000			01765nam a22001577a 4500
999			_c523241 _d523241
008			230802b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aCastelliano, C., Grajzl, P. and Watanabe, E. _942215
245			_aMultidomain judging and administration of justice: Evidence from a major emerging-market jurisdiction
260			_aInternational Review of Administrative Sciences
300			_a89(2), Jun, 2023: p.577-594
520			_aInefficacious 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.- Reproduced
650			_aBrazil, Courts, Efficacy, Justice administration, Multidomain judging panel data. _939565
773			_aInternational Review of Administrative Sciences
906			_aCOURTS
942			_cAR