Measuring the Costs and Quality of Paths to Justice: Contours of a Methodology

Abstract

Legal problems and justice needs are similar in di erent jurisdictions and di erent locations. Processes for resolving them, as well as rules determining outcomes, however, vary widely. Measuring the price (costs) and quality of such 'paths to justice' from the perspective of the user is likely to enhance users' choice, enable comparison and learning, to increase transparency, and to create incentives for improving access to justice. is paper discusses the contours of a methodology for this purpose and of some concrete tools for measuring costs, procedural quality, and outcome quality. Conceptualization of a path to justice, criteria and items included in the measurement framework, as well as di erent data collection methods, are presented. Experiences from two pilot studies give insight into the challenges that lie ahead, and in the potential uses of the (developing) measurement methodology.

Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: Can the Unquantifiable Be Quantified?

“…117 Some of the relevant social science literature mentions three main categories for evaluating the quality of the judicial process: procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. 118 Although such literature focuses on justice and not on effectiveness, the criteria it identifies may serve as a useful starting point for analysis of court effectiveness as well. Procedural justice criteria are concerned with evaluation of the structural aspects of the court procedures 119e.g., access to justice, actual usage rates, participation of all the relevant stakeholders in the process, duration of the proceedings, their costs, consistency in the application of procedural rules (similar cases being treated alike, identifying deviations from court procedures), compliance monitoring, and actual judicial independence.…”

Growing Justice: Justice Policies and Transaction Costs

“…Individual calendars increase accountability of individual judges and have proven to be effective tools to speed up the pace of justice (López de Silanes 2002). Likewise, the other costs suffered by users of the court services can be measured in combination with the quality of processes and outcomes as experienced by the users (Gramatikov, Barendrecht et al 2008). Transparency of this type of data, and thus increased accountability towards clients (Cabrillo and Fitzpatrick 2008), is probably more effective than attempts to measure court performance in terms of inputs or observance of internal quality standards (Cabrillo and Fitzpatrick 2008;Albers 2009).…”

“…This system works well in commercial arbitration. The list can give information about costs, duration, and other essential elements of the procedure (Gramatikov, Barendrecht et al 2008). Some kind of certification of neutral adjudicators can be required.…”

“…Such a method could measure the time and cost for the average user to go through the process, from the first attempt to obtain outside help to get in contact with the other party, up to the final outcome (Gramatikov, Barendrecht et al 2008). The quality of the procedure and the quality of the outcome can be measured against several criteria (Gramatikov, Barendrecht et al 2008), preferably from the perspective of the user (Masser 2009).…”

“…Such a method could measure the time and cost for the average user to go through the process, from the first attempt to obtain outside help to get in contact with the other party, up to the final outcome (Gramatikov, Barendrecht et al 2008). The quality of the procedure and the quality of the outcome can be measured against several criteria (Gramatikov, Barendrecht et al 2008), preferably from the perspective of the user (Masser 2009). A monitoring system could also try to visualize the number and the complexity of the steps an individual has to take in order to obtain an outcome, as demonstrated by the work of De Soto and several others (De Soto 2000;Djankov, La Porta et al 2003;Masser 2009 and the yearly Doing Business reviews by the World Bank).…”