Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector, Reading, Adisson Wessely, 1992, was exceptionally popular amongst policymakers at that time. 3 E.g. Steven van de Walle, Perceptions of administrative performance, the key to trust in government, Leuven, 2004, Belgium, who stresses that better accounting of administrative performance do not necessarily lead to a higher public trust. 4
Depuis 1989, le système judiciaire des Pays-Bas traverse une période de restructuration. La nouvelle loi d’organisation judiciaire de 2002 (et surtout système de financement fondé sur la production) ont poussé le Conseil supérieur de la justice, les comité d’administration des tribunaux et les juges à donner la priorité absolue à la productivité et aux chiffres, au détriment de la qualité du contenu du travail judiciaire. À cause de pressions au travail, de la peur de voir un jugement annulé en appel ou d’être mis en cause par les medias, les juges adoptent une attitude assez conformiste. Même si l’indépendance de la justice n’est pas formellement remise en cause,la comptabilité exigée par les nouvelles structures – inspirée du new public m anagement – a porté considérablement atteinte, dans les faits, à l’autonomie des magistrats de siège. De plus, de nouveaux scandales judiciaires, réels ou inventés, ont mis à mal l’autorité de la justice. Le Conseil supérieur de la justice essaie désormais de porter ses efforts sur une amélioration de la qualité de fond du travail judiciaire et sur un renforcement de l’administration des tribunaux.
We will mix the description of these subjects with our findings on the norms used by the National Ombudsman. 1 2. The Dutch National Ombudsman The National Ombudsman is a complaints instance, but can also conduct an inquiry upon his own initiative. 2 The figure of the National Ombudsman is embedded in the Dutch Constitution: he is a High Office of State, just as the Parliament, the King, the Supreme Court and the Council of State. He is appointed by the Lower House of Parliament. Everybody with a complaint against an office, officeholder or public servant within his jurisdiction, can contact the Ombudsman office in The Hague. The complaint will only be admissible when the complainant has first filed the complaint with the administrative body that caused the distress. A complaint to the National Ombudsman will only be useful after the administrative body has been given the opportunity to deal with the complaint itself. The National Ombudsman is competent in the case of national public bodies, and decentralized public bodies, as far as they have indicated the National Ombudsman as their local Ombudsman. The legal definition of a complaint refers to a written document; however, oral complaints may be delivered at the office and will be written down by Ombudsman staff. The Ombudsman may not conduct an inquiry into complaints that are suitable for legal action against decisions of administrative authorities, or for civil law suits against the public body concerned. Furthermore, the result of an inquiry by the Ombudsman is of a restricted nature: the Ombudsman delivers a report in which the judgement 'proper' or 'improper' is given. Normally, a report will contain a detailed description of the events that led to the complaints, a description of the internal complaints procedure, an extensive description of the applicable law, and an elaborate check on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the behaviour subject to the complaint. He may also deliver some recommendations for the public authority concerned. However, the Ombudsman is not able to conduct any legal act as a response to complaints. The work of the National Ombudsman is closely related to the terms and concepts of the General Administrative Law Act. This act defines legal concepts like: 'administrative body'; 'decision' and 'complaint', and also operates and legally defines most principles of good governance. The competence of the Ombudsman is linked to the definition of these concepts, and, by his reports, he also contributes to the development of administrative law in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, it is a point of departure of the research project described below that there is a fundamental difference between principles of proper governance used in a legal framework and demands of proper governance as operated by Ombudsmen. 3. Original research design The original research design was attuned to the condition that local Ombudsmen should be convinced of the usefulness of the outcomes of this project.
Abstract:In their role as decision-makers, judges face the challenge of the law failing to provide clear answers to concrete cases. This may result in dissimilar decisions and outcomes in similar cases. In order to reduce unwarranted disparities, judges should participate in knowledge exchanges on a regular basis. That way, they can benefit from each other's expertise, insights and experiences and make better informed decisions. In order to manage this process in the court more effectively, a better understanding of the knowledge sharing behavior of judges is required. In this article, we will discuss how four dimensions (the technological, managerial, social and motivational dimension) can influence the knowledge sharing behavior of judges. Based on this discussion, a research model is proposed.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.