Autonomy and Heteronomy of Managerial Changes in European Judicial Systems

For a long time reluctant towards managerialism, Dutch, Belgian, French and to a lesser extent Italian judicial systems have undergone deep changes, since the Ministry of Justice implemented new management policies and tools. In terms of professionalism, accountability procedures, new norms (a more customer- and efficiency-driven approach), the valuation of other competences than legal ones, budget restrictions modified professional practices and identities of clerks and the magistracy. New models of what constitutes “a good magistrate / clerk” emerged.

The paper will focus on the part of autonomy and heteronomy of professional groups and political actors who either decided, implemented or had to cope with those managerial changes. Ambivalence prevails regarding their promoters and impacts.

Managerialism was partly promoted by other national or international institutions (the Ministry of Finance, the Parliament…). But even when they felt reticent about this trend, hierarchy at local levels (regional court chiefs and managers, judges and clerks at the head of diverse services) also took initiatives to gain efficiency, even though it might create conflicts with the law or their colleagues. Thus they contributed to the profession’s definition of relevant managerial criteria and procedures.

But this autonomy varies according to the professions and hierarchical positions. The intermediate hierarchy received increased responsibilities (in priorities definition, budget allocation…). Yet, professional identities of ordinary magistrates and clerks got somehow weakened by the priority given to productivity and by contradicting orders (both making quick court rulings and listening to citizens, reinforcing crime repression and reducing short prison sentences…).

Finally, we observe a hybridism between legal and managerial values reinforced by the recent involvement of consultants and professionals other than law professions in the judiciary.

Combining sociology of professions with public policy analysis, this research relied on an empirical study based on observations and 130 interviews with bureaucrats, lawyers and clerks.