Arbitrato ed Efficienza economica

The Law & Economics literature analyses the incentives of parties to solve disputes through Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADRs) schemes; it shows benefits and costs to private parties and society. Lower disposition time of ADR compared to trials before courts, greater predictability of decisions, tailored solutions and confidentiality, are private benefits that should be compared with possible costs such as the possibility that legal precedents might be undersupplied in the realm of ADRs. After presenting the main indicators of efficiency and quality adopted to assess public justice, and having discussed how these indicators can be adapted to evaluate ADRs, we survey empirical evidence on the relationship between quality of justice and economic development (measured along six dimensions: 1) creation of new companies and development of innovative markets; 2) firms’ growth; 3) development of the credit market; 4) attraction of foreign investment; 5) efficient solution of firms’ bankruptcies; 6) trust of agents). We discuss (domestic and international) indicators on the performance of civil justice and some of the best organizational practices, among which ADRs and arbitration are included. The evidence shows that Italian civil justice does not perform well, albeit improving, if compared with European benchmarks; arbitration, in particular in Italy, is still at an embryonic stage. The scarcity of data prevents us from carrying out any empirical analysis on the relationship between the diffusion of arbitration and economic development. However, it is quite reasonable to assume that a further development of (high quality) ADRs may induce some of the positive effects that have been associated to an efficient civil justice. Moreover, alternative mechanisms by their nature might have a deflationary impact on public justice, which may be particularly relevant in the Italian context. Hence, we conclude suggesting that a greater diffusion of alternative forms of dispute resolution and arbitration might be beneficial, but that it should be accompanied by a thorough (also empirical) analysis of the trade-offs associated to the path undertaken (public or alternative) towards justice.