History Matters: The Institutionalization and Innovation Paradox in the Judiciary

The judiciary is a field lacking research in relation to its administration and innovation; however, different theoretical perspectives can be followed. This work reviews this trend while adding to it. An institutional perspective is presented, as is its explanatory potential. This perspective captu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social sciences (Basel) 2024-05, Vol.13 (5), p.247
Main Authors: de Moraes, Thiago Maia Sayão, Sousa, Marcos de Moraes
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adoption of innovations
Analysis
Economic development
historical institutionalism
innovation in the public sector
innovation of the court
Innovations
Institutionalism
Institutionalization
Judicial opinions
Judiciary
organizational institutionalism
Path dependence
Public sector
Social function
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The judiciary is a field lacking research in relation to its administration and innovation; however, different theoretical perspectives can be followed. This work reviews this trend while adding to it. An institutional perspective is presented, as is its explanatory potential. This perspective captures the context of the public sector; however, when analyzing its interpretation in terms of innovation, it is revealed to be doubly paradoxical. From the theoretical point of view, institutionalization focuses on the maintenance of processes, while innovation, gradually or abruptly, investigates their disruptions. Nevertheless, institutionalization can be observed as part of the sedimentation of innovation. Institutionalization is presented, in the context of innovation, as a selection mechanism that shapes such innovation. This paradox is presented under the review of organizational institutionalism vis-à-vis innovation and, for its unfolding, considers the adoption of innovation as an adaptation to the prevalent rationalized elements. This presentation is paralleled with the interpretation that innovation is limited by a structure that, sometimes rationalized, forms its trajectory. Considering the social function of the judiciary that is anchored in institutionalism, historical institutionalism is thus added, centrally placing the judiciary in the current institutional matrix and associating its path dependence with the dimensions of its innovation. Based on these outlines, propositions and a suggested agenda for future research are presented.
ISSN:2076-0760
2076-0760
DOI:10.3390/socsci13050247