IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/dewple/2004-1-1103.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Erfolgsmessung in Gerichten

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Schneider

    (Universität Trier)

Abstract

In der Debatte um Reform und Modernisierung der Justiz geht es heute nicht mehr um das Ob, sondern nur um das Wie". Alle Bundesländer haben damit begonnen, betriebswirtschaftliche Instrumente, die in Privatunternehmen üblich sind, auch in der Justiz zu erproben. Ebenso zentral wie kontrovers ist dabei die Erfolgs- oder Leistungsmessung von Gerichten. Noch gibt es keine einheitliche Methodik, es liegen aber vereinzelte Ansätze vor. Beim Benchmarking" der Sozialgerichte in Nordrhein-Westfalen etwa wird die Auftragserfüllung der Gerichte anhand von Kennzahlen miteinander verglichen, um Gerichte zum Aufgreifen so genannter bester Praktiken zu bewegen. Im so genannten Neuen Steuerungsmodell, das für die Gerichtsbarkeiten in Baden-Württemberg gerade umgesetzt wird, richten sich die zugewiesenen Haushaltsmittel nach dem zu erbringenden Output der Gerichte. Unabdingbare Voraussetzung für das Neue Steuerungsmodell ist die Leistungsmessung, denn es müssen die verschiedenen Leistungen der Gerichte, ihre Produkte", benannt und es muss dann der Aufwand, der zur Erstellung jeder einzelnen Leistung notwendig ist, quantifiziert werden. Der gemeinsame Nenner aller Ansätze ist der Steuerungszweck: Auf die Erfolgsmessung folgt zum Beispiel eine Haushaltszuweisung, die Suche nach effizienten Abläufen oder auch nur der Hinweis eines Gerichtspräsidenten, dass die Erledigungszahlen im Vergleich zu anderen Gerichten verbessert werden könnten. Im Kern der Modernisierungsansätze steht damit die Steuerung durch Erfolgsmessung. Diese Art der Justizmodernisierung stößt auf heftigen Widerspruch der Richter und auf gehörige Skepsis seitens der Rechtswissenschaft. Dies liegt zum einen daran, dass eine Gefahr für die richterliche Unabhängigkeit befürchtet wird; zum anderen daran, dass viele Juristen Betriebswirtschaftslehre" und Ökonomisierung" offenbar mit Kostenreduktion" gleich setzen. Dieses Vorurteil mag auch erklären, warum ökonomische Stimmen in der Debatte um die Erfolgsmessung nicht zu Wort kommen. Die einschlägigen akademischen Teildisziplinen, die ökonomische Analyse des Rechts und die Performancemessung" (Performance Measurement), spielen in der wissenschaftlichen Debatte um die Erfolgsmessung von Gerichten bislang kaum eine Rolle. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werde ich eine ökonomisch fundierte (aber hoffentlich nicht vormoderne) Methodik der Erfolgsmessung von Gerichten herleiten (Abschnitt C) und am Beispiel anwenden (Abschnitt D), um abschließend sinnvolle Verwendungen der Erfolgsmessung anzureißen (Abschnitt E). Eingangs jedoch soll die Kritik an einer Steuerung der Justiz durch Erfolgsmessung aus ökonomischer Sicht bewertet werden (Abschnitt B).

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Schneider, "undated". "Erfolgsmessung in Gerichten," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2004-1-1103, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    • Handle: RePEc:bep:dewple:2004-1-1103
    Note: oai:bepress:
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=gwp
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 1978. "Adjudication as a Private Good," NBER Working Papers 0263, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Pushkar Maitra & Russell Smyth, 2004. "Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 209-235, March.
    3. Henry Tulkens, 2006. "On FDH Efficiency Analysis: Some Methodological Issues and Applications to Retail Banking, Courts and Urban Transit," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 311-342, Springer.
    4. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    5. Bhattacharya, Mita & Smyth, Russell, 2001. "The Determinants of Judicial Prestige and Influence: Some Empirical Evidence from the High Court of Australia," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 223-252, January.
    6. Demsetz, Harold, 1969. "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, April.
    7. Landes, William M & Lessig, Lawrence & Solimine, Michael E, 1998. "Judicial Influence: A Citation Analysis of Federal Courts of Appeals Judges," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 271-332, June.
    8. Lewin, Arie Y & Morey, Richard C & Cook, Thomas J, 1982. "Evaluating the administrative efficiency of courts," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 401-411.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martin Schneider, 2005. "Judicial Career Incentives and Court Performance: An Empirical Study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 127-144, September.
    2. Dong, Xiaoge, 2021. "Efficiency of Courts in China – Does Location Matter?," ILE Working Paper Series 50, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    3. Falavigna, Greta & Ippoliti, Roberto & Ramello, Giovanni B., 2018. "DEA-based Malmquist productivity indexes for understanding courts reform," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 31-43.
    4. Ippoliti, Roberto, 2014. "Efficienza Tecnica e Geografia Giudiziaria," POLIS Working Papers 178, Institute of Public Policy and Public Choice - POLIS.
    5. J. Cummins & Hongmin Zi, 1998. "Comparison of Frontier Efficiency Methods: An Application to the U.S. Life Insurance Industry," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 131-152, October.
    6. Gustavo Ferro & Victoria Oubiña & Carlos A. Romero, 2019. "Benchmarking Labor Courts: an Efficiency Frontier Analysis," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4140, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    7. Roberto Ippoliti, 2015. "La riforma della geografia giudiziaria: efficienza tecnica e domanda di giustizia," ECONOMIA PUBBLICA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 91-124.
    8. Lopes, Nuno Q.M. & Silva, Maria C.A., 2024. "Scale and scope economies in first-instance courts: Portuguese specialized vs non-specialized courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Michael Gorman & John Ruggiero, 2009. "Evaluating U.S. judicial district prosecutor performance using DEA: are disadvantaged counties more inefficient?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 275-283, June.
    10. Castro Massimo Finocchiaro & Guccio Calogero, 2015. "Bottlenecks or Inefficiency? An Assessment of First Instance Italian Courts’ Performance," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 317-354, July.
    11. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio, 2014. "Searching for the source of technical inefficiency in Italian judicial districts: an empirical investigation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 369-391, December.
    12. Santos, Sérgio P. & Amado, Carla A.F., 2014. "On the need for reform of the Portuguese judicial system – Does Data Envelopment Analysis assessment support it?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-16.
    13. Antonio Peyrache & Angelo Zago, 2024. "The inefficiency of courts of justice: industry structure, capacity and misallocation," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 217-238, October.
    14. Maria da Conceição Sampaio de Sousa & Silvane Battaglin Schwengber, 2005. "Efficiency Estimates For Judicial Services In Brazil: Nonparametric Fdh (Free Disposal Hull) And The Expected Order- M Efficiency Scores For Rio Grande Do Sul Courts´," Anais do XXXIII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 33rd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 053, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    15. Kristiaan Kerstens & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2018. "Enumeration algorithms for FDH directional distance functions under different returns to scale assumptions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 1067-1078, December.
    16. Santiago Carbó Valverde & David Humphrey & Rafael López del Paso, 2007. "Opening the black box: Finding the source of cost inefficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 209-220, June.
    17. Ravelojaona, Paola, 2019. "On constant elasticity of substitution – Constant elasticity of transformation Directional Distance Functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 780-791.
    18. Peter Fernandes Wanke & Rebecca de Mattos, 2014. "Capacity Issues and Efficiency Drivers in Brazilian Bulk Terminals," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 11(5), pages 72-98, October.
    19. R. Russell & William Schworm, 2009. "Axiomatic foundations of efficiency measurement on data-generated technologies," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 77-86, April.
    20. Cherchye, L. & Post, G.T., 2001. "Methodological Advances in Dea," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-53-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bep:dewple:2004-1-1103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.bepress.com/gwp/default/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.