Introduction

This research was prompted primarily by the importance of establishing concepts of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality in Justice (^{Correia e Moreira, 2016}; ^{Pereira, 2020}), based on the theoretical foundations of public administration models (^{Pollitt, 2018}). Society's growing expectations of the justice system make this a relevant issue, that opens up a vast sphere of study (Correia, 2012; Correia e Bilhim, 2019). Our aim is accordingly to build a bridge between theoretical foundations and recent cases of reforms in Portuguese justice.

In order to achieve this, the present article is structured as follows: the first chapter explores the theoretical framework for the public administration models dominant in management reforms, stressing the perspective of the respected academic, Christopher Pollitt. As a form of organizational framework, we present the Ministry of Justice, in accordance with the respective Organic Law. The chapter on methodology is followed by the findings, from documentary analysis and content analysis, and interpretation of those findings, drawing connections between the observations obtained from theory and practice.

1. Theoretical Framework

1.1. Reform in Public Administration: The New Public Management and Christopher Pollitt's Interpretation

The reform of Public Administration during the 1980s and 1990s became a policy in its own right, constantly evolving in the academic sphere. New Public Management lent vigor to management reform, also known by others as the Reinventing Government. Pollitt presents his own interpretation of this evolution in progress, stating that “academic thinking has become more discretionary, more nuanced and tolerant, with the understanding of the need for diversity” (2018:18).

The New Public Management model is a two-tier phenomenon: at a higher level, there is a theory/doctrine that defends improving the public service by adopting concepts, techniques, and values from the private sector. Below this we find concepts and actual practices more specifically related to performance, disaggregation and specialization, introduction of market mechanisms and a "client" orientation, applying improvements in service quality (^{Pollitt, 2018}).

Osborne and Gaebler, authors of a book entitled “Reinventing Government” pointed to an unavoidable global trend: reinvention. Basing their work on fundamental principles for the birth of an enterprise administration: catalyzer administration, community-owned administration, competitive administration, mission-oriented administration, results oriented administration, client-oriented administration, enterprise-type administration, proactive administration, decentralized administration and market-oriented administration (^{Bilhim, 2013}).

However, the idea of a global tendency, as the best model to be followed by all countries, was removed from the scenario. Several arguments are advanced: New Public Management is not a wholly coherent set of ideas, but rather a model that presents ambiguities; experience shows that reforms do not always work out as intended; the model is best suited to certain departments, and complex services, such as health or education, have not enjoyed success; comparisons between countries show that New Public Management is not a global tendency, because whilst some countries had adopted only certain measures, others have been reluctant to implement any type of reform based on this theoretical framework (^{Pollitt, 2018}).

Reforms implemented on the basis of New Public Management or Reinventing Government sought to get round six problematic issues in the workings of the public sector: productivity/efficiency, i.e. "how to do more with less"; strengthening the market as a cure for the bureaucratic legacy; bringing government closer to citizens, in order to improve the public service provided, so as to satisfy society's needs; decentralized decision-making; greater competence for management of public policy by government; and accountability of politicians. However, the paths set out in the reforms of the 1980s and 1990s led to fragmentation and what was called the "hollow state" (^{Bilhim, 2013}; ^{Correia, Jesus and Bilhim, 2016}; Bilhim, 2017). The state's unique and majestic place gave way to a myriad of operations, so that it is often no longer the most important actor in a web of institutional relations distributing public services to citizens (Bilhim, 2017:10).

The traditional bureaucratic model was left behind in the quest for efficiency, decentralization, practices designed to offer transparency and attempts to respond to the problems mentioned above. In this context, where the dynamic between state and citizen was reinvented, after the failings of New Public Management, we now speak of Governance (^{Bilhim, 2017}).

1.2 Reform in Public Administration: Governance

Governance recognizes the nuances of the nature of public management and its uncertainties and fragmentations. It lays stress on inter-organizational relations, transparency, equity, and quality of government processes (^{Bilhim, 2017}). Governance theory points to styles of government which are more open and participative, with greater cooperation between the State and economic and civic partners, thereby establishing when and how responsibilities are shared, negotiations conducted between parties and decisions taken. The related principles are those of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence (European Commission, 2011).

We can see here the emergence of a new way of governing, through self-organized networks, with new forms of engagement between citizens and democratic institutions, clearly marking out a call for a historical transition (^{Hartley, 2005}; ^{Colebatch, 2014}).

According to ^{Frederickson et al. (2012}), Governance relates to the horizontal dynamics and the dynamics between institutions in public administration, set in a conjectured framework of declining sovereignty, shrinking importance of jurisdictional limits and institutional fragmentation. This author proposes grouping the concept under three distinct conceptions:

However, Rhodes who explored this term further, argues that this fashionable concept is still imprecise. In the words of this academic: “Governance refers to self-organized inter- organizational networks, and those networks complement the markets and hierarchies such as government structures for allocation of resources and exercise of control and coordination” (1996:652). Rhodes (1996) accordingly considers six ways of interpreting the term.

The definition that will be adopted in this article will be that presented by ^{Frederickson et al. (2012}), in which Governance is synonymous with New Public Management, but with adjustments and improvements, as a new form of connection between citizens and state, with a view of social welfare. The principles of this new thinking are taken to be productivity, market mechanisms, service-oriented, decentralization, transparency, accountability and control of corruption.

2. The Organizational Structure of the Justice System in Portugal

The Administration of Justice is an emerging research area, with several challenges to embrace in its organizational system. Examples of studies range from monitoring specific measures in the judiciary management (^{Correia and Videira, 2015}, 2016; Correia, ^{Pereira & Costa, 2020}), gender differences (Pereira and Correia, 2021), judicial reforms in terms of the quality management of the courts (^{Romão and Correia, 2021}), and to the satisfaction and loyalty of citizens and employees to the services provided by the courts (Correia and Bilhim, 2019; Pereira and Correia, 2020).

The organizational structure of the Portuguese justice system is established in the Organic Law for the Ministry of Justice (Decree-Law 123/2011 of 29 December). This document is a landmark in the reform of the Portuguese public administrative authorities, drawn up in keeping with a commitment to efficiency alongside the Plan for Reduction and Improvement of the Central Administrative Authorities (PREMAC).

The Ministry of Justice's (MJ) mission is to design, conduct, execute and assess the justice policy defined by the Assembly of the Republic and the Government, handling the relations between the latter and the courts and the Public Prosecution Service, the Higher Council of the Judiciary and the Higher Council of Administrative and Fiscal Courts (Article 1). This government department comprises services belonging to the direct administrative authorities of the State, bodies that belong to the indirect administrative authorities of the State, advisory bodies , and other structures. The central services that belong to the direct administrative authorities of the State are the following: General Secretariat¹, Inspectorate-General of Justice Services², Directorate-General for Justice Policy³, Directorate-General for the Administration of Justice⁴, Directorate General for Reintegration and Prison Services⁵, and the Criminal Police⁶.

The central services that belong to the indirect administrative authorities of the State are the following: Institute for Financial Management and Justice System Facilities⁷, the Institute of Registries and Notarial Services⁸, the National Institute of Forensic Medicine and Sciences⁹, and the National Industrial Property Institute¹⁰ (Article 14).

3. Methodology

Assessing the outcomes of reforms is an arduous task. This is due to the difficulties of analyzing and assessing a long-term, complex, multi-instrumental program of reforms involving various stakeholders, making it difficult to confirm efficiency gains (^{Pollitt, 2018}).

The methodology used in this research is qualitative. In order to carry out this research and to achieve the aims set out above, documentary analysis was conducted of recent cases of reforms in the Portuguese justice system, more specifically, reform of the map of judicial regions, the concepts and reforms brought about by the Closer Justice Program (Programa Justiça + Próxima) and extrajudicial means of dispute resolution. In order to build the connection between New Public Management and Governance, on the one hand, and the justice system in Portugal, on the other, a content analysis was conducted of the Activities Plans of Ministry of Justice bodies and departments (excepting the Criminal Police), insofar as these strategy documents set out the vision of the organizations in question.

4. Findings

^{Pollitt (2018}) writes that translating theory into empirical reality, in implementing reform in the public sector, involves the following phases: (1) discussion and introduction of ideas on the political agenda, such as new approaches and techniques, discussed at conferences and workshops; (2) decision by government; (3) practicing the new techniques or new approach to be adopted; and (4) outcomes achieved with the reform.

Working through these phases may involve translations of the model/technique/approach adopted, and the original concept can be lost at each phase, partially or even totally. Analyzing translations of New Public Management, it is understood in academia that the ideas that address the doctrine, either nationally, or for a particular sector, are usually translated into the local vision in question. This means not only textual editions, but rather the real addition of a vision. Differentiation of emphasis helps in the selection and prioritization of different types of practices existing on reform menus. It is therefore also possible to improve management of expectations with regard to the outcome of the reform in view (^{Pollitt, 2018}).

For CEPEJ, the question of court territories is crucial and should be reviewed by member States. As a result, reforms of the organization and management of justice are one of the topics most spoken about on the reform menus of European countries (^{Martins, 2012}).

Like other countries, Portugal has implemented reform. Law 62/2013, of 26 August (Law on the Organization of the Judicial System), regulated by Decree-Law 49/2014, of 27 March, overhauled the judicial organization of the territory, by creating larger judicial districts and introducing greater specialization, in combination with a new management model for comarcas (districts). The new judicial map has induced gains in the effectiveness of judicial services, by instituting a more specialized court system in Portugal.

The reorganization of the judicial system incorporated strategic objectives, based on three fundamental pillars: larger judicial districts which now, as a rule, coincide with the social centers reflected in administrative districts; new specialist jurisdictions at national level; and implementation of a new management model for judicial districts (^{Martins, 2012}).

The fundamental aim of this reform is to establish management of targets for improved effectiveness and quality, to redraw the judicial map, to increase specialization in court services, to bring justice closer to citizens and, lastly, to increase the number of judges (Governo de Portugal, 2020).

Justice as a pillar of the economy means that reform in this area is urgent. The Government's aim is to transform and modernize this fundamental pillar, so that we have a justice system that is more flexible, transparent, human, and close to the citizens. This is the context in which the Closer Justice Program was conceived (Pereira and ^{Correia, 2020}).

The Closer Justice Program has grown out of the policy for modernizing the State, a commitment made in the Major Planning Options 2016-2019 and also in the National Reforms Program and sets out to simplify and cut red tape in the State's dealings with citizens and businesses, geared to innovation and provision of efficient, effective and high-quality services. The program is planned to be executed over the four years of the legislature, although its scope is not stagnant, even in terms of the measures in view, meaning that it is a dynamic, flexible and interactive plan. In essence, the aims to be pursued are more flexible and simplified justice system that uses new technologies to be more efficient and optimize management, that is transparent in providing information and data; a humane justice, in its continuous response to the real needs of the target group; and, lastly, a justice that is closer to citizens, who are placed at the center of its activities. This requires trust in judicial systems and guaranteed protection of individual rights and so, in order to materialize the image of a modernized justice system, it is focused on a strategy of change through the digital world, working at all times towards a collaborative culture (Ministério da Justiça, 2019).

Transformation is therefore pursued through four fundamental pillars. The first of these is efficiency, with the simplification and computerization of proceedings, designed to optimize the management of Justice with the use of open and interoperable technologies, employing models and methodologies associated with governance of Information and Communication Technologies governance. Promoting change in justice through innovation, modernizing and developing new technological solutions, in order to work towards open justice. The third pillar, humanization, sets out to lend dignity to the judicial system, in its facilities and also in its agents and actors. The last pillar, proximity, relates to creating services closer to citizens and companies, simplifying relations. This entails eliminating formalities and procedures, making information clearer, more transparent, and accountable, and also listening to citizens and responding to their needs (Ministério da Justiça, 2019).

Centered on the program’s strategic pillars are 118 measures for efficiency, 27 focused on innovation, 37 designed to increase proximity and 15 concerned with humanization. As of December 2019, of the 197 measures, 125 had been concluded, resulting in an implementation rate of 63%. Only 19% of the measures were at the execution stage, 8% were in preparation and 1% at the final installation stage (Ministério da Justiça, 2019).

Alternative Disputes Resolution or Extrajudicial Means of Disputes Resolution fall into three forms: Small Claims Tribunals, Arbitration Centers, and Mediation.

Small claims tribunals (Julgados de Paz) were instituted by Law 78/2001, of 13 July. These are courts organized and functioning along specific lines (^{Martins, 2012}). Procedures in the small claim’s tribunals are designed in accordance with principles of simplicity, appropriateness, informality, oral proceedings and absolute procedural economy. The small claims tribunals are intended to permit civic participation by interested parties and to encourage the fair settlement of disputes through agreement between the parties (Law 78/2001, of 13 July, Article 2).

Demand for these "courts" has grown, evidence of which can be seen in the expansion of the network of small claims tribunals, from 12 in 2005 to 25 in 2018. The concept is based on simplicity and closeness to citizens, facilitating relations between citizens and the justice system.

Generally speaking, to look at a single model may be a great mistake on the part of governments. A better understanding can be reached through observation of the individual elements of each theoretical and conceptual model, and in understanding individually each component of reform, both conceptually, and in practices applied nationally or in a local context. After this exercise it will be healthy to analyze a series of reforms, to verify their coherence, logic and how they fit a given context. Large differences within a country and between public sectors is not a problem, and merely shows that there are different stories, different options and priorities within the public administrative system (^{Pollitt, 2018}).

Analysis of recent reforms to the Portuguese justice system points very clearly to traits characteristic of Governance as synonymous with New Public Management. We may find a compromise between application of the two models, and significant efforts have been made to adapt them to individual bodies and services, in keeping with their respective missions.

Table 4, below, presents a content analysis of the Activities Plans of the organizational structure of the Portuguese Justice System, encompassing both the direct and indirect administrative bodies of the Ministry of Justice (except for the Criminal Police and the Institute of Registries and Notarial Services, due to the unavailability of documentation).

An in-depth analysis was conducted in documents, searching for concepts/expressions that pointed to theoretical translations of Governance as synonymous with New Public Management.

A second content analysis was conducted to consolidate the grounds for this study. Using the Modernization and Technology Plan of the Closer Justice Program, all the measures were classified by areas of action, respective theoretical pillar associated with the measure and the addressees of the measure (Annex).

The two content analyses point to Governance as synonymous with New Public Management, both in the services and bodies of the Ministry of Justice, and in the reforms brought about by the Closer Justice Program. It is important to stress the individuality of the theoretical concepts applied to each case. In keeping with the individual features and missions of each department and body, the concepts identified also differ (Table 4). Depending on the area where the measures apply, repetition of the associated pillars diverges (annex). This refers to the materialization of individual approaches, presenting a delicate balance, but which is necessary for a better response to society's needs.

5. Discussion and Final Considerations

Reforms in public management are now considered a vital element by each political party. Proof of this can be seen in the growing community of consultants, academics, and former public servants in the “reforms industry” (^{Pollitt, 2018}).

It is currently impossible to look at a reform program and detect only one theoretical expression of a model. Generic analysis is not a feasible solution, the way ahead requires individual approaches, grouped together by the dominant rationales: improved quality of public services; legitimacy and trust through public participation; continuity and specialty with implementation of new statuses, training, anti-corruption measures and internal audits, by strengthening Weber's traditional bureaucracy; decentralization of political authorities and administrative functions (^{Pollitt, 2018}). These rationales are found in the course of research in Portugal, applied distinctly and individually.

This is a delicate balance. One government objective may conflict with another. One reform may detract from the principles of another. Increased citizen participation may weaken political control, anti-corruption measures may often hinder decentralization. An improvement in service quality may entail increased spending at a time of cuts in funding. Performance indicators may encourage debate and participation, provided the foundations for a decentralized State, but they can also be the basis for centralization of the public apparatus through control of organizational performance (^{Pollitt, 2018}). Governments must manage this balance in a rational, rigorous, and humane way.

Planning, monitoring, oversight of activities and a focus on outcomes embody the dynamic of change in Justice Administration in Portugal, thereby establishing the idea of quality management models and management by objectives (Guimarães, Correia, Akutsu & Bilhim,

2015). Sound use of the instruments of justice serves to bring citizens and the justice system closer together, improving communication, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system. Accessible, transparent and simplified justice responds to the needs of society and promotes democratization and citizenship, helping to strengthen the economy (Ministério da Justiça, 2019).