O artigo examina a Gestão por Resultados da Procuradoria-Geral da União (PGU), que significou a superação do modelo anterior de foco predominante no esforço. São apresentadas as bases da Gestão por Resultados: Matriz de Indicadores, Foco na Orientação e Programa de Gestão por Resultados. De forma mais detalhada é feita em perspectiva a reconstrução da Matriz de Indicadores, com especial enfoque para a gestão de dados gerenciais e a jurimetria com a sua análise e visualização de informações. Sobre os indicadores de desempenho, após uma breve perspectiva teórica sobre o assunto, demonstra-se como eles foram construídos e como a sua implantação foi ordenada de acordo com as prioridades para evitar a sobrecarga da organização. A comunicação e as suas formas de efetivação foram abordadas a seguir, bem como a rede de programas e projetos da organização. Por fim, são feitas propostas de ordem prospectiva para a Advocacia-Geral da União considerando as oportunidades existentes na área de gestão.
This article analyses the impact of attorneys on the outcome of judicial decisions in civil cases. We currently have little quantitative information about the effect of attorneys on the outcome of civil cases due to (i) the nonrandom pairing of attorneys and cases and (ii) the difficulty in accurately defining what a favorable decision in a civil case is. The Office of the Solicitor General of the Union in Brazil presents a unique research opportunity, since it assigns cases among its attorneys on a random basis and has standardized rules to record outcomes of civil cases. We analyzed the work performed by 386 Federal Attorneys and their impact on 30,821 judicial decisions. Significant win-rate differences among attorneys were detected in half of the 70 teams surveyed. The fact that attorneys achieve different outcomes, despite working in the same type of cases, indicates how judicial decisions can be affected by the work of an attorney in the civil area. No statistical correlation between attorney experience and outcome of civil cases was detected.
Inefficacious courts and limited judicial resources are a ubiquitous problem in many jurisdictions worldwide. To facilitate administration of justice, court administrators must therefore resort to unconventional practices. In Brazilian state and federal courts, judges normally assigned to the disposition of cases in a single domain are often directed to dispose cases in an additional domain, thus engaging in multidomain judging. Using a comprehensive court-level panel dataset, we investigate the consequences of multidomain judging for the efficacy of Brazilian administration of justice. In contrast to conventional wisdom, we find no evidence that multidomain judging reduces court efficacy in resolution of special-procedure cases and appeals to special-procedure cases. Multidomain judging evidently reduces court efficacy exclusively in the resolution of ordinary-procedure cases, and even then only when judges assigned to the disposition of those cases are instructed to additionally resolve special-procedure cases. We discuss plausible explanations for this and the policy implications of our findings. Points for practitioners Multidomain judging in Brazil is best viewed as a pragmatic policy response to binding resource constraints in justice administration. Our analysis reveals in what contexts multidomain judging does not appear to harm court efficacy and when, in contrast, a reduction in the extent of multidomain judging would improve court efficacy. Our article offers the first evidence-based insight into the efficacy repercussions of a pervasive yet understudied administrative practice in Brazilian courts. Because related administrative practices are known to exist in other jurisdictions, our findings have implications beyond Brazilian borders.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.