazilian justice system where electronic case-processing is a recent phenomenon and court inefficacy has been a pervasive concern. Using dynamic panel methods and multiple estimation approaches to address endogeneity, we show, first and foremost, that in both adjudication and enforcement a shift to electronic case-processing unequivocally increases judicial productivity and court clearance rate while reducing case disposition times. In adjudication, electronification exhibits diminishing marginal returns: additional electronification does not yield further efficacy gains once the share of electronically-processed court caseload is between 50% and 75%. We do not find similarly stark evidence of plateauing of the effect of electronification in enforcement, a key court activity domain where attaining fully electronic case-processing would thus be especially advantageous. Overall, our findings suggest that electronic case-processing provides one viable path to unclogging courts and enhancing administration of justice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子案件处理是否能提高法庭效率?新的定量证据
实证研究了电子案件处理对法院效能的影响。我们利用巴西劳动司法的每月法院级别专家组数据,这是巴西司法系统的主要支柱,电子案件处理是最近的现象,法院无效一直是普遍关注的问题。使用动态小组方法和多重估计方法来解决内生性问题,我们首先表明,在裁决和执行中,向电子案件处理的转变明确地提高了司法生产力和法院清除率,同时减少了案件处理时间。在审判中,电子化表现出边际收益递减的特点:一旦电子化处理的法庭案件的比例在50%至75%之间,进一步的电子化就不会产生进一步的效率提高。我们没有发现类似的明显证据表明电子化在执法方面的效果趋于稳定,这是一个关键的法院活动领域,因此实现完全电子化的案件处理将特别有利。总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,电子案件处理提供了一个可行的途径,以疏通法院和加强司法管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Government Information Quarterly
Government Information Quarterly INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Government Information Quarterly (GIQ) delves into the convergence of policy, information technology, government, and the public. It explores the impact of policies on government information flows, the role of technology in innovative government services, and the dynamic between citizens and governing bodies in the digital age. GIQ serves as a premier journal, disseminating high-quality research and insights that bridge the realms of policy, information technology, government, and public engagement.
期刊最新文献
A more secure framework for open government data sharing based on federated learning Does trust in government moderate the perception towards deepfakes? Comparative perspectives from Asia on the risks of AI and misinformation for democracy Open government data and self-efficacy: The empirical evidence of micro foundation via survey experiments Transforming towards inclusion-by-design: Information system design principles shaping data-driven financial inclusiveness Bridging the gap: Towards an expanded toolkit for AI-driven decision-making in the public sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1