Who wins in the ‘quality of justice’? The redistributive effects of two waves of judicial reform in Italy

References

• Abbott, K., and D. Snidal. 2000. “Hard and Soft Law in International Governance.” International Organization 54: 421–456. doi:10.1162/002081800551280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott, K. W., and D. Snidal. 2001. “International Standards and International Governance.” Journal of European Public Policy 8: 345–370. doi:10.1080/13501760110056013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abravanel, Bartolomeo, F., R. Proverbio, and S. Misurare. 2015. la performance dei tribunali, Roma, Ministero della Giustizia, https://webstat.giustizia.it/Analisi%20e%20ricerche/Performance_tribunali_italiani_settore_civile.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ahrne, G., and C. Garsten. 2000. “Standardization through Organization.” In A World of Standard, edited by N. Brunsson and B. Jacobsson, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 50–68.
   Google Scholar
• Albers, P. 2000. “Evaluation Programme ‘Administration of Justice in the 21st Century’: Modernization of the Administration of Justice in the Netherlands.” Paper presented at the EGPA-conference (European Group of Public Administration), Glasgow.
   Google Scholar
• Avvocati, L. V. 2015. Utenti o protagonisti? Roma: Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• Bartolomeo, F. 2014. Manuale Di Statistica E Organizzazione Giudiziaria. Createspace Independent Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Bartolomeo, F. Abravanel, R. Proverbio, S. 2015. Misurare la performance dei tribunali, Roma, Ministero della Giustizia, https://webstat.giustizia.it/Analisi%20e%20ricerche/Performance_tribunali_italiani_settore_civile.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Baxter, J., and F. W. Chua. 2009. “Studying accountability in action: The challenge of engaging with management accounting practice.” In: Accounting, Organizations and Institutions. edited by Chapman C, Cooper D and Miller P. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 65–84.
   Google Scholar
• Benvenuti, S. 2013. “Building a Common Judicial Culture in the European Union through Judicial Networks.” Paper presented at the Interim Meeting on ‘The Changing Nature of Judicial Power in Supranational, Federal, and Domestic systems,’ IPSA Conference (RC09), Dublin, July 22–24.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G. 1993. “Measurement and Meaningful Management.” Public Productivity & Management Review 17 (1): 31–43. doi:10.2307/3381047.
   Google Scholar
• Carothers, T. 2003. Promoting Rule of Law Abroad. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
   Google Scholar
• Castelli, C. 2014. “L’innovazione e la ricerca di risorse.” In: Giustizia, territori e governo dell’innovazione, edited by C. Castelli, et al. Roma: Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• CEPEJ. 2008. Comparative Judicial Systems. Council of Europe, Official Publications Office, Strasbourg.
   Google Scholar
• CEPEJ. 2010. Comparative Judicial Systems. Council of Europe, Official Publications Office, Strasbourg.
   Google Scholar
• CEPEJ. 2012. Comparative Judicial Systems. Council of Europe, Official Publications Office, Strasbourg.
   Google Scholar
• CEPEJ. 2014. Comparative Judicial Systems. Council of Europe, Official Publications Office, Strasbourg.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, C., D. Cooper, and P. Miller 2009. “Linking Accounting, Organizations, and Institutions,” In: Accounting, Organizations and Institutions, edited by C. Chapman and P. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–29
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., and P. Laegreid. 2001. New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas into Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Crozier, M. and Friedberg, E. L’acteur et le système: Les contraintes de l’action collective. 1977. Seuil.
   Google Scholar
• Dallara, C., and D. Piana. 2015. Networking the Rule of Law. How Change Agents Reshape the Judicial Governance in the EU. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, K., B. Kingsbury, S. E. Merry. 2010. “Indicators as Technology of Global Governance, Institute for International Law and Justice.” Working Papers 2.
   Google Scholar
• Frydman, B. 2011. Le nouveau management de la justice et l’indépendence des juges. Paris: Dalloz.
   Google Scholar
• Guarnieri, C. 2003. Giustizia e politica: I nodi della Seconda Repubblica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
   Google Scholar
• Guarnieri, C, Pederzoli, P. 2002. The Power of Judges. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hammergren, L. A. 1998, Fifteen Years of Judicial Reform in Latin America: Where We Are and Why We Haven’t Made More Progress (visited Oct. 1998) http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/-caguirre/papers.htm 22, 44 query, 50
   Google Scholar
• Héritier, A. and Rhodes, M. (eds.) (2011), New Modes of Governance in Europe: Governing in the Shadow of Hierarchy. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Langbroek, Ph.M. and Fabri, M. 2007. The Right Judge for Each Case, A Comparative Study of Case Assignment and Impartiality in 6 European Countries, Edited by Castelli, C. Liccardo, P., Melillo, G. Piana, D. Verzelloni, L.  270. Antwerp: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Lupo, N. 2015. I “Governi Tecnici”. Gli Esecutivi Ciampi, Dini E Monti Nel Difficile Equilibrio Tra Tecnica E Politica, In Rassegna Parlamentare, 1: 57–120.
   Google Scholar
• Melillo, G. 2014. “Innovazione e tecnologia.” In Innovazione Come Governance, edited by Claudio Castelli, et al. Roma: Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, P. 1999. “Governing by Numbers: Why Calculative Practices Matter.” Social Research 68 (2): 379–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD-OSJI. 2016. Delivering Access to Justice for All. Paris: Issues Brief.
   Google Scholar
• Palombella, G. 2010. “The Rule of Law as an Institutional Ideal.” In Rule of Law and Democracy: Inquiries into Internal and External Issues, edited by L. Morlino and G. Palombella, 3–37. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
   Google Scholar
• Pauliat, H. 2007. “Le modèle française d’administration de la justice.” Revue française d’aministration publique 125: 111–120.
   Google Scholar
• Piana, D. 2010. Judicial Accountabilities in New Europe. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Piana, D. 2015. Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the Diffusion of Best Practices Program, unpublished, report to the Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Piana, D. 2016. Uguale per Tutti? Giustizia E Cittadini in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.
   Google Scholar
• Piana, Raniolo, F., D. 2015 Unbounding the State, ICEDD Working Papers, Rome, LUISS UNiversity Press
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. 2013. “Retour à l’ocde...” Un Commentaire Indirect Sur Le Document De La Banque Mondiale ‘Better Results From Public Administrations’. Revue Internationale Des Sciences Administratives 79 (3): 431–438.
   Google Scholar
• Radaelli, C.M. 2005. “Diffusion Without Convergence: How Political Context Shapes the Adoption of Regulatory Impact Assessment.” Journal of European Public Policy 12 (5): 924–43. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511528125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, P. 2010. “Conclusion: A General Theory of Judicial Independence Revisited.” In: Judicial Independence in Context, edited by Lorne Sossin and Adam M Dodek, 530. IrvLaw.
   Google Scholar
• Voermans, W.J.M. 2007. “Judicial Transparency Furthering Public Accountability for New Judiciaries.” Utrecht Law Review 3 (1): 148–159. doi:10.18352/ulr.42.
   Google Scholar
• Voigt, S. 2005. Explaining De facto Judicial Independence, http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/marvolksw/200507.htm
   Google Scholar