The paths of innovation of the judicial systems of Southern Europe

Author/s Luca Verzelloni
Publishing Year 2019 Issue 2019/1 Language Italian
Pages 26 P. 97-122 File size 330 KB
DOI 10.3280/SO2019-001004
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.

Although in recent years the Southern European judicial systems have been subjected to several reforms - in some cases, imposed by the Troika and, in other cases, adopted under the influence exerted by Council of the European Union, Directorate-General for Competition, European Court of Human Rights and judicial networks, promoted by European Union and Council of Europe - many empirical evidences show that the quality of justice is still, on the overall, below the European standards. But if we change the scale of reference, we can see that many judicial offices of Southern Europe are "arenas of innovation". However, one the one hand, the Southern European judicial systems struggle to implement the reforms promoted at the central level, and on the other hand, they have great difficulty in spreading the innovations, which often remain a sort of "local heritage", intrinsically linked to the courts and their practitioners. All this represents a paradox that characterizes the Southern European judicial systems. This article wants to build an "ideal bridge" among sociology, political science and law, to analyse the paths of judicial innovation in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. The paper is the result of a five-year empirical research and aims to promote an extended debate on the perverse and paradoxical effects of the continuous promotion of innovation, both in the judicial systems and in other sectors of the public administration.

Keywords: Innovation, justice, Southern Europe, room for manoeuvre, paradox, loosely coupled systems

  1. Abravanel, R. (2008), Meritocrazia, Milano, Garzanti.
  2. Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, in Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, Greenwich, JAI Press.
  3. Amabile, T.M. et al. (1996), “Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, 39(5): 1154-1184.
  4. Angle, H.J. (1989), “Psychology and organizational innovation”, in Van de Ven, A. et al. (eds.), Research on the management of innovation, New York, Harper & Row.
  5. Arata, G. (2005), “Un sasso nello stagno. Considerazioni organizzative sull’introduzione del processo civile telematico nelle Corti civili italiane”, Studi Organizzativi, 1: 83-112.
  6. Barbuto, M. (2013), “Court Management. Il Programma Strasburgo. Prima esperienza italiana di gestione responsabile del contenzioso civile”, in Sciacca, M. et al. (eds.), Giustizia in bilico, Roma, Aracne.
  7. Barron, F., Harrington, D.M. (1981), “Creativity, intelligence, and personality”, Annual Review of Psychology, 32: 439-476.
  8. Blackler, F. (1995), “Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation”, Organization Studies, 16: 1021-1046.
  9. Branco, P. (2017), “Os Tribunais entre discursos sobre acesso à justiça, eficiência e ‘favelização’ dos seus edifícios”, in Ferreira, A.C, et al. (eds.), Direitos, Justiça, Cidadania: O Direito na Constituição da Política. Atas do Primeiro Encontro da Secção “Sociologia do Direito e da Justiça” da APS, CES Contextos/Debates, 19: 50-60.
  10. Butera, F. (2013a), “Incarichi direttivi e cambiamento dell’organizzazione negli uffici giudiziari”, Questione Giustizia, 2(3): 80-98.
  11. Butera, F. (2013b), “Tribunali capaci di cambiare”, Harvard Business Review Italia, novembre.
  12. Butera, F. (2016), “La gestione partecipata cambia l’Amministrazione giudiziaria”, Nuovi lavori, luglio.
  13. Castelli, C. et al. (eds.) (2014), Giustizia, territori e governo dell’innovazione, Roma, Carocci.
  14. Catino, M. (2012), Capire le organizzazioni, Bologna, il Mulino.
  15. CEPEJ (2016), “European Judicial Systems Efficiency and Quality of Justice 2016”, 23, Strasbourg, COE.
  16. COMIUG (2013), “Decalogo del capo dell’ufficio giudiziario”, in Sciacca, M. et al. (eds.), Giustizia in bilico, Roma, Aracne.
  17. Corradi, G., Gherardi, S., Verzelloni, L. (2010), “Through the practice lens: where is the bandwagon of practice-based studies heading?”, Management Learning, 41(3): 265-283.
  18. Czarniawska, B. (2007), Shadowing and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies, Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press.
  19. Czarniawska, B., Joerges, B. (1996), “Travels of ideas”, in Czarniawska, B., Sevón, G. (eds.), Translating organizational change, Berlin, de Gruyter.
  20. Czarniawska, B., Sevón, G. (2005), Global ideas. How Ideas, Objects and Practices Travel in the Global Economy, Malmö, Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
  21. Daft, R. (1978), “A Dual-Core Model of Organizational Innovation”, The Academy of Management Journal, 21(2): 193-210.
  22. Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational Innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators”, The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 555-590.
  23. Damanpour, F., Evan, W.M. (1984), “Organizational innovation and performance: the problem of organizational lag”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3): 392-409.
  24. DFP (2014), “Quarto rapporto di monitoraggio sulla diffusione delle best practices negli uffici giudiziari italiani”, Roma, MSPA.
  25. Di Guardo, S. (2012), “Innovazione organizzativa nei servizi di Giustizia per il Cittadino: il caso della Volontaria Giurisdizione”, Studi Organizzativi, 1: 130-157.
  26. Dias, J.P., Gomes, C. (2018), “Judicial Reforms ‘Under Pressure’: The New Map/Organisation of the Portuguese Judicial System”, Utrecht Law Review, 14(1): 174-186.
  27. DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W. (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.
  28. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 532-550.
  29. Ekvall, G. (1996), “Organizational climate for creativity and innovation”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1): 105-123.
  30. Fabri, M., Langbroek, P. (2000), The challenge of change for judicial systems. Developing a public administration perspective, Amsterdam, IOS Press.
  31. Fabri, M., Langbroek, P., Pauliat, H. (2003), The administration of justice in Europe: towards the development of quality standards, Bologna, Lo Scarabeo.
  32. Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (eds.) (2004), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  33. Friesen, E.C. et al. (1971), Managing the Courts, Indianapolis, The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
  34. Gill, R. (2001), “The shadow in organizational ethnography: moving beyond shadowing to spect-acting”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: an international journal, 6: 115-133.
  35. Guarnieri, C. et al. (2002), The power of judges: a comparative study of courts and democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  36. Guarnieri, C., Pederzoli, P. (2002), La magistratura nelle democrazie contemporanee, Bari, Laterza.
  37. Guarnieri, C., Piana, D. (2011), “Judicial independence and the rule of law: exploring the European experience”, in Shetreet, S. et al. (eds.), The culture of judicial independence, Leiden, Brill.
  38. Hagan, J. et al. (1979), “Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system”, Social Forces, 58: 506-527.
  39. Hage, J.T. (1999), “Organizational innovation and organizational change”, Annual Review of Sociology, 25.1: 597-622.
  40. ICCE (2013), “International Framework for Court excellence”, Melbourne, ICCE.
  41. Ingersoll, R. (1993), “Loosely coupled organizations revisited”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 11: 81-112.
  42. Ingrassia, R. (2001), “Comunicazione organizzativa per l’amministrazione pubblica”, Studi Organizzativi, 2(3): 35-64.
  43. Kanter, R.M. (1983), The change masters: innovations for productivity in the American corporation, New York, Simon and Schuster.
  44. Keathley, J. et al. (2013), “Leading innovation”, The Journal for Quality and Participation, 36(3): 23-28.
  45. Kimberly, J.R., Evanisko, M.J. (1981), “Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual, Organizational, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and Administrative Innovations”, The Academy of Management Journal, 24(4): 689-713.
  46. Kline, S.J., Rosenberg, N. (1986), “An Overview of Innovation”, in Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy, Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington, National Academy Press.
  47. Maier, P. (1999), New Public Management in der Justiz, Wien, Paul Haupt.
  48. Mansfield, E. (1968), Industrial Research and Technological Innovation, New York, Norton & Company Inc.
  49. Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony”, American journal of sociology, 1977, 83( 2): 340-363.
  50. NAMC (2003), “Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines”, Williamsburg, NAMC.
  51. OECD-EC (2005), “Oslo Manual”, 3rd Edition, Paris, OCDE.
  52. Orton, J.D. (1988), “Toward a theory of the loosely coupled system”, Working paper, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 586.
  53. Orton, J.D., Weick, K.E. (1990), “Loosely Coupled Systems: a reconceptualization”, The Academy of Management Review, 15(2): 203-223.
  54. Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, New York, Harper & Row.
  55. Pettigrew, A.M. et al. (2003), Innovative Forms of Organizing, London, Sage.
  56. Piana, D. (2010), Judicial accountabilities in new Europe, London, Ashgate.
  57. Piana, D. (2016), Uguale per tutti? Giustizia e cittadini in Italia, Bologna, Il Mulino.
  58. Piana, D., Verzelloni, L. (2016), “Dal centro disperso al centro ritrovato? Riflessioni a partire dalle riforme della giustizia in Italia”, Quaderni di Scienza Politica, XXIII, 2: 241-267.
  59. Pound, R. (1913), “The administration of justice in the modern city”, Harvard Law Review, 26, 302-328.
  60. Rice, R.E., Rogers, E.M. (1980), “Reinvention in the innovation process”, Knowledge, 1: 499-514.
  61. Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of innovations, New York, Free Press of Glencoe.
  62. Russell, P.H. (2011), “Toward a general theory of judicial independence”, in Russell, P.H., O’Brien, D.M. (eds.), Judicial independence in the age of democracy. Critical perspectives from around the world, Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia.
  63. Sahlin, K., Wedlin, L. (2008), “Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing”, in Greenwood, R. et al. (eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism, Los Angeles, Sage.
  64. Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1996), “Imitating by editing success: the construction of Organizational fields”, in Czarniawska, B., Sevón, G. (eds.), Translating organizational change, Berlin, de Gruyter.
  65. Sciacca, M. et al. (eds.) (2013), Giustizia in bilico, Roma, Aracne.
  66. Singer, S.I. (1998), “Criminal and teen courts as loosely coupled systems of juvenile justice”, Wake Forest Law Review, 33: 509-527.
  67. Spigelman, J. (2001), “The New Public Management and the Courts”, Australian Law Journal, 75: 748-760.
  68. Tornatzky, L., Fleischer, M. (1990), The process of technology innovation, Lexington, Lexington Books.
  69. Van de Ven, A.H. (1986), “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management science, 32: 590-607.
  70. Van de Ven, A.H. et al. (1999), The innovation journey, New York, Oxford University Press.
  71. Vecchi, G. (2013), “La modernizzazione del sistema giudiziario italiano: dal modello top-down alla governance locale? Il nuovo ruolo dei territori nel sostegno all’innovazione degli uffici giudiziari”, Studi Organizzativi, 1: 150-190.
  72. Verzelloni, L. (2009), Dietro alla cattedra del giudice. Pratiche, prassi e occasioni di apprendimento, Bologna, Pendragon.
  73. Verzelloni, L. (2015), Gli avvocati nella giustizia civile. Utenti e protagonisti, Roma, Carocci.
  74. Verzelloni, L. (2014), “Il lungo dibattito sui criteri di priorità negli uffici giudicanti e requirenti”, Archivio Penale, 3: 1-9.
  75. Weick, K.E. (1976), “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1): 1-19.
  76. Willoughby, W.F. (1929), Principles of judicial administration, Washington, Brookings.
  77. World Bank (2018), “Doing Business 2018. Reforming to Create Jobs”, Washington, WB.
  78. Yin, R.K. (1981), “The case study crisis: some answers”, Administrative science quarterly, 26: 58-65.
  79. Zaltman, G., et al. (1973), Innovations and organizations, New York, Wiley.
  80. Zan, S. (2006), “Il sistema organizzativo della giustizia civile in Italia: caratteristiche e prospettive”, Quaderni di Giustizia e Organizzazione, 1: 17-48.
  81. Zan, S. (2011), Le organizzazioni complesse. Logiche d’azione dei sistemi a legame debole, Roma, Carocci.

Luca Verzelloni, I percorsi di innovazione dei sistemi giudiziari del sud Europa in "STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI " 1/2019, pp 97-122, DOI: 10.3280/SO2019-001004