It is argued that unification can be best understood as an effort to define the courts as formal organizations. An assessment of the impact of such changes, therefore, must take account of alternative forms for structuring a judicial system. The field work demonstrated that no simple organizational structure will meet equally well all three types of goals, that is, improved quality of justice, better court management and enhanced political position. Moreover, the two dimensions at the heart of organizational design -- centralization and consolidation -- had independent, sometimes conflicting effects. Finally, the effect of any structural design depends, in large measure, on the type of adjudicatory process involved. (Author abstract)
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Testing the Efficacy of Judicial Monitoring: A Randomized Trial at the Rochester
- Fostering Innovation in the U.S. Court System: Identifying High-Priority Technology and Other Needs for Improving Court Operations and Outcomes
- Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality: A New Perspective From Nine State Criminal Trial Courts, Research in Brief