1 / 9

Summary

How Efficient are Brazilian Courts? Answering it with DEA Luciana Yeung* + Paulo Furquim de Azevedo* *Escola de Economia de São Paulo - Fundação Getúlio Vargas + INSPER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH iDEAs 2009.

george
Download Presentation

Summary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How Efficient are Brazilian Courts? Answering it with DEALuciana Yeung*+Paulo Furquim de Azevedo**Escola de Economia de São Paulo - Fundação Getúlio Vargas+ INSPER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCHiDEAs 2009

  2. Discussions about inefficiency in courts are not new in Brazil, but quantitative research on this topic is. • We use DEA to measure efficiency of State Courts. • Results show evidence that data collection needs improvement. • Also, efficiency varies greatly across the states. • Finally, management quality and internal organization of courts may have some still unmeasured and important impacts. Summary

  3. “Brazilian courts are in a state of crisis”. • Conservative estimates show that an average process takes 1000 to 1500 days. • Judges have, in any point in time, 10.000 cases waiting to be decided. • The Supreme Court adjudicates, every year, more than 130 thousand cases (11 Justices). • Very few empirical research has been carried out on the subject. Overview

  4. Lewin, Morey and Cook (1982) for criminal courts in the US. • Kittelsen and Førsund (1992) for district courts in Norway. • Pedraja-Chaparro and Salinas-Jiménez (1996) for High Courts in Spain. • In Brazil: Sousa and Schwengber (2005) for courts in Rio Grande do Sul (FDH and Order-M efficiency). Literature using DEA

  5. CCR (Constant Returns to Scale) • Output Oriented • Both choices are supported by the literature and, more importantly, by the structural organization of Brazilian courts. • Data from “Justiça em Números” issued by the National Council of Justice (CNJ), years 2004 to 2006, 25 out of 27 states. • Outputs: number of adjudications over workload (new cases filed in t + “leftovers” from t-1. • Inputs: number of judges, staff and computers. Our Model and Data

  6. Tables 2, 3 and 4: Efficiency Measures • National average close to 0.60, but wide variation across different states. • Table 5: Cross Year Comparison • Some clear efficient units, and some clear inefficient units. • Many “inconsistent” results, especially for year 2005. • Efficiency performance not related to economic wealth of the state. Results and Analysis

  7. Correlation = -0.005

  8. DEA shows that the traditional justification for court inefficiency, namely lack of resources, is not supported. • Instead, management of internal organization seems to matter (recent project by National Council of Justice). • Preliminary index of “quality of internal organization” to capture aspects of management. • The result: 77.8% (“optimistic” view) or 56% (“cautious” view) of correlation between the index and DEA-efficiency. A Potential New Explanation

  9. End of PresentationThank you! Luciana Yeung (luciana.luktai.yeung@gmail.com) Paulo Furquim de Azevedo

More Related