How do frontline judges perceive managerial reforms, and how do they cope with them? We relied on concepts from street-level bureaucracy to systematically review the effects of managerial techniques on frontline judges in 35 studies. We find that judges’ attitudes toward managerialization are more heterogeneous than might be anticipated. Beyond facing an increasing caseload, judges are pressed to reduce treatment times and costs as well as to play managerial roles. Judges’ mechanisms to cope with pressures include rationing, prioritizing, and routinizing. While managerialization is a solution to the increasing caseload, it might well affect the quality of justice.
BarakA.PfersmannO. (2017). Les juges comme gardiens de la constitution sur l’acte de juger. Cités, 69(1), 19–40.
2.
BastardB.DelvauxD.MouhannaC.SchoenaersF. (2015). Vitesse ou précipitation? La question du temps dans le traitement des affaires pénales en France et en Belgique. Droit et société, 90(2), 271–286.
3.
BeyensK.ScheirsV. (2010). Encounters of a different kind: Social inquiry and sentencing in Belgium. Punishment & Society, 12(3), 309–328.
4.
BilandÉ.SteinmetzH. (2017). Are judges street-level bureaucrats? Evidence from French and Canadian family courts. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(2), 298–324.
5.
BoothP. (2007). The control of discretion: Planning and the common-law tradition. Planning Theory, 6(2), 127–145.
6.
BorrelliL. M.LindbergA. (2018). The creativity of coping: Alternative tales of moral dilemmas among migration control officers. International Journal of Migration and Border Studies, 4(3), 163–178.
7.
BouhonF.PironnetQ. (2017). Le pouvoir judiciaire et l’équilibre des pouvoirs : Réflexions à propos des récentes réformes. Pyramides. Revue du Centre d’études et de recherches en administration publique, 29, 93–118.
8.
BrodkinE. Z. (2011). Policy Work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 2), i253–i277.
9.
BrodkinE. Z. (2012). Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 940–949.
10.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2020). European judicial systems CEPEJ Evaluation Report 2020 Evaluation cycle (2018 data). CEPEJ.
11.
CannonM. W. (1982). Innovation in the administration of justice, 1969-1981: An overview. Policy Studies Journal, 10(4), 668–679.
12.
ChelleÉ. (2011). Une politique de récompense dans la haute magistrature : Le cas de la prime de rendement. Droit et société, 78(2), 407–427.
13.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (2010). Increased complexity in public organizations - The challenges of combining NPM and Post-NPM. In LægreidP.VerhoestK. (Eds.), Governance of Public Sector Organizations (pp. 255–275). Governance and Public Management. Palgrave Macmillan.
14.
CohenN.Golan-NadirN. (2020). Why do street-level bureaucrats risk themselves for others? The case of Israeli police officers. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(4), 480–494.
15.
ColombetH.GouttefangeasA. (2013). La qualité des décisions de justice. Quels critères?Droit et société, 83(1), 155–176.
16.
CommailleJ.HurelB. (2011). La réforme de la justice française. Un enjeu entre instrumentalisation et démocratie. Droit et société, 78(2), 391–404.
17.
CowanD.HitchingsE. (2007). ‘Pretty boring stuff’: District judges and housing possession proceedings. Social & Legal Studies, 16(3), 363–382.
18.
DallaraC.LaccheiA. (2021). Street-level bureaucrats and coping mechanisms. The unexpected role of Italian judges in asylum policy implementation. South European Society and Politics, 26(1), 83–108.
19.
DanetJ. (2020). La prudence du juge à l’épreuve des organisations judiciaires. Les Cahiers de la Justice, 4(4), 705–722.
20.
d’HervéN. (2015). La magistrature face au management judiciaire. Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, 1(1), 49–66.
21.
DekkerR.Franco ContrerasJ.MeijerA. (2020). The living lab as a methodology for public administration research: A systematic literature review of its applications in the social sciences. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(14), 1207–1217.
22.
de TerssacG. (2012). La théorie de la régulation sociale : Repères introductifs. Revue Interventions Economiques, 45, 1–16.
23.
EellsT. D.ShowalterC. R. (1994). Work-related stress in American trial judges. Bulletin American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 22(1), 71–83.
24.
EngelC.WeinshallK. (2020). Manna from heaven for judges : Judges’ reaction to a quasi-random reduction. Caseload. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 17(4), 722–751.
25.
ErasmusE. (2014). The use of street-level bureaucracy theory in health policy analysis in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-ethnographic synthesis. Health Policy and Planning, 29(suppl 3), 70–78.
26.
EvansT. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-Level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 368–386.
27.
FicetJ. (2011). Trajectoires de réforme de la carte judiciaire et managérialisation de l’État. Analyse comparée des politiques de territorialisation de la justice en France et en Belgique. Revue internationale de politique comparée, 18(4), 91–118.
28.
FieldingN. G. (2011). Judges and their work. Social & Legal Studies, 20(1), 97–115.
29.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior. The reasoned action approach. Taylor & Francis.
30.
FrydmanB.JeulandE. (2011). Le nouveau management et l’indépendance des juges. Dalloz.
31.
GuimarãesT. A.GomesA. O.CorreiaP. M. A. R.OliveiraI.PiazentinT. (2017). Role conflict and role ambiguity in the work of judges: the perceptions of Portuguese judges. Revista de Administração Pública, 51(6), 927–946.
32.
HaddadC. H. B (2020). Developing management skills for judges. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(1), 1–9.
33.
HallidayS. D.BurnsN.HuttonN.McNeillF.TataC. (2009). Street-level bureaucracy, interprofessional relations, and coping mechanisms: A study of criminal justice social workers in the sentencing process. Journal of Law and Policy, 31(4), 405–428.
34.
HamC.HillM. (1984). The policy process in the modern capitalist state. Wheatsheaf Books.
35.
HansenH.-T.LundbergK.SyltevikL. J. (2018). Digitalization, street-level bureaucracy and welfare users’ experiences. Social Policy and Administration, 52(1), 67–90.
36.
HarritsG. S.MøllerM. Ø. (2014). Prevention at the front line: How home nurses, pedagogues, and teachers transform public worry into decisions on special efforts. Public Management Review, 16(4), 447–480.
37.
HendrikxW. (2021). Managerialism and its consequences for professional identity: A comparative analysis of GPs and secondary school teachers. Administration & Society, 53(8), 1178–1202.
38.
HersantJ. (2017). Patronage and rationalization : Reform to criminal procedure and the lower courts in Chile. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(2), 423–449.
39.
HupeP. (2019). Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy: The ground floor of government in context. Edward Elgar.
40.
HupeP.HillM. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85(2), 279–299.
41.
HupeP.HillM.BuffatA. (2015). Introduction: Defining and understanding street-level bureaucracy. In HupeP.HillM.BuffatA. (Eds.), Understanding street-level bureaucracy (pp. 3–24). Bristol University Press.
42.
JacobssonK.WallinderY.SeingI. (2021). Street-level bureaucrats under new managerialism: A comparative study of agency cultures and caseworker role identities in two welfare state bureaucracies. Journal of Professions and Organization, 7, 316–333.
43.
JeanJ. -P. (2008). Le chantier ouvert des réformes de la justice. Revue française d’administration publique, 125(1), 7–19.
44.
JeulandE. (2018). Towards a new court management?Peking University Law Journal, 6(1), 105–177.
45.
KleimanM.SchaufflerR. Y.OstromB. J.LeeC. G. (2019). Weighted caseload: A critical element of modern court administration. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 26(1), 21–32.
46.
KørnøvL.ZhangJ.ChristensenP. (2015). The influence of street level bureaucracy on the implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(4), 598–615.
47.
LangbroekP. (2008). Entre responsabilisation et indépendance des magistrats : La réorganisation du système judiciaire des Pays-Bas. Revue française d’administration publique, 125(1), 67–79.
48.
LienhardA.KettigerD. (2018). Vers un management adéquat pour la justice. Les Cahiers de la Justice, 1(1), 163–181.
49.
LipskyM. (1980/2010). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell SAGE Foundation.
50.
MackK.Roach AnleuS. (2007). ‘Getting through the list’: Judgecraft and legitimacy in the lower courts. Social & Legal Studies, 16(3), 341–361.
51.
MakE. (2008). The European judicial organisation in a new paradigm: The influence of principles of ‘New public management’ on the organisation of the European courts. European Law Journal, 14(6), 718–734.
52.
MathiasS.DaigleP.DancauseK. N.GadaisT. (2020). Forest bathing: A narrative review of the effects on health for outdoor and environmental education use in Canada. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 23(3), 309–321.
53.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.
54.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM.PalumboD. (1990). Street-wise social policy: Resolving the dilemma of street-level influence and successful implementation. The Western Political Quarterly, 43(4), 833–848.
55.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), 16–23.
56.
Mik-MeyerN. (2018). Organizational Professionalism: Social workers negotiating tools of NPM. Professions and Professionalism, 8(2), e2381.
57.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.; PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535.
58.
MorinD. (2011). Serving as magistrate at the French Cour des comptes : Navigating between tradition and modernity. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24, 718–750.
59.
MouhannaC. (2015). Le New Public Management et ses limites dans les politiques publiques de justice pénale. Le cas de l’exécution des peines en France. Droit et société, 90(2), 317–332.
60.
MouhannaC.BastardB. (2010). Procureurs et substituts : L’évolution du système de production des décisions pénales. Droit et société, 74(1), 35–53.
61.
MouhannaC.BastardB. (2011). Deux justices au banc d’essai : Comparer les mondes judiciaires pour analyser l’évolution des modèles de justice. Déviance et Société, 35(2), 239–260.
62.
NachtergaeleE.PirauxA. (2017). Revaloriser et moderniser notre justice. Pyramides. Revue du Centre d’études et de recherches en administration publique, 29, 17–20.
63.
NothdurfterU.HermansK. (2018). Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 27(3), 294–304.
64.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Plume.
65.
OsborneS. P. (2006). The new public governance?Public Management Review, 8, 377–387.
66.
O’NeillM.BoothS.LambJ. (2018). Using NVivoTM for literature reviews: The eight step pedagogy (N7+1). Qualitative Report, 23.
67.
PageM.MckenzieJ.BossuytP.BoutronI.HoffmannT.MulrowC., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 71, 372.
68.
PalomoJ.Figueroa-DomecqC.LagunaP. (2017). Women, peace and security state-of-art: A bibliometric analysis in social sciences based on SCOPUS database. Scientometrics, 113, 123–148.
69.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis - into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
70.
RaineJ. W. (2005). Courts, sentencing and justice in a changing political and managerial context. Public Money and Management, 25(5), 290–298.
71.
RaineJ. W.WillsonM. J. (1995). New public management and criminal justice. Public Money & Management, 15(1), 35–40.
72.
RambaudT. (2014). Chapitre II. La tradition juridique de common law. In RambaudT., (ed.). Introduction au droit compare: Les grandes traditions juridiques dans le monde, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris cedex 14, 103–140.
73.
ReynaudJ.-D. (1997). Les règles du jeu. L’action collective et la régulation sociale 3e édition. Armand Colin.
74.
ReynaudJ.-D. (2003). Réflexion 1 : Régulation de contrôle, régulation autonome, régulation conjointe. In de TerssacG. (Ed.), (dir.) La théorie de la régulation sociale de Jean-Daniel Reynaud: Ddébats et prolongements (pp. 103–111). La Découverte.
75.
RitzA.BrewerG. A.NeumannO. (2016). Public service motivation: a systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76, 414–426.
76.
Rothmayr AllisonC. (2013). Le droit et l’administration de la justice face aux instruments managériaux. Droit et société, 84(2), 275–289.
77.
SabatierP. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to Implementation Research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.
78.
SabbeM.SchiffinoN.MoysonS. (2021). Walking on thin ice: How and why frontline officers cope with managerialism, accountability, and risk in probation services. Administration & Society, 53(5), 760–786.
79.
SicilianoM. D. (2015). Professional networks and street-level performance: How public school teachers’ advice networks influence student performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 47, 79–101.
80.
TataC. (2007). Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies of the discretionary decision process. Social & Legal Studies, 16(3), 425–447.
81.
TaskinL.GomezP.-Y. (2015). Articuler la théorie de la régulation sociale et l’approche conventionnaliste en gestion pour comprendre l’échec d’un projet de changement organisationnel ? : Illustration par la mise en place du télétravail dans deux administrations publiques belges. @GRH1, (14), 99-128.
82.
TaylorI. (2007). Discretion and control in education: The teacher as street-level bureaucrat. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(4), 555–572.
83.
TruffinB. (2007). Les juges de paix belges et la mutation des modèles de justice civile. Droit et société, 66(2), 295–326.
84.
TummersL. (2017). The relationship between coping and job performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 150–162.
85.
TummersL.BekkersV.VinkE.MushenoM. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126.
86.
van der HeijdenJ.KuhlmannJ. (2017). Studying incremental institutional change: A systematic and critical meta-review of the literature from 2005 to 2015. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 535–554.
87.
Van GestelN.KuiperM.HendrikxW. (2019). Changed roles and strategies of professionals in the (co)production of public services. Administrative Sciences, 9(3), 59.
88.
Van HaeperenB. (2012). Que sont les principes du new public management devenus?Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, Tome LI(2), 83–99.
89.
VauchezA. (2008). Le chiffre dans le « gouvernement » de la justice. Revue française d’administration publique, 125(1), 111–120.
90.
VedungE. (2015). Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 28643.
91.
VigourC. (2006). Justice : L’introduction d’une rationalité managériale comme euphémisation des enjeux politiques. Droit et société, 63–64(2–3), 425–455.
92.
VigourC. (2008). Politiques et magistrats face aux réformes de la justice en Belgique, France et Italie. Revue française d’administration publique, 125(1), 21–31.
93.
VigourC. (2017). Nouveau référentiel gestionnaire ou nouveau modèle de justice ? Les réformes belges depuis 2013. Pyramides. Revue du Centre d’études et de recherches en administration publique, 29, 61–92.
94.
VisserM.SchoutetenR.DikkersJ. (2019). Controlling the courts: New public management and the Dutch judiciary. Justice System Journal, 40(1), 39–53.
95.
VoetS. (2014). Belgium’s new specialized judiciary. Russian Law Journal, 2(4), 129–145.
96.
VoorbergW. H.BekkersV. J. J. M.TummersL. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
97.
WaxweilerR. (2017). Le regroupement des justices de paix. Vers la disparition d’un modèle. Pyramides. Revue du Centre d’études et de recherches en administration publique, 29, 287–302.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
