Microjustice Research Program

From MicroJustice

Jump to: navigation, search

TISCO BOP Lab Tilburg University Microjustice Research and Innovation Program

(This is a draft of the Microjustice Research Program. It reflects some of the research topics that have been identified. We warmly invite potential partners to further explore and develop these and other topics with us.)

Contents

[edit] Strategy and People

[edit] Mission

The Microjustice research program supports the development of Microjustice products and services by:

  • Integrating and communicating interdisciplinary scientific knowledge that is relevant for affordable and sustainable access to justice;
  • Co-development of innovative tools, products and services;
  • Testing and evaluation of the results of these pilots.

[edit] Vision

Microjustice aims to deliver justice that is affordable to the poor and sustainable without permanent subsidies. Building on the capabilities of the clients, and focusing on their most urgent justice needs, Microjustice services facilitate clients to meet, talk, share, decide and stabilize their relationships.

Access to justice through lawyers and courts is still a luxury good. Microjustice services aim for the most urgent justice needs of individuals in their daily lives: property and tenancy issues, family problems, employment termination, business issues and identity documents. They are enabled by the latest negotiation and mediation know how, that makes it possible to use similar processes of dispute resolution across borders and jurisdictions. Local sharing rules are made transparent via internet. In this way, legal services can achieve quantum jumps in price performance, reach economies of scale, and outcomes can become more fair and just.

[edit] Goals

Building on interdisciplinary research, the Microjustice Research Program will support the development of tools that make Microjustice possible. Together, these will form a complete but low cost dispute system that is able to resolve conflicts in a fair and just manner.

These tools will stimuate and facilitate the clients to go through five essential steps:

  1. Meet > Incentives and reasons to meet (Toolkit to create a neutral meeting, or meeting place); 2009
  2. Talk > Communication and negotiation (Toolkit with guidelines for communication and negotiation); 2009
  3. Share > Divide assets, money, time and other issues in a fair way (Objective criteria on Website Going Rates); 2009
  4. Decide > A neutral who helps clients to decide if they still not agree (Toolkit conducting hearing and deciding); 2010
  5. Stabilize > Organize transparency and reasons for compliance (Toolkit forms, simple registrations, incentives for compliance); 2011

Working name for the four component toolkit is ‘Toolkit Village Elder’ and for the Website Going Rates is ‘Civil Code 2.0’.

A business case will be developed for a neutral Microjustice facilitator (2009).

A measurement methodology will be developed so that access to justice can be assessed by clients. This measurement method will measure costs, duration, time spent, procedural quality and outcome quality (fairness) (2009).

At least 20 scientific papers will be produced on the interface of dispute system design, law and development, law and economics, management of supply chains, and organisation studies (2010).

At least 20 master theses will be produced in interdisciplinary theses groups (circles) (2010).

Tisco will be recognized as one of the top three institutes with the specialization of dispute systems, microjustice and access to justice in the world (2011) and be involved in projects relating to improving dispute systems worldwide.

A handbook dispute system design will be produced (2010).

[edit] Strategy

The Microjustice Initiative (an NGO specifically targeting the development of Microjustice products and services) has formulated a strategy for developing Microjustice with three core elements. The Microjustice Research and Innovation Program adheres to this strategy:

  1. Development by building co-operation: a variety in partnerships on all continents; co-development with clients through the BOP method; cooperation with governments and local authorities but not being dependent on efficiency and resources of governments
  2. Focus on development of access to justice solutions that: promote self-help and services provided by the local market; use the best available technology for conflict resolution; use web-technology in order to make norms and processes transparent; and can be bundled with other services
  3. Think BIG, act SMALL, scale-up FAST. That is to say a focus on the replicable character of all products; creation of examples followed by a ‘viral’ process of fast and global distribution; standardized products that can be used in different countries; open source methods of information exchange; use what is available and learn from experiences with similar BOP products;

Within this broader strategy, the strategy of the Microjustice Research and Innovation Program will consist of the following steps:

  1. A cooperation has been established between Tisco (Department of Private Law), the Department of Organisation Studies (Hart, Kenis, Vermeulen, Base of the Pyramid Lab) and the Department of Organization and Strategy (De Haan) (2008).
  2. The Base of the Pyramid Lab established at the Department of Organisation Studies/TIAS has adopted Microjustice as one of its products (2008).
  3. Needs and capabilities assessments in Bolivia by students from the three departments and in Malawi by independent researchers are being carried out (2008).
  4. Building on, and in cooperation with existing TISCO projects (see Research Program Justice Needs in Civil Law 2009-2013), a first version of the Toolkit Dorpsoudste will be developed in English (2009).
  5. A clickable demo of Civil Code 2.0 will be developed in 2008. Subsequently, business partners will be found for developing a version that can go live.
  6. Using advanced comparative legal research methods, that focus on commonly used objective criteria for the most common issues across borders, students and researchers will collect objective criteria from at least 6 countries for the most common issues in at least 3 of the 5 problem categories that are most urgent for people (see below).
  7. The beta version of Civil Code 2.0 will go live in 2009.
  8. A first version of the business case for a Microjustice Facilitator will be developed by a student from the Department of Strategy and Organisation. Thereafter, the business case will be developed further within the BOP Lab (2009).
  9. The Measurement Methodology (MA2J) has been developed as a first version in 2007-2008. This is in the process of being tested in wide variety of procedures and international settings. The methodology will be improved and delivered in a next version in 2009 (see http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/faculties/law/research/tisco/research/projects/access/).
  10. An interdisciplinary student circle with master thesis projectsrelated to Microjustice/BOP is up and running since 3-2008. This circle will continue to deliver master thesis projects.
  11. Scientific papers will be published by the cooperating researchers on an ongoing basis (see below for current research projects).
  12. This, together with the Toolkit, Civil Code 2.0 and the Measurement Methodology will establish the reputation of Tisco as a leading research institute in this area. More importantly, Microjustice becomes known as an innovative approach to access to justice. Insights in the key elements of a dispute system, and in the operation of it, will be an important contribution to scientific knowledge. The same is true for a measurement methodology for access to justice and for an advanced data collection method for comparative research.
  13. A handbook Dispute System Design will be developed through the Microjustice Wiki (2010). And published in print later (2011).


[edit] Knowledge Base for Innovation

[edit] Conflict Resolution Know How

This research program supports the development of Microjustice. What we know, is that conflicts can be resolved by applying the method of integrative/problemsolving negotiations. What is hard, is to bring people to the table to communicate and to resolve the conflict. We also know that it is easier to come to solutions if there are objective criteria for distributive issues, in particular if these conform with commonly adhered justice principles. Access to a neutral is also necessary. A neutral judge or arbiter can deal with impasse, and give protection against the abuse of power. In this way, relationships can be stabilized and form the basis for human development and economic growth. Information technology, organization theory, micro-economics, conflict know-how, and legal theory have enormous untapped potential to tackle these problems.

[edit] Justice Needs in Private Law Area

The most urgent justice needs are known as well. These are rather similar for people in different locations and jurisdictions. Microjustice emphasizes the following five justice needs:

  1. access to the economy and public services (for which means to prove one’s identity are essential);
  2. protection of property interests, particularly interests in land, housing, and small businesses, as well as resolving property disputes;

Next come protection of the interests and resolving disputes in the three most important forms of relationships in which people invest: investments in these relationships may lead to mutual dependency, and sometimes to power imbalances;

  1. family relationship issues;
  2. employment relationship issues;
  3. business relationship issues;

Other justice needs are also urgent and may come within the scope later on:

  • interests and conflicts in neighbor and community relationships;
  • consumer interests;
  • personal security (aggression from outsiders as well as members of the community; basic human rights); on these, many NGO’s and research activities are focused already.

[edit] Dispute System Design: Enable people to meet, talk, share, decide and stabilize

Dispute system design is an emerging interdisciplinary approach to designing processes for resolving conflicts. It suggests that five elementary activities are necessary to resolve tensions between people in a fair way. These five elements of a basic dispute system should be central in any attempt to provide access to justice.

Ideally, a dispute system operates in a stable, secure environment. If the rule of law is a reality, relationships, roles and expectations are well defined, transparent and respected. Contracts, registrations, and rules form a working legal system.

In practice, however, this is often unrealistic. An estimated 25% of the world population does not even have valid documents that prove who they are (UN Commission on Legal Empowerment for the Poor 2008). Up to 70% of property and businesses is not registered. Most people do not have written contracts that accurately reflect their most important relationships. What they expect from each other is implicit from what they have done together and what they have said to each other. Microjustice has to depart from these social realities.

  1. In this world, unforeseen events, new opportunities, and changes in preferences lead to tensions. The first thing a dispute system should achieve is that the parties meet and diagnose the problem;
  2. Then they have to find a way to communicate constructively about the facts, their views, their emotions, their interests, and their prior understandings; on this basis, they have to negotiate possible solutions;
  3. They need guidance from objective criteria relating to distributive and retributive justice in case they disagree about solutions (suggestions about how much each party will own, has to pay, will be punished, or has to deliver);
  4. If they cannot agree, it helps if a neutral decision-maker can decide for them;
  5. Once an outcome is obtained, it should be observed (enforcement) and the parties come to a more stable situation. Their relationships, roles and expectations are now made explicit. It helps them if the essentials are laid down in contracts, registrations, or rules.

[edit] Development of Innovative Services

Because affordability and sustainability without subsidy are essential, the basic direction for development of Microjustice products is likely to be as follows. Self-help is the first option, then neutral facilitation, then if necessary more professional help. This will be the case for each of the five elements discussed above:

  1. A toolbox for creating a meeting place and diagnosis will help the parties to meet and diagnose the problem.
  2. Communication and negotiation will be supported by protocols that suggest how to communicate and which issues to discuss.
  3. A website will provide transparency as to the objective criteria that may guide the outcome on each of these (distributive) issues. This website will reflect the "going rates of justice" at the place of the dispute, as well as in other locations where similar disputes occur. This information will influence the parties, and enable them to reach an outcome. It will also support local neutral 'judges' (informal dispute resolution mechanisms) to reach outcomes, as well as enhance enforcement.
  4. Possibly, Microjustice will also start to develop such neutral dispute resolution mechanisms if they are not available yet, in cooperation with local authorities. Best practices for hearings are to be developed.
  5. Finally, processes that give access to registrations and written understandings will help parties to make their relationships transparent. For enforcement, mechanisms relying on the reputation of the parties may have to be developed.

[edit] Governance, Business Models, and Supply Chain Management

These dispute resolution tools, though, are just that: tools. A dispute system is an intricate interplay between people: clients, neutrals, experts, and advisers. Instead of letting a system operate by rules, as is often taken as a strategy in legal theory, a dispute system can be seen as a governance structure that coordinates actions, by a combination of mechanisms and incentives (norms, payments, reputation, supervision, transparency). The knowledge base regarding this can be found in the area of organization theory.

[edit] Team, Sponsors and Research Network

[edit] Research Group

Tisco is a research team which has its origins in the private law department of the law faculty of Tilburg University. Dispute system design in horizontal relationships is its core competence. It is the only research group in the world specializing in this area. Its approach is interdisciplinary in nature, oriented towards innovation, and through close cooperation with stakeholders in providing access to justice. [Team members| http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/faculties/law/research/tisco/people.html] have qualifications in negotiation theory, conflict research, political science, law and economics, artificial intelligence, and legal research.

Within Tilburg University, there is close cooperation with researchers specialized in organization theory, and the economics of development. This cooperation takes place within the Base of the Pyramid Lab, dedicated to research in relation to product development for customers living on less than $2 a day.

A cooperation has been established between Tisco (Department of Private Law), the Department of Organisation Studies (Hart, Kenis, Vermeulen, Base of the Pyramid Lab) and the Department of Organization and Strategy (De Haan) (2008). Tisco researchers also participate in Tilburg research institutes Tilec and Intervict.

[edit] Text on BOP Lab (Vermeulen).

[edit] Sponsors

Current: Eureko Achmea Foundation (€ 40.000), Department Private Law (€ 200.000), Hague Institute for the Internationalization of the Law (€ 300.000).

Under consideration: Ministry of Economic Affairs (through Innovatieve Rechtsstaat programma and Microjustice Initiative)

[edit] Research Network

The research group currently works with or in the past worked for and/or published with the following institutions: Dutch Ministry of Justice, Raad voor Rechtsbijstand (Legal Aid Council), Raad voor de Rechtspraak (Council for the Judiciary), WODC (Research Institute Ministry of Justice), United Nations Commission for Legal Empowerment of the Poor, UNDP, Hague Institute for Interationalization of Law, Academie voor Wetgeving, Centre for International Legal Cooperation, Verbond van Verzekeraars, Eureko Achmea Fonds, Fonds Slachtofferhulp, IMI (Instituut voor Maatschappelijke Innovatie)

[edit] Exchange Program for International Experts

A program will be set up in which internationally renowned experts on dispute system design are invited for a 2-4 week stay at Tilburg University and around the Hague Rule of Law Network. Deliverables of these exchange projects will be:

  • An advise (powerpoint, paper) by the expert for improving and/or further developing the Microjustice approach.
  • Seminars and/or lectures by the expert, where know how is exchanged regarding dispute system design, with relevant audiences.
  • Individual discussions with Tisco researchers about their research.
  • Any deliverables the expert has in mind and Tisco, or its network, can possibly deliver.

The shortlist of persons to invite includes:

  • Robert Bordone
  • Gillian Hadfield

[edit] Added Value

[edit] The Value of Justice

Econometric research has shown that justice (the rule of law, as well as access to justice) is key to economic and human development. Institutional economists and microeconomists have no difficulty to explain this. Personal security is a matter of observing human rights, but there is much more. Protecting oneself, and taking precautions, is very time-consuming and costly. Without protection of property interests, and interests in relationships, people will not feel safe to invest in their homes, in their families, in their businesses, in their future, and in their children. Fair and low cost resolution of disputes diminishes transaction costs and protects the poor against exploitation and abuse of power.

[edit] The Value of Microjustice Research

Conflicts have been studied extensively by psychologists and sociologists. The next step is dispute system design, combining insights from social sciences and the practical experience from legal systems into a coherent framework for designing dispute systems. Moreover, the links between specific types of legal protection and economic development are not yet fully understood. The market for justice, and the delivery models, has hardly been studied.

Microjustice, through its focus on low cost delivery and affordability, is likely to reveal the basic structure of dispute systems and the way access to justice is delivered. What emerge from it, will be entirely new concepts of codification and civil procedure.

So, this research program is likely to lead to theoretical advances in these areas. In other aspects, the method will be application of existing theories about conflict and delivery of professional services. Designing specific products for specific justice needs will be a matter of action research and applied innovation methodologies. Measuring access to justice (see below) will yield a wealth of data regarding the costs and quality of paths to justice, as experienced by the users of the legal system.

[edit] Research Projects

[edit] Product Development

[edit] Needs assessment and capabilities assessment in Bolivia

Many of the problems people face are problems of everyday life. Especially when it is too distant, people may not link these problems to the justice systems. Microjustice builds on local needs and capabilities. Using the Base of the Pyramid Protocol, these will be investigated and mapped out. Output: building blocks for Microjustice Products. Budget Indication € 70.000. This project is partially funded by Eureko Achmea Foundation and others. Contribution Private Law Department € 12.500

[edit] Developing Conflict Products in Bolivia and elsewhere

Application of theoretical knowledge about dispute resolution system design to concrete contexts and justice needs. Applied research and action research on the basis of the five core elements of dispute resolution in three different areas. Output: First versions of Microjustice Property Protection Products, Family Dispute Products, and Consumer Complaint Products. First versions of master products (standardization) Budget Indication € 100.000 for each product line This project is partially funded by Eureko Achmea Foundation and others.

[edit] Needs assessment and capabilities assessment in Malawi

This assessment takes place in the slums of Blantyre and is executed in close cooperation with the organization FAQ. Output: building blocks for Microjustice Products for this community. SWOT analysis for Microjustice Malawi. Budget Indication € 60.000. This project is partially funded already, but needs urgent extra funding. Contribution Private Law Department € 12.500

[edit] Consulting and Possible Co-development Facilitadores Rurales Justiciales Nicaragua

This program is set up by the OAS and has introduced facilitators in villages, supervised by judges. Goal of this project is exchange of experiences and development of a sustainable model with sufficient incentives for all participants: users, facilitators, judges and others involved. Budget Indication € 50.000

[edit] Toolkit Dorpsoudste

Building on, and in cooperation with existing TISCO projects (see Research Program Justice Needs in Civil Law 2009-2013), a first version of the Toolkit Dorpsoudste will be developed in English (2009). This will be done in close cooperation with the prospective users of these toolkits in Bolivia, Nicaragua and/or Malawi. Budget Indication € 250.000. Contribution Private Law Department € 50.000

[edit] Demo Website Civil Code 2.0 (Objective criteria)

Website will present most needed sharing rules for most common disputes. A process will be designed, so that users and others interested in contributing to just solutions will contribute in an open source manner to this information system. This can be voluntary, or sponsored by neutral organizations with an interest in justice. A clickable demo of Civil Code 2.0 will be developed in 2008. For this, € 40.000 has been funded by Eureko Achmea Foundation. This can be developed into a simple working model, so that the viability of this set up can be tested. Contribution Private Law Department € 25.000

[edit] Collecting Objective Criteria

In the meantime, students and researchers will collect objective criteria from at least 6 countries (Netherlands, Serbia, Bolivia and Malawi and two others) for the most common issues in at least 3 of the 5 problem categories that are most urgent for people (see below). In essence, this is a very efficiently organized comparative law exercise. These criteria will become the core of the website Civil Code 2.0, on which voluntary – or sponsored – contributors will build. This project also aims to sort out what the likely price/costs for sponsored objective criteria will be. Budget indication € 150.000 Contribution Private Law Department € 50.000


[edit] Dispute System Design

[edit] Evidence-Based Dispute-System-Design

Microjustice presents opportunities for major advances in the direction of evidence-based dispute-system-design. A theoretical framework will be developed, integrating insights from conflict research, best practices, and potential remedies for market/government failure. Dispute systems (formal, informal; from countries in different stages of development) will be compared to the framework, and evaluated with a methodology for measuring the quality and costs of conflict management processes from the perspective of the user. Results will be disseminated through the knowledge sharing network of the Microjustice Initiative, and in a first handbook on evidence-based dispute-system-design.

Tisco has submitted a research program for a subsidy from NWO (the Dutch Research Foundation) in relation to the strategic theme Conflict and Security. See Microjustice: Evidence Based Dispute System Design for the full text of the proposal.

[edit] Coordination Problems

Disputes are coordination problems. Insights from transaction costs economics can be helpful for designing dispute systems (Williamson). Key concepts are the protection against opportunism, mechanisms that enhance trust, markets versus hierarchies, performance ambiguity, and goal congruency (Paterson). Projected output is a set of recommendations for developing dispute systems and contributions to the transaction costs economics. Budget Indication € 80.000.

[edit] Core Issues for Dispute System Design

Building on the existing literature on dispute system design, and on research from the social sciences, 12 basic issues are identified that the neutral designer of a dispute system should consider. For each of these issues, framed as a question, a literature review yields the state of the art. Output: the first handbook on dispute system design. Budget Indication € 120.000

[edit] Online Dispute Resolution Tools

Each of the five basic elements of a dispute resolution system can be supported by internet technology. Internet can support communication and negotiation, make information about objective criteria available (see above), and support processes for choosing independent arbiters, courts, or other neutrals. Enforcement can be enhanced by making use of reputation mechanisms. Output: Specifications of tools that support dispute resolution. Prototypes of such tools. Tools that are developed together with dispute resolution providers: co-development. Budget Indication € 500.000 (Already partially funded by ITER, Layla project, several customers such as Legal Aid Council, Insurance companies)


[edit] Objective Criteria Methodology

If objective criteria to guide outcomes of conflicts about distributive issues are available, this really supports disputants. Suitable objective criteria help to reduce costs of dispute resolution and have a positive effect on the fairness of outcomes. Output: Knowledge of the function and position of objective criteria in disputes. Characteristics of objective criteria that have a positive effect on fairness of outcomes and that reduce the costs for dispute resolution.

[edit] Developing objective criteria

In other cases, objective criteria are not transparent. The texts of legal codes may be too vague, case law may be to technical or contradictory. This project focuses on developing ways to make objective criteria transparent in such cases. What are the 'going rates of justice'? Output: methodologies for developing suitable objective criteria. Budget Indication € 200.000 (already partially funded by Tiburg U).

[edit] Delivering objective criteria

Objective criteria can be delivered on a global web interface (MicrojusticeNormsandProcesses.com). Combined with standardization, this makes it possible to compare locally applied objective criteria with those that are applied elsewhere. Such transparency can be an important catalyst for bottom up reform and creates incentives for suppliers to improve processes. Output: Methodologies for delivering suitable objective criteria in such a way that solutions for similar problems can easily be compared across jurisdictions and locations (Budget Indication € 250.000, prototype funded by Eureko Achmea Found.) Project Needs: IT expertise, legal experts with knowledge of 'going rates', students who want to write their thesis on this subject; local partners for collecting and developing objective criteria.

[edit] Datacollection Methodology Comparative Law

The data-collection methods for objective criteria can be seen as an improvement on the existing methodologies for doing comparative law research. By identifying issues based on a classification of relationships and common issues arising here, datacollection can be made far more efficient. Another important step is to focus on outcomes commonly reached, rather than interpretation of decisions of superior courts.

[edit] Understanding the Market for Justice

First analysis ever of the delivery of justice through the lens of market failure and government failure theory. Five core elements of the justice system can each be provided by the market (parties themselves, legal services providers, publishers of legal information, media, ADR providers) and by government intervention (courts, legislators, public legal education programs). Output: insights and recommendations as to optimal regulation of legal services markets, intervention policies and programs in the area of access to justice by governments and NGO's. Budget Indication € 40.000 (Partially funded by Tilburg University, first results available)


[edit] Understanding and Improving the Justice Supply Chain

This part of the program will be implemented by students who write their master thesis on these topics and is supported by the Base of the Pyramid Lab Benelux and companies that take part in this.

[edit] Base of the Pyramid Method and Microjustice

The Base of the Pyramid Protocol describes a method for developing products for the poor. First world technology and business practices are integrated with methods for establishing third world needs and building on the capabilities of these customers. This methodology can be applied to, and adjusted for, Microjustice products and delivery models. Output: Protocol for developing Microjustice products and insights on suitability of Base of Pyramid Model for services in the justice sector. Budget Indication € 140.000.

[edit] Mass Customization of Professional Services

Product development often proceeds from homogeneous products to differentiation for specific groups of customers, and sometimes to individualized products. For professional services, the process is from individualized services, towards standardization. This body of knowledge can be applied to Microjustice, and Microjustice (as well as other microservices) will serve as an example of mass customization processes. Modularity will be one of the key concepts used. Output will be a number of recommendations for reaching efficiency in the supply chain for justice products. Budget Indication € 120.000.

[edit] Distribution Systems for Justice Products

Distribution of legal services traditionally follows the model of one lawyer rendering legal services to a client, and one judge(court) solving an individual case. This project looks at alternative delivery models, and looks for business model innovation in this area. Key issues are the possibilities of microfranchising and how to use local expertise, labor and infrastructure: building on the capabilities of the poor themselves. Output: recommendations for distribution of Microjustice products/services and insights regarding business model innovation. Budget Indication € 140.000.


[edit] Measuring Access to Justice

A methodology for measuring the costs and quality of 'paths to justice' is developed. The measurement tools enables evaluation of court procedures, services of ADR-providers, assistance of legal aid providers, and other access to justice programs. Comparison across jurisdictions and across paths to justice for different justice needs is possible. Output: Measurement tools. Pilot studies. Comparative data on performance of systems that give access to justice. Budget Indication €1.200.000 (Already partially funded by a consortium of Tilburg University, Utrecht University, and the Hague Institute for the Internationalization of Law; first results have been published and are available).

Project Needs Partnerships for pilotstudies; measurement experts, especially with expertise in building indicators.

Retrieved from "http://microjusticia.org/wiki/Microjustice_Research_Program"
Personal tools