Determinants of Changes in the Productivity of Regional Courts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2026.1.06Keywords:
institutional efficiency, productivity, Färe-Primont index, regional courtsAbstract
Aim: The aim of the study was to determine the sources of efficiency of regional courts in the years 2015-2022 using the Färe-Primont total productivity index. The study measured changes in total productivity for civil case divisions, criminal and misdemeanor divisions, and labor and social security divisions of regional courts. The Färe-Primont total productivity index has been decomposed into the efficiency change index and the technological change index. In turn, the index of changes in efficiency distinguished: the index of changes in technical efficiency, the index of changes in scale efficiency and the index of changes in mixed residual efficiency.
Methodology: The Färe-Primont Total Productivity Change Index (dTFP) was used to calculate changes in productivity. The index distinguishes between the Technological Change Index (dMP) and the Efficiency Change Index (dTFPE). The Efficiency Change Index (dTFPE) has been decomposed into the Technical Efficiency Change Index (dOTE), Scale Efficiency Change (dOSE) and Mixed Residual Efficiency Change (dRME). The research covered 43 out of 47 regional courts in the years 2015-2022.
Results: The Färe-Primont total productivity index (dTFP) decreased in the surveyed divisions of regional courts. Its increase in criminal divisions was positively influenced by the Index of Technological Change (dMP), while its decrease was influenced by the decrease in the Index of Changes in Efficiency (dTFPE). In civil divisions and labour and social security departments, the decrease in the total productivity change index (dTFP) was influenced by the decrease in the indices of technological change (dMP) and changes in efficiency (dTFPE). All components of the efficiency change index (dTFPE) in the surveyed regional court divisions in 2015-2022 contributed to its decrease. Civil and criminal divisions with less than 16 judges have higher Färe-Primont total productivity index compared to courts with more than 16 judges. The labour and social security divisions of the surveyed courts are not significantly differentiated in terms of the total productivity change index (dTFP) from the number of judges. In the examined courts, productivity does not depend on the number of judges. This is indicated by the low and negative correlation coefficients between the staffing of courts and the size of the Färe-Primont total productivity index and its components.
Implications and recommendations: The results of the research contained in the article can be used in the assessment of the efficiency of the functioning of regional courts, as well as in the design of changes in the organization of courts.
Originality/value: To the authors' knowledge, this article is the first application of the Färe-Primont index of changes in total productivity in research on the efficiency of common courts. The originality of these studies also results from the fact that objects in Poland have been studied so far untested using non-parametric methods.
Downloads
References
Beenstock, M. i Haitovsky, Y. (2004). Does the Appointment of Judges Increase the Output of the Judiciary? International Review of Law and Economics, 24(3), 351-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2004.10.006
Bełdowski, J., Dąbroś, Ł. i Wojciechowski, W. (2020). Judges and Court Performance: A Case Study of District Commercial Courts in Poland. European Journal of Law and Economics, 50, 171-201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09656-4
Charnes, A., Cooper W. W. i Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
Chen, X., Kerstens, K. i Tsionas, M. (2024). Does Productivity Change at All in Swedish District Courts? Empirical Analysis Focusing on Horizontal Mergers. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 91, 101787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101787
Dakpo, K. H., Desjeux, Y. i Latruffe, L. (2018). Productivity: Indices of Productivity Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). R package version 1.1.0. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=productivity
Dakpo, K. H., Desjeux, Y., Jeanneaux, P. i Latruffe, L. (2019). Productivity, Technical Efficiency and Technological Change in French Agriculture during 2002-2015: A Färe-Primont Index Decomposition Using Group Frontiers and Meta-Frontier. Applied Economics, 51(11), 1166-1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1524982
Falavigna, G., Ippoliti, R. i Ramello, G. B. (2018). DEA-Based Malmquist Productivity Indexes for Understanding Courts Reform. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 62, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.07.001
Guzowska, M. i Strąk, T. (2013). Measuring Efficiency of Courts with DEA: Civil Cases Case Study. Actual Problems of Economics, 2(1), 70-80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287275162
Joński, K. (2016). Efektywność sądownictwa powszechnego – podstawowe problemy. IWS.
Kapelko, M. (2025). Evaluating Input- and Output-Specific Inefficiency in Courts of Justice. An Empirical Study of Polish District Courts. International Transactions in Operational Research, 32(5), 2767-2797. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13503
Khan, F., Salim, R. i Bloch, H. (2014). Nonparametric Estimates of Productivity and Efficiency Change in Australian Broadacre
Agriculture. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 59, 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12076
Major, W. (2015). Data Envelopment Analysis as an Instrument for Measuring the Efficiency of Courts. Operations Research and Decisions, 25(4), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.5277/ord150402
O’Donnell, C. J. (2010). DPIN Version 1.0: A Program for Decomposing Productivity Index Numbers. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. CEPA Working Papers Series, (WP01). https://ideas.repec.org/p/qld/uqcepa/69.html
O’Donnell, C. J. (2011). DPIN 3.0: A Program for Decomposing Productivity Index Numbers. User's Guide. The University of Queensland Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. https://economics.uq.edu.au/cepa/software
O’Donnell, C. J. (2012). An Aggregate Quantity Framework for Measuring and Decomposing Productivity Change. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 38, 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-012-0275-1
Ostaszewski, P. (red). (2020). Efektywność sądownictwa powszechnego – oceny i analizy. IWS. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367966462_Efektywnosc_sadownictwa_powszechnego_-_oceny_i_analizy#:~:text=Efektywno%C5%9B%C4%87%20s%C4%85downictwa%20powszechnego%20-%20oceny%20i
Pereira, M. A. (2025). Clearance Rates and Disposition Times: Not the Whole Story of Judicial Efficiency. International Review of Law and Economics, 83, 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2025.106283
Siemaszko, A. (red.). (2011). Wymiar sprawiedliwości w Unii Europejskiej. Podstawowe parametry dla Polski i pozostałych krajów. IWS.
Siemaszko, A. i Ostaszewski, P. (2013). Efektywność kosztowa sądownictwa powszechnego. IWS. https://iws.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Efektywno%C5%9B%C4%87-s%C4%85downictwa-powszechnego-oprac-12-1.pdf
Siemaszko, A., Gruszczyńska, B., Marczewski, M., Ostaszewski, P. i Więcek-Durańska, A. (2016). Sądownictwo. Polska na tle pozostałych krajów Unii Europejskiej (na podstawie bazy danych CEPEJ 2014). Prawo w Działaniu, 26, 7-61.
Świtłyk, M., Sompolska-Rzechuła, A. i Oesterreich, M. (2025). Efektywność techniczna sądów okręgowych. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 69(3), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2025.3.10
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Michał Świtłyk, Agnieszka Sompolska-Rzechuła, Maciej Oesterreich
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Accepted 2025-12-17
Published 2026-03-31
