2 History and Context: 1 See Discussion of The Washington Consensus' Below, Chapter 2, at N. 18

2
History and context
1 Introduction
In this chapter, I introduce and address the question what is judicial
reform? through a survey of its history over the past fifty years. I estab-
lish that judicial reform is a recent, substantial and iteratively evolving
endeavour. As a part of this survey, I showcase two exemplars of judicial
reform for the purpose of identifying key features which are influential,
if not characteristic, of development endeavour.
2 Context and history

Judicial reform is a distinct endeavour which focuses on the central task of
assisting the judicial arm of government the courts, judges and related
personnel to adjudicate the law and administer justice. It will shortly
be seen that judicial reform in practice is often associated, sometimes
inseparably, with the more generic endeavour of legal reform, sometimes
described as law and development, or the rule of law, or law and justice
sector-wide reform. These terms are to some extent imprecise and may
be contested in their meaning, scope and function. Suffice at this point
to highlight that my primary focus is on those endeavours which involve
the courts and the administration of justice.
In this opening section, I briefly review the history of judicial reform in
international development assistance since the Second World War. This
history starts after postwar reconstruction, and spans the postcolonial
period of state-building, the thaw of the Cold War bringing democ-
racy, and the Washington Consensus era of free markets and structural
adjustment, up to the current period of globalisation.1 This is a period
of significant change in world politics and economic development, which
1 See discussion of the Washington Consensus; below, Chapter 2, at n. 18.
29
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 190.84.133.211, on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:49:40, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139012133.003
30 2 history and context
saw massive increases in judicial assistance as a niche in international

development assistance.
This history illuminates patterns of crisis, fragility, growth and stabil-
ity which provide some explanation about what drives judicial reform in
its different renderings. History explains these renderings as seeking to
make sense of what works, in terms of policy-making, and interpreting
the past as a means of informing the future. As we will see, an appreciation
of the historical context and its contribution to the allocation of power
and interests is increasingly informing the political economy analysis.
Throughout this period, the global political economy the early 1980s
debt crisis, the 1992 end of the Cold War and the mid- to late 1990s global
economic crises, most recently the events of 9/11 provided the context
for a huge sense of uncertainty, instability and, most importantly, threat
to the globalUS economic order. We will see that the promotion of the
rule of law appeared as part of a suite of actions designed to instil a sense
of certainty, not just in legal contracts, but at the highest levels of global
policy-making. In a sense, this reform was largely US-hegemonic in its
overarching liberal orientation. I will demonstrate, within this orienta-
tion, that there is a tension and an ongoing process of adjustment between
the collective interest of aggregate growth and the individual interest of
equitable rights which is yet to find its balance. History reveals a number of
iterations or trends in judicial reform approaches, and explains what hap-
pened and why. This historical perspective then provides a framework for
showcasing the work of two major development agencies, namely USAID
and the World Bank, as exemplars in judicial reform. Each is among the
largest and longest-operating bilateral and multilateral agencies in judi-
cial reform; together they are indicative of this enterprise for purposes of
ongoing analysis.2
While niche at some 2 per cent of total overseas development
assistance judicial and legal reform has nonetheless grown rapidly and
substantially over the past fifty years some hundredfold in aggregate.3
Some indications are illuminating. Carothers describes this assistance as
2 Reference to USAID and the World Bank is indicative; reference will also be made to other
donor organisations, including ADB, AusAID, DfID, OECD and UNDP, as appropriate.
3 Using OECD data, it is estimated that judicial and legal reform may represent about 2%
of total official development assistance (ODA), comprising $2.6 billion of $119 billion
total ODA; see below at n. 9. In 2009, the total net ODA from members of the OECDs
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) rose slightly in real terms (+0.7%) to $119.6
billion; OECD 2010a.
2 context and history 31
having mushroomed in recent years, becoming a major category of

international aid.4 Hammergren notes that court assistance started in
Latin America in the 1960s valued in hundreds of thousands of dol-
lars, typically climbing to around $5 million by the mid-1990s.5 By 2001,
Biebesheimer reports that the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)
had conducted some eighty projects in twenty-one Latin American coun-
tries, valued at about $461 million. During the 1990s, it is estimated
that almost $1 billion was spent in Latin America by the World Bank, the
Inter-American Development Bank and the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP).6 In 20012, I participated in implementing a single
justice program loan from the Asian Development Bank valued at $350
million.7 In 2006, the global lending of the World Bank for law and jus-
tice and public administration was reported to be valued at $5.9 billion.8
By 2008, the International Development Law Organisation (IDLO) esti-
mates that a total of $2.6 billion in aid was devoted to legal and judicial
development assistance supplied mainly by bilateral donors, represent-
ing a remarkable increase from the $1.7 billion which it estimates was
invested globally in 2007 and $841.5 million in 2006.9
a. Three moments or five waves?

Judicial reform has evolved throughout this period. Trubek and Santos
describe this evolution as comprising three iterations or moments. The
first moment emerged in the 1950s1960s when development policy
focused on strengthening the role of the state in managing the econ-
omy, when law was seen as an instrument for effective state intervention
in the economy. In the second moment in the 1980s, law moved to the cen-
tre of development policy, influenced by neo-liberal ideas which stressed
the primary role of markets in economic growth, limiting the power
of the state. They discern a third moment which is still in a formative
phase, which contains a mix of policy ideas, e.g. that markets can fail,
and require compensatory intervention by the state, when development
means more than just economic growth and must be redefined to include
4 Carothers 2006, 10.

5 Hammergren 2006; World Bank 2002b, 34 and 55; and Messick 2002.
6 DeShazo and Vargas 2006, 1; see also Biebesheimer and Payne 2001, 3; and Bhansali and
Biebesheimer 2006, 303.
7 Armytage 2003. 8 World Bank 2006a, cited in Harris, 2007.
9 IDLO 2010, 4 and 11.
human freedom. The role of judicial and legal reform shifted profoundly
during this period within the changing political and economic context of
development and an evolving vision of the role of the state in supporting
the market.10
This evolution has been variously described by other voices in the
literature.11 Jensen discusses this history in five waves. He sees the first
wave in the context of post-Second World War reconstruction, driven by
modernisation theory and aimed at making public institutions work more
effectively. The second wave was the law-and-development movement
that exported American legal institutions and curricula mainly to Latin
America, reaching its peak in the late 1960s, before being heavily critiqued
by Trubek and Galanter and by Merryman.12 The third wave rose in
the 1980s when USAIDs programs promoted democracy through legal
development, judicial independence and respect for civil and criminal
law. This was succeeded in the early 1990s by the fourth wave of the post-
Cold War renaissance. At that time, the rule of law movement became a
key element of the Washington Consensus approach to social, economic
and political change, addressing competing pressures for democratisation,
globalisation, privatisation, urbanisation and decentralisation. The fifth
wave started to rise in the late 1990s, centring on poverty-focused judicial
reform programs which include agendas of social and economic rights.13
Irrespective of its characterisation, the critical focus of analysis remains
on the central development policy concept of the state, its role and rela-
tionship with the market and the individual. Analysis of the reform work
of USAID, and later the World Bank, in Latin America since the 1960s
reveals the importance of this critical relationship and illuminates its
ongoing trajectory.
b. Early days: USAIDs law and development

Judicial reform has long been an artefact of empire. Transplantation
the reform of the laws and justice systems of one country by another
remains visible in the enduring influence of Romanic law throughout
10 Trubek and Santos 2006, 7.

11 See e.g. Faundez 2005; McInerney 2006, 12; and Peerenboom 2009.
12 See, in particular: Trubek and Galanter 1974; Trubek 1996; Trubek 2003; and Merryman
1977.
13 Jensen and Heller 2003, 345 ff.
Europe, as does Sharia law across the Middle East, and common and civil
law across the postcolonial world.14
For our purposes, the current history of judicial reform commenced
with American assistance to Latin American reform in the law-and-
development movement of the 1960s.15 The guiding assumption of the
law-and-development movement was that law is central to the develop-
ment process. A related belief was that law was an instrument that could
be used to reform society and that lawyers and judges could serve as social
engineers.16 The primary goal of law and development was, according to
Trubek and Galanter, to transform legal culture through legal education
and the transplantation of select modern laws and institutions, with an
emphasis on economic or commercial law and the training of pragmatic
business lawyers. They saw the movement as having rested on four pil-
lars, all of which subsequently crumbled. These pillars were a cultural
reform and transplantation strategy, an ad hoc approach to reform based
on simplistic theoretical assumptions, faith in spillovers from the econ-
omy to democracy and human rights, and a development strategy that
stressed state-led import substitution. This potent critique of USAIDs
hegemonic approach was influential in causing the movement to wane
for some years.17
c. Structural adjustment, the Washington Consensus and

poverty reduction
In the ever-shifting political economy of the Latin American debt crisis,
judicial reform was repackaged in the 1980s as a part of larger programs of
legal reforms, usually as a component of what became termed structural
adjustment. This described the fiscal and monetary policy changes which
were implemented by the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank to provide assistance to developing countries and promoted state
disengagement from the economy. These policy changes were conditions,
or conditionalities, for financial assistance to ensure that the money would
be spent in designated ways with a view to reducing the countrys fiscal
imbalances. In general, these loans promoted free-market programs
14 Judicial and legal reform have more lengthy antecedents, of which some from the colonial
era are the subject of empirical analysis in the context of the discourse on transplantation
and the legal-origins debate; below Chapter 5, from n. 45.
15 See Trubek and Galanter 1974, and Blair and Hansen 1994.
16 Messick 1999, 125.
17 Trubek and Galanter 1974; Trubek 1996; and 2003; and Merryman 1977.
aimed at reducing poverty by promoting economic growth, generating

income and paying off debt.
As the years passed, there was mounting disillusionment at the lack
of visible success of the structural adjustment conditionality which, in
due course, was reframed in the early 1990s and emerged as what has
become known as the Washington Consensus, a term which is attributed
to Williamson.18 It connotes a development approach based on a trifecta
of neo-liberal free-market policies of privatisation, fiscal rectitude and
deregulation. The piety of the International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank and the US Treasury towards these policies which are now in
turn largely discredited was intrinsically hegemonic. The language of
structural adjustment evolved into a new discourse of poverty reduction
which increasingly became the raison detre of development, notably after
the Asian financial crisis of 19978.19 Developing countries were now
encouraged to draw up poverty reduction strategy papers which were
intended to increase local participation and greater ownership. A number
of commentators, such as Porter, argue that the poverty reduction dis-
course of the 1990s was little more than the earlier structural adjustment
in drag, referring to its lack of results and its top-down exclusion of
participation.20
These decades marked an extended period of resumed support for legal
and judicial reform. This support extended the focus from the criminal
courts in Latin America to the stimulation and liberalisation of economies,
notably to the transitional economies of the former Soviet bloc countries
in the 1990s. From this time on, judicial reform spread to the Asia Pacific
region, from where I will present three case studies of current practice in
Part 3 of this book.
d. Rule of law revival and democracy

During this period, analysis of the history of USAIDs approach to judicial
reform shows that it was served as an appetiser supporting efficiency-
based improvements in the criminal courts and judicial independence
within a broader menu of securing the states function of good order and
economic development. This approach rested on a particular approach
to the rule of law and is associated with promoting democratic notions
of good government.
18 Williamson 1990b. 19 See discussion below, at n. 37 ff.

20 Craig and Porter 2006, 5 and 6394.
After some years, the United States resumed engagement in judicial

and legal reform in El Salvador in 1981 to help the democratic gov-
ernment prosecute human rights abuses. This political economy context
explains why USAID assistance sought to advance democratic develop-
ment by exposing human rights violations, increasing access to justice,
strengthening justice-sector institutions and decreasing impunity. This
was due both to the political, social and economic conditions of the
region, and to the chronically debilitated state of its judiciaries, being,
according to Hammergren, the Cinderella institutions of government.21
Biebesheimer describes this second wave of justice reform spreading like
wildfire across Latin America, usually centring on criminal justice reform
linked to democratic institutions as much as to economic enhancement
programs in the region.22
The mantra of consolidating judicial independence became a focal
point of USAID assistance at this time, being seen to lie at the heart of a
well-functioning judiciary and as the cornerstone of democratic society
based on the rule of law:
If a judiciary cannot be relied upon to decide cases impartially, accord-

ing to the law, and not based on external pressures and influences, its
role is distorted and public confidence in government is undermined. In
democratic, market-based societies, independent and impartial judicia-
ries contribute to the equitable and stable balance of power within the
government. They protect individual rights and preserve the security of
person and property. They resolve commercial disputes in a predictable
and transparent fashion that encourages fair competition and economic
growth. They are key to countering public and private corruption, reducing
political manipulation, and increasing public confidence in the integrity
of government.23
In a related move, USAID developed an anti-corruption approach as a

part of its broader governance strategies, which focused on strengthening
the capacity of the courts to serve as accountability mechanisms, as well
as on strengthening judicial integrity itself. USAID defined corruption as
the
abuse of public office for private gain . . . Corruption poses a serious

development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy
and good governance by subverting formal processes . . . Corruption also
21 Hammergren 2003. 22 Bhansali and Biebesheimer 2006, 306; see also Hendrix 2003.
23 USAID 2002, 6.
undermines economic development by generating considerable distor-

tions and inefficiency . . . and generates economic distortions in the public
sector by diverting public investment away from education and into capital
projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful . . . These distor-
tions deter investment and reduce economic growth.24
By the 1990s, USAID had expanded its support for judicial and legal
reform into the post-Soviet transitional economies of Europe in what
has become termed the rule of law revival.25 This phase rested on what
Carothers describes as the orthodoxy of two controlling axioms: that the
rule of law is necessary for economic development and necessary for
democracy.26 He defines the rule of law as
a system in which the laws are public knowledge, and clear in meaning,
and apply equally to everyone. They enshrine and uphold the political and
civil liberties that have gained status as universal human rights over the
past half-century. In particular, anyone accused of a crime has the right to
a fair, prompt hearing and is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The
central institutions of the legal system, including courts, prosecutors and
police, are reasonably fair, competent and efficient. Judges are impartial
and independent, not subject to political influence or manipulation. Per-
haps most important, the government is embedded in a comprehensive
legal framework, its officials accept that the law will be applied to their
own conduct, and the government seeks to be law-abiding.27
Carothers describes the relationship between development of the rule of

law and liberal democracy as being profound:
The rule of law makes possible individual rights which are at the core
of democracy. A governments respect for the sovereign authority of the
people and a constitution depends on its acceptance of law. Democracy
includes institutions and processes that, although beyond the immediate
domain of the legal system, are rooted in it. Basic elements of a modern
market economy, such as property rights and contracts are founded on the
law and require competent third-party enforcement. Without the rule of
law, major economic institutions, such as corporations, banks and labour
unions, would not function, and the governments many involvements in
the economy regulatory mechanisms, tax systems, customs structures,
monetary policy and the like would be unfair, inefficient and opaque.28
This promise to remove the chief obstacles on the path to democracy

and market economics during an era marked by massive transitions
in the global political economy explains, for Carothers, why Western
24 USAID 1999, 5. 25 Carothers 2006, 7. 26 Carothers 2003, 6.

27 Carothers 2006, 4; see also, Carothers 1998, 96. 28 Carothers 2006, 45.
policy-makers have seized on the rule of law as an elixir for countries

in transition.29
e. But what is the rule of law orthodoxy a blind mans elephant?

The World Banks incumbent president describes an effective rule of
law as the most fundamental prerequisite for sustainable development.30
But despite the centrality of this concept, there is a peculiar conceptual
abstraction inherent to the notion of the rule of law which contributes
to confused and ultimately disappointed expectations.
This abstraction is examined by various commentators. Upham, for
example, argues that the benefit of promoting the rule of law, in
both developed and developing countries, is an unproven myth which,
nonetheless, has acquired the status of evangelical orthodoxy. He defines
the core elements of this orthodoxy:
The rule of law ideal might be summarised as universal rules uniformly
applied. It requires a hierarchy of courts staffed by a cadre of professionally
trained personnel who are insulated from political or non-legal influences.
The decision-making process must be rational and predictable by persons
trained in law; all legally relevant interests must be acknowledged and
adequately represented; the entire system must be funded well enough to
attract and retain talented people; and the political branches must respect
the laws autonomy.31
The notion of the rule of law is at its heart both politically evocative
and yet so technically ambiguous as to sometimes become meaning-
less. Others have attempted to pin down what it is supposed to mean.
Kleinfeld-Belton describes the rule of law as looking like the proverbial
blind mans elephant a trunk to one person, a tail to another.32 She
discerns a range of definitions that serve different purposes: government
bound by law, equality before the law, law and order, predictable and
efficient rulings, and human rights. These purposes which are mani-
fold, distinct and often in tension are usually conflated and confused in
practice. She observes that development agencies tend to define the rule
of law institutionally, rather than by its intended purpose, as a state that
29 Ibid., 7; see also Carothers 1998, 99. 30 Zoellick 2008.

31 Upham 2006, 83. Upham also observes, If such a model exists, however, I have not found
it. Upham 2002, 8.
32 Kleinfeld-Belton 2005, 56; and 2006. Humphreys goes further to describe the rule of law
as being anchored in a certain zeitgeist, being a morality tale about the good life, the state
and society, law and economy, which is in essence theatrical in its mode of persuasion.
Humphreys 2010.
contains three primary institutions: laws, judiciary and law enforcement.

This conceptual confusion has encouraged a technocratic and sometimes
counterproductive approach to reform:
By treating the rule of law as a single good rather than as a system of goods
in tension, reformers can inadvertently work to bring about a malformed
rule of law, such as one in which laws that overly empower the executive
are applied and enforced more efficiently.33
Others, like Kennedy, go further to observe that this ambiguity is no

accident. It is precisely the vagueness inherent in this notion that renders
it readily and conveniently amenable as a device to bridge over differences
in the interests of development partners.34
This conception of judicial reform embedded as it was in USAID
promoting the political economy notions of the free market, democracy,
good governance and the rule of law is to be compared with that of the
World Bank.
f. Shihatas long shadow judicial reform at the World Bank

The World Banks current justice-sector assistance and reform portfolio
comprises nearly 2,500 justice reform activities with new lending valued
at approximately $304.2 million in 2008.35
The Bank started to support judicial reform later than USAID in Latin
America in the 1980s. It initially framed its approach narrowly to conform
to its mandate as a state-centric means of enabling economic develop-
ment. As we will see, this approach has subsequently expanded to become
more comprehensive, embodying related notions of governance, institu-
tions, safety, security, equity and empowerment.
As the Banks chief counsel at that time, Shihata was influential in con-
ceptualising the initial approach to reform. He framed judicial reform
within the rule of law, which he treated as a precursor to economic
stability, and as the means of protecting property rights and honouring
contractual obligations. He saw law providing credibility to government
commitments, and the reliability and enforceability of applicable rules
leading to favourable market conditions for investors. Law supported the
broader economic policy framework that guaranteed free competition.36
The Bank adopted this economistic approach because of the reading then
33 Kleinfeld-Belton 2005, 28. 34 Kennedy 2006.

35 World Bank 2009b. 36 See e.g. Shihata 1995a; and 1997b.
possible of its charter. Shihata wanted to avoid drawing reform activities

into what he described as the risky trap of politicising financial institu-
tions. Owing to these formal constraints, which he stressed prohibited
engaging in political activities, he directed the Bank narrowly to take
only economic considerations into account:37
Included amongst these provisions are the notions that: the Bank and
its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member; nor
shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political character of
the member or members concerned. Only economic considerations shall
be relevant to their decisions, and these considerations shall be weighed
impartially in order to achieve the purposes stated in Article 1.38
As a consequence, the Banks reform strategy has historically been devel-

oped from a base of focusing tightly on promoting the rule of law in
an instrumentalist, thin procedural manner. This base defined the rule
of law thus: prevailing when the government itself is bound by the law,
every person in society being treated equally under the law, the human
dignity of each individual being recognised and protected by law, and
justice being accessible to all. This concept of the rule of law is built
on the three pillars of rules, processes and well-functioning institutions.
It comprised a well-functioning legal and judicial system which allows
the state to regulate the economy and empowers private individuals to
contribute to economic development by confidently engaging in busi-
ness, investments and other transactions. This concept was seen to foster
domestic and foreign investment, create jobs and reduce poverty.39
The Banks judicial reform strategy promoted three goals. These were:
first, to establish an independent, efficient and effective judicial system,
and strengthen judicial effectiveness; second, to support the processes by
which laws and regulations are made and implemented; and third, to
improve access to justice by expanding the use of existing services and
providing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.40 In terminology
reminiscent of USAIDs earlier rhetoric, the Bank described the rule
of law as being built on the cornerstone of an efficient and effective
judicial system.41 This vision positioned judges as the key to an effective
and efficient legal system. For such a system, judges had to be properly
appointed, promoted and trained; to observe high codes of conduct;
37 Shihata 1992, 37.

38 Shihata 1992, 30; also Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development.
39 World Bank 2003, 2 and 1618. 40 Ibid., 6, and 19. 41 Ibid., 27.
and to be evaluated and disciplined. Activities supporting such initiatives

became common features in many of the Banks projects.
While conceding its contestability, this institutionalist approach to jus-
tice reform was reaffirmed most recently by Leroy in 2011:
Though the precise channels of causation are complex and contested, there
is broad consensus that an equitable, well-functioning justice system is an
important factor in fostering development and reducing poverty . . . The
World Bank has supported the creation of robust investment climates,
underpinned by a sound rule of law, in order to encourage investment,
productivity and wealth creation as part of its main approach to combating
poverty.42
g. Governance and institutionalism: from enabling to capable state

The Bank positioned judicial reform centrally in its emerging conceptu-
alisation of good governance. As with USAID, it increasingly framed judi-
cial reform within a larger governance dimension of development, usually
hinging on notions of transparency and accountability. This dimension
is relevant not just because judicial reform is a means of implement-
ing governance policy by strengthening the capacity of the courts as
accountability mechanisms. The notion of governance is integral to the
prevailing institutionalist approach which is concerned with the quality
of relationships between citizen, state and market, which we will see in
Chapter 4.43
The Banks definition of governance is broad. It refers to the exercise of
power through a countrys economic, social and political institutions that
shape the incentives of public policy-makers, overseers and providers of
public services. Within this approach, judicial reform and strengthening
is both instrumentally and constitutively relevant. The Banks Gover-
nance and Anticorruption Policy of 2007 proclaims that good governance
is positively associated with robust growth, lower income inequality, and
improved competitiveness and investment climate. This policy posits that
a capable and accountable state creates opportunities for poor people, pro-
vides better services and improves development outcomes. This approach
is explained by President Wolfowitz to support the Banks mandate to
reduce poverty:
42 Leroy 2011, italics added.

43 See Chapter 4 below, at n. 37 ff.; and in particular North 1990.
We call it good governance. It is essentially the combination of transparent

and accountable institutions, strong skills and competence, and a funda-
mental willingness to do the right thing. Those are the things that enable
a government to deliver services to its people efficiently.44
This approach to governance is grounded in the vision of the capable

and enabling state, articulated through the Banks World Development
Reports, first issued in 1978. These reports showcase the Banks evolving
policy approach and have, in the view of The Economist, made histories in
miniature of development.45 The World Development Report of 2002, for
example, highlighted the role of institutions in reform endeavours. More
particularly, it articulated the governance rationale of institutionalism
within which it conceptualised the role of judiciaries in development:
The judicial system plays an important role in the development of market

economies. It does so in many ways: by resolving disputes between private
parties, by resolving disputes between private and public parties, by pro-
viding a backdrop for the way that individuals and organizations behave
outside the formal system, and by affecting the evolution of society and its
norms while being affected by them. These changes bring law and order
and promote the development of markets, economic growth, and poverty
reduction. Judicial systems need to balance the need to provide swift and
affordable that is, accessible resolution with fair resolution; these are the
elements of judicial efficiency . . . The success of judicial reforms depends
on increasing the accountability of judges; that is, providing them with
incentives to perform effectively, simplifying procedures, and targeting
resource increases . . . 46
This report focused on improving judicial efficiency through the increased

accountability of judges, simplification of legal procedures and increased
resources. In this institutionalist approach, judicial reform is integral to
good governance, which requires impartial and fair legal institutions,
which in turn require preserving the independence of judicial decision-
making against political interference:
A judiciary independent from both government intervention and influ-

ence by the parties in a dispute provides the single greatest institutional
support for the rule of law . . . Creating a system of checks and balances
also improves fairness and integrity. For this, judicial independence needs
to be coupled with a system of social accountability.47
44 Wolfowitz 2006. 45 Yusuf, Dervish and Stiglitz 2008; also World Bank nda.
46 World Bank 2002c, 1312. 47 Ibid., 129.
h. A more comprehensive approach: embracing social and

human dimensions
By 1999, the Bank had elevated legal and judicial reform to become one
of the main pillars of its new Comprehensive Development Framework,
as part of its evolving approach. This framework was introduced by Pres-
ident Wolfensohn as a reformulation of the Banks strategy for poverty
reduction. This strategy emphasised the interdependence of all elements
of development the social and human among the structural, governance,
environmental, economic and financial: The Comprehensive Develop-
ment Framework . . . highlights a more inclusive picture of development.
We cannot adopt a system in which the macroeconomic and financial is
considered apart from the structural, social and human aspects, and vice
versa.48 This new approach strove for a good and clean government, a
social safety net and social programs, and an effective legal and justice
system in which judicial reform was reframed:
[W]ithout the protection of human and property rights, and a com-
prehensive framework of laws, no equitable development is possible. A
government must ensure that it has an effective system of property, con-
tract . . . laws and other elements of a comprehensive legal system that
is effectively, impartially and cleanly administered by a well-functioning,
impartial and honest judicial and legal system.49
At that point, the Bank described its approach to judicial and legal reform
as having evolved significantly to emphasise empowerment opportunity
and security in order to promote ways in which judicial programs can
distribute more equitably the benefits of economic growth to the poor.50
The potential significance of this emphasis on the social dimensions of
development in the Comprehensive Development Framework should not
be underestimated.51 As we have seen, Shihata had earlier stressed avoiding
the use of the term human rights because of the constraining effect of
the Banks mandate which prohibited political reform.52 Less than a
decade later, this position had evolved markedly when Danino, then chief
counsel, saw judicial reform as an indispensable component of alleviating
poverty through economic growth and social equity, which included a
strong human rights dimension.53 He built this argument on a broader
interpretation of the Banks evolving mandate:
48 Wolfensohn 1999, 7. 49 Ibid., 1011. 50 World Bank 2004a, 5.

51 World Bank 2001; see also Narayan 1999; and Woolcock and Narayan 2000.
52 Shihata 1997a, 642. 53 Danino 2006, 305.
While governance is a crucial concept, my personal view is that governance

does not go far enough: we must go beyond it to look at the issues of social
equity alongside economic growth . . . we should embrace the centrality of
human rights to our work instead of being divided by the issue of whether
or not to adopt a rights-based approach to development.54
This shift was taken further by the next chief counsel, Palacio, who
observed in early 2006, The Articles of Agreement permit, and in some
cases require, the Bank to recognise the human rights dimensions of its
development policies and activities, since it is now evident that human
rights are an intrinsic part of the Banks mission.55
i. Towards equity?
The Banks policy approach was further refined in the World Develop-
ment Report 2006: Equity and Development, which focused on the issue
of inequality of opportunity as a new or more important dimension of
poverty reduction. This report built on the World Development Report of
2000 on poverty, and in particular on the work of Sen, which I will ana-
lyse in the next chapter.56 It recommended addressing chronic inequal-
ity traps by ensuring more equitable access to public goods, including
improved access to justice systems and secure land rights, among other
initiatives. With a focus on equity gaps, this report highlighted the consti-
tutive element of equity in poverty. Most importantly, it also introduced
the notion of redistribution to the current discourse:
Given that markets are not perfect, scope arises for efficient redistribution
schemes . . . Equity and fairness matter not only because they are comple-
mentary to long-term prosperity. It is evident that many people if not
most care about equity for its own sake.57
This report reviewed modern theories of distributive justice to address

the lack of concern with the distribution of welfare, and to adopt a notion
of equity that focuses on opportunities.58 It distinguished equity from
law and propounded that the overarching concept of fairness embodies a
multicultural belief that people should not suffer before the law as a result
of having unequal bargaining power:
Justice systems can do much to level the playing field in the political,
economic, and socio-cultural domains, especially when societies press for
54 Danino 2007, 523. 55 Palacio 2006. 56 In particular Sen 1999.

57 World Bank 2005, 745. 58 Ibid., 78.
equitable laws and for transparency and accountability in their implemen-

tation. Legal institutions can uphold the political rights of citizens and curb
the capture of the state by the elite. They can equalize economic opportuni-
ties by protecting property rights for all and ensuring non-discrimination
in the market. They can force change in the social domain by challenging
inequitable practices.59
This focus on equity is consolidated by Sage and Woolcock, who argue that
a rules system that sustains an inequality trap is a constituent element of
such traps, and can perpetuate inequities. They observe that there is near
universal consensus that most previous approaches to judicial reform in
developing countries have not yielded hoped-for results, and that it is
now time to reconsider the relationship between law and society:
Traditionally, the development industry, with its genesis in development
economics, has based its modus operandi and economic models and tech-
nical solutions . . . [on] markets [that] function without regard for differ-
ences in opportunities, treatment or circumstances, and their growth is
measured in aggregate terms, removed from individual circumstances and
distributional effects . . . Yet purely economic understandings of human
welfare have increasingly been brought into question. Rights-based advo-
cates, for example, highlight the disaggregated and/or distributional effects
of reforms . . . Moreover, development approaches have arguably failed
to achieve promised results after more than 60 years of development
practice.60
This increasing recognition of the equitable dimension of poverty rep-

resents a major turning point in the formative journey of the judicial
reform enterprise. There is now an emerging recognition that develop-
ment is ultimately about developing and distributing rights, resources
and responsibilities, and that justice systems play a key role in shaping
this distribution.
The Banks Justice for the Poor (J4P) program is presently researching
a more equitably focused approach. Sage, Menzies and Woolcock report
that this approach is predicated on the basis that justice institutions play
a role in the distribution of power and rights, and that equitable rules and
processes can create the enabling conditions for a functioning social and
economic net by challenging inequitable practices.61 A large percentage of
the community live under non-state or customary justice systems that are
complex and idiosyncratic. J4P is spawning research-based initiatives on
59 Ibid., 175. The UNs latest Human Development Report emphasises the intersections
between environmental sustainability and equity, which are fundamentally similar in
their concern for distributive justice. UNDP 2011.
60 Sage and Woolcock 2006, 11. 61 Sage, Menzies and Woolcock 2009, 1.
legal pluralism, decentralisation, land use, local and private business reg-
ulation and notions of executive justice.62 They separately argue that con-
cepts of justice systems are embedded in the social, economic and political
structures.63 For these reasons, the Banks new approach focuses on
creating new mediating institutions wherein actors from both realms can
meet following simple, transparent, mutually agreed-upon, legitimate,
and accountable rules to craft new arrangements that both sides can own
and enforce. That is, J4P focuses more on the process of reform than on a
premeditated end-state.64
Within the context of its antecedents, J4P exhibits encouraging character-

istics which include the commitment to generating knowledge through
research and the rigour of its intellectual outlook. Justice reform is, how-
ever, altogether too important to abandon the formal sector despite its
manifold challenges. Any comprehensive development approach must
remain centrally preoccupied with justice, notions of governance and
focus on managing the quality of relationships between the collective
and the individual. The current vogue of empowerment potent as it
undoubtedly is implies a migration from the disappointing efforts to
reform the courts towards the informal sector. Unavoidably, this must be
seen as moving to the margins of mainstream justice reform, whatever
the expectations for these initiatives may be. J4P remains in the research
phase; it is yet to be seen whether this approach has the wherewithal to
address the developmental challenges of promoting justice. In the mean-
time, attention should remain focused on redressing the foundational
defects of judicial reform.65
j. Fragility, safety and security

Finally, notions of safety and security provide another rendition of the
rationale for judicial reform. While we have already seen that criminal
62 See e.g. Sumner 2011. As at 2010, the Bank has established J4P country programs in
Indonesia, Cambodia, Timor Leste and Vanuatu, and is undertaking targeted research and
operational activities in Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Philippines,
among other countries. World Bank 2009c. It also collaborates with other donors, notably
AusAID, in land use in the Pacific. AusAID 2008.
63 Chirayath, Sage and Woolcock 2005; also Judt, who argues that rights describe the
space between helpless individuals and the all-powerful state, and after the collapse of
communism became a key means to address the Master Narrative of the twentieth
century being the expectation of social progress. Judt 2005, 559 and 567.
64 World Bank 2007, 1; and, World Bank 2006c.
65 Van Rooij expresses caution over bottom-up approaches becoming the new silver bullet
in development. See below, Chapter 3, at n. 54.
justice has been a part of the reform menu since its inception in the
law-and-development movement, concerns over state fragility, failing
states, terrorism and the breakdown of states capacity to control crime
have grown markedly over recent years. Most recently, the events of
11 September 2001 have galvanised the attention of governments and
donors to the relationship between security and conflict and the devel-
opment of political, economic and social goals. This has led to reform
efforts which consolidate the internal (criminal) and external (terrorist)
capacity of the state to provide security. This rendition is evident in the
Guidelines on Terrorism Prevention (2003) and the Guidelines on Secu-
rity System Reform and Governance (2004) issued by the developments
umbrella body, the OECD-DAC. These guidelines are directed to over-
come state fragility and conflict by reducing armed violence and crime,
thereby creating secure environments which are conducive to other polit-
ical, economic and social developments. This approach aims at achieving
four intermeshing objectives: (a) establishing effective governance, (b)
improved delivery of security and justice services, (c) developing local
leadership and ownership of the reform process and (d) sustainability of
justice and security-service delivery.66
Under intensifying scrutiny, it is not surprising that there is increasing
recognition of the importance of justice and the need to improve devel-
opment approaches.67 Many donors are now preoccupied with searching
for evidence of success in their endeavours.68 Others are reviewing their
approaches to justice reform, some going so far as inviting lessons to be
drawn from their mistakes.69
Most recently, growing recognition of the importance of improving jus-
tice reform is evidenced in the World Development Report for 2011, which
repositions justice more centrally in development. WDR 2011 focuses on
exploring the links between security and development outcomes. Its cen-
tral message is that strengthening institutions and governance to provide
citizen security, justice and jobs is crucial to break cycles of state fragility,
conflict or violence. Institutions and governance, which are important for
development in general, work differently in fragile situations. Investing
66 OECD-DAC 2003; and OECD-DAC 2007, 21. 67 Soros 2008.

68 Armytage 2009; Walsh 2010.
69 These donors include ADB, the World Bank and AusAID. The Asian Development Bank
conducted the first thematic review of its law and justice program in 2009; see below
Chapter 8, at n. 100. The World Bank and AusAID are both reviewing their approaches
to justice reform; see respectively World Bank 2011a and AusAID 2010.
3 conclusions 47
in justice is now seen as essential to reducing violence. It links secu-

rity, justice and economic stresses to violence prevention and recovery,
and advocates integrating justice with military and policing assistance
in fragile situations. Justice-sector reform should focus on the connec-
tions between policing and civilian justice, strengthening basic caseload
processing, extending justice services and drawing on community mech-
anisms. Curiously, however, WDR 2011 is abstemious in withholding any
definition of justice. This is significant because it clears a space to admit
justice to the pantheon of political economy, and opens the dialogue on
the role of justice and its relationship to development.70
3 Conclusions
In this chapter, I have surveyed the history of judicial reform to chronicle
the evolution of the relevant discourse and spotlight a range of critical
issues for analysis. This survey has established the following contextual-
ising propositions.
First, judicial reform is at a formative phase of endeavour. Its growth
has been recent, rapid and very substantial over the past twenty years in
particular.
Second, this endeavour has been variously justified on the basis of eco-
nomic, political, social and human rationales. These major justifications,
which may be theoretically interconnected and conflated in practice, are
on occasion ambiguous and sometimes in conflict:
r Economic the oldest and most pervasive justification has two manifes-
tations: first, the creation of wealth, based on notions such as trickle-
down economics, which involves the state supporting the markets to
lift all boats, even the smallest; and second, more recently, the reduction
of poverty, based on an alternative notion of empowerment by assisting
the poor and the disadvantaged.
r Political the promotion of democracy has been inextricably linked
to enabling participation and inclusion in social affairs, freedom of
opportunity and self-destination, and more recently to strengthen-
ing the governance and integrity of state institutions to oversee the
polity through the rule of law, judicial independence, transparency
and accountability.
70 World Bank 2011c.
r Social this justification emphasises consolidating state capacity to
provide the fundamental public goods of civic order, safety and security
to citizens from internal threats of crime and, notably after 9/11, external
threats of terrorism and state failure, sometimes termed securitisation.
r Humanistic this justification rests on the validation of promoting
fairness and access to justice based on an emerging concept of poverty as
deprivation of opportunity and of the human rights of the individual.71
This survey of the experience of USAID and the World Bank demonstrates
the variously formed, dynamic and evolving nature of the judicial reform
endeavour. From the outset, the universal rationale has consistently been
to support economic growth. This instrumental justification has at times
been visibly affiliated to Western liberal conceptions of capitalism, namely
the Washington Consensus, and is in that sense ideologically hegemonic.
This remains overarching, though it has now been largely reconceptu-
alised through the political science discourse of good governance. Most
recently, we have seen a growing recognition of the equitable and poten-
tially distributive dimensions of reform which are both instrumental
and constitutive in their rationale. There is an emerging recognition that
equity is fundamental to development. Recognition that equitable growth
is both constitutively and instrumentally important is starting to reframe
this discourse.
In the next chapter, I will analyse key aspects of these developments
more closely to show that they mark the tectonic plates of the core contest
over the theory for this endeavour. For now, I observe that this his-
tory is best seen as a journey which is characterised by punctuations of
disillusionment that impel ongoing innovation, irrespective of whatever
rendition is emphasised. Throughout this journey, however rendered, the
state remains the defining focus of endeavour, being the provider of pub-
lic goods, including justice.72 This history reveals the constant process of
adjustment in the states moderation of the tension at the core of liberal
society between the collective and individual interests, whereby theories
are formed and refined to better understand the past as the means of
guiding ongoing endeavour.
71 This configuration is articulated in various ways in the literature; see e.g. Samuels 2006.
72 This argument, which rests on institutionalist and new comparative economic notions,
most immediately on the work of North, will be developed in greater detail below in
Chapter 4, at n. 37 ff.

2 History and Context: 1 See Discussion of The Washington Consensus' Below, Chapter 2, at N. 18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 History and Context: 1 See Discussion of The Washington Consensus' Below, Chapter 2, at N. 18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 History and Context: 1 See Discussion of The Washington Consensus' Below, Chapter 2, at N. 18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

History and context

2 Context and history

1 See discussion of the Washington Consensus; below, Chapter 2, at n. 18.

saw massive increases in judicial assistance as a niche in international

having mushroomed in recent years, becoming a major category of

a. Three moments or five waves?

4 Carothers 2006, 10.

b. Early days: USAIDs law and development

10 Trubek and Santos 2006, 7.

c. Structural adjustment, the Washington Consensus and

aimed at reducing poverty by promoting economic growth, generating

d. Rule of law revival and democracy

18 Williamson 1990b. 19 See discussion below, at n. 37 ff.

After some years, the United States resumed engagement in judicial

If a judiciary cannot be relied upon to decide cases impartially, accord-

In a related move, USAID developed an anti-corruption approach as a

abuse of public office for private gain . . . Corruption poses a serious

undermines economic development by generating considerable distor-

Carothers describes the relationship between development of the rule of

This promise to remove the chief obstacles on the path to democracy

24 USAID 1999, 5. 25 Carothers 2006, 7. 26 Carothers 2003, 6.

policy-makers have seized on the rule of law as an elixir for countries

e. But what is the rule of law orthodoxy a blind mans elephant?

29 Ibid., 7; see also Carothers 1998, 99. 30 Zoellick 2008.

contains three primary institutions: laws, judiciary and law enforcement.

Others, like Kennedy, go further to observe that this ambiguity is no

f. Shihatas long shadow judicial reform at the World Bank

33 Kleinfeld-Belton 2005, 28. 34 Kennedy 2006.

possible of its charter. Shihata wanted to avoid drawing reform activities

As a consequence, the Banks reform strategy has historically been devel-

37 Shihata 1992, 37.

and to be evaluated and disciplined. Activities supporting such initiatives

g. Governance and institutionalism: from enabling to capable state

42 Leroy 2011, italics added.

We call it good governance. It is essentially the combination of transparent

This approach to governance is grounded in the vision of the capable

The judicial system plays an important role in the development of market

This report focused on improving judicial efficiency through the increased

A judiciary independent from both government intervention and influ-

h. A more comprehensive approach: embracing social and

48 Wolfensohn 1999, 7. 49 Ibid., 1011. 50 World Bank 2004a, 5.

While governance is a crucial concept, my personal view is that governance

This report reviewed modern theories of distributive justice to address

54 Danino 2007, 523. 55 Palacio 2006. 56 In particular Sen 1999.

equitable laws and for transparency and accountability in their implemen-

This increasing recognition of the equitable dimension of poverty rep-

Within the context of its antecedents, J4P exhibits encouraging character-

j. Fragility, safety and security

66 OECD-DAC 2003; and OECD-DAC 2007, 21. 67 Soros 2008.

in justice is now seen as essential to reducing violence. It links secu-

70 World Bank 2011c.

You might also like