|
Acknowledgements
|
xv
|
|
1 Introduction
|
1
|
|
1 Roadmap
|
5
|
|
2 Reform purpose
|
6
|
|
3 What is justice – and why is it important?
|
9
|
|
4 Evaluating endeavour
|
14
|
|
5 Case studies of practice
|
19
|
|
6 Generalised findings and key empirical propositions
|
22
|
|
7 Conclusions: a theory of justice reform
|
24
|
|
Part 1 Judicial reform enterprise
|
27
|
|
Introduction to Part 1
|
27
|
|
2 History and context
|
29
|
|
1 Introduction
|
29
|
|
2 Context and history
|
29
|
|
a. Three moments or five waves?
|
31
|
|
b. Early days: USAID's law and development
|
32
|
|
c. Structural adjustment, the ‘Washington Consensus’ and poverty reduction
|
33
|
|
d. ‘Rule of law’ revival and democracy
|
34
|
|
e. But what is the ‘rule of law’ orthodoxy – a blind man's elephant?
|
37
|
|
f. Shihata's long shadow – judicial reform at the World Bank
|
38
|
|
g. Governance and institutionalism: from enabling to capable state
|
40
|
|
h. A more comprehensive approach: embracing social and human dimensions
|
42
|
|
i. Towards equity?
|
43
|
|
j. Fragility, safety and security
|
45
|
|
3 Conclusions
|
47
|
|
3 Nature and critique of reforms
|
49
|
|
1 Introduction
|
49
|
|
2 Nature of reforms – the ‘standard package’
|
49
|
|
a. ‘Thin’ or ‘thick’ reform?
|
51
|
|
3 Mounting perceptions of disappointment – the ‘performance gap’
|
53
|
|
4 Reinvention
|
58
|
|
a. Convergence with human rights and empowerment
|
58
|
|
b. Engagement in the informal customary sector and legal pluralism
|
64
|
|
c. Political economy – DfID's approach to power
|
65
|
|
d. Acknowledging the distributional dimension of judicial reform
|
68
|
|
e. Constitutionalism and the politics of allocation
|
71
|
|
5 Conclusions
|
75
|
|
4 Theories of reform
|
77
|
|
1 Introduction
|
77
|
|
a. Theory, practice and the use of dichotomy
|
77
|
|
2 Theorists – philosophy and justification
|
79
|
|
a. Foundations of classical thinking: justice, equality and equity
|
80
|
|
b. Visions from the Enlightenment of the state and individual
|
81
|
|
i. The fulcrum of liberalism
|
84
|
|
ii. The tipping point of neo-liberalism – and the contest over economics
|
85
|
|
iii. The significance of liberalism
|
87
|
|
c. The contest of modern philosophy
|
88
|
|
i. Institutionalism
|
88
|
|
ii. North's rules of the game
|
89
|
|
iii. Sen's transformative vision of human capability
|
91
|
|
3 Conclusions
|
97
|
|
5 Empirical evidence
|
100
|
|
1 Introduction
|
100
|
|
2 Sufficiency of the economic justification for development
|
101
|
|
a. The role of empirical evidence in the theory: practice dichotomy
|
102
|
|
b. Historical evidence of the market economy
|
103
|
|
c. Development's failure to ensure equitable growth
|
105
|
|
d. Conviction, ideology and the selectivity of empirical validation
|
109
|
|
3 Justice and growth – a synopsis of empirical determinants
|
111
|
|
a. Transplantation and ‘legal-origins’ debate
|
112
|
|
b. New comparative economics and good governance
|
113
|
|
c. Are institutions trumps?
|
115
|
|
d. Precepts of independence – checks and balances
|
118
|
|
e. Empirical inquiry – torch beams in the night
|
120
|
|
4 Conclusions to Part 1 – building a better theory
|
123
|
|
Part 2 Evaluation
|
129
|
|
Introduction to Part 2
|
129
|
|
6 Evaluating aid
|
133
|
|
1 Introduction
|
133
|
|
2 Key concepts
|
134
|
|
3 Purpose and models
|
135
|
|
a. Professionalisation
|
137
|
|
b. From Paris to Accra – improving development effectiveness
|
138
|
|
c. Millennium Development Goals
|
139
|
|
d. Managing for development results
|
141
|
|
e. Critique of MfDR
|
143
|
|
4 Arenas of debate
|
146
|
|
a. Project management and the logical-framework approach
|
146
|
|
b. The paradigm war over evaluative models
|
149
|
|
c. The positivist approach to impact
|
150
|
|
d. Constructivism and participatory evaluation
|
154
|
|
5 Meta-evaluation of practice – and the ‘development evaluation gap’
|
157
|
|
6 Conclusions
|
160
|
|
7 Evaluating judicial reform
|
164
|
|
1 Introduction
|
164
|
|
2 Measuring performance
|
166
|
|
a. Indicators and metrics
|
166
|
|
b. Quality or quantity of justice?
|
169
|
|
c. Monitoring frameworks
|
171
|
|
d. Critique of frameworks
|
173
|
|
3 Synthesis – gaps in performance and evaluation
|
177
|
|
a. ‘Scholars in self-estrangement’
|
178
|
|
b. Blair and Hansen – ‘rule of law’ under the spotlight
|
178
|
|
c. The nature of evaluative commentary
|
179
|
|
4 Deficiency in evaluative practice – the ‘evaluation gap’ in judicial reform
|
181
|
|
a. Omission and the missing middle
|
181
|
|
b. Hammergren: the ‘fireman's syndrome’
|
182
|
|
5 Meta-evaluation – the double gap in evaluation
|
183
|
|
6 Filling the gaps – two proposals for evaluating judicial reform
|
185
|
|
a. Measurement of rights – a work in progress
|
187
|
|
7 Conclusions
|
189
|
|
Part 3 Case studies of the Asian reform experience
|
193
|
|
Introduction to Part 3
|
193
|
|
a. Three case studies
|
194
|
|
b. Methodology
|
195
|
|
c. Structure
|
196
|
|
8 ADB's judicial reform experience in Asia: 1990–2007
|
197
|
|
1 Introduction
|
197
|
|
2 Background
|
199
|
|
3 Findings and analysis
|
200
|
|
a. Policy framework
|
200
|
|
i. Governance policy
|
200
|
|
ii. Poverty strategy
|
202
|
|
iii. Long-term strategies
|
203
|
|
b. Implementation
|
204
|
|
i. Mitchell's puzzle – evolving justifications for reform
|
206
|
|
ii. Justification – an ever-increasingly heady mix
|
207
|
|
iii. Reform activities
|
208
|
|
iv. Reflections on experience
|
211
|
|
c. Evaluation systems
|
211
|
|
i. Developmental considerations – what the ADB says, and what it does
|
213
|
|
ii. Evaluation of technical assistance
|
214
|
|
iii. Evaluation of judicial reform
|
215
|
|
4 Conclusions
|
215
|
|
a. Significance for the purpose of judicial reform
|
216
|
|
b. Significance for the evaluation of judicial reform
|
218
|
|
9 AusAID’s program in Papua New Guinea, 2003–2007
|
221
|
|
1 Introduction
|
221
|
|
2 Background
|
222
|
|
3 Findings and analysis
|
225
|
|
a. Journey to aid effectiveness – ownership, capacity and change
|
225
|
|
b. Managing for development results
|
228
|
|
i. Planning
|
228
|
|
ii. Performance monitoring
|
231
|
|
iii. Evaluation, impact, results and contribution
|
233
|
|
c. Strategic approaches
|
236
|
|
i. Restorative justice and the bias towards the formal sector
|
236
|
|
ii. Change management and incentives
|
239
|
|
4 Conclusions
|
240
|
|
a. Significance for the purpose of judicial reform
|
240
|
|
b. Significance for the evaluation of judicial reform
|
244
|
|
c. Ethnomethodological insights
|
247
|
|
10 Voices of the Asia Pacific experience
|
251
|
|
1 Introduction
|
251
|
|
2 Background
|
251
|
|
3 Findings
|
253
|
|
a. Securing justice
|
254
|
|
b. Case-management reform and delay reduction
|
254
|
|
c. Promoting access to justice
|
255
|
|
d. Ethics, integrity and judicial accountability
|
257
|
|
e. Judicial education
|
258
|
|
4 Editorial and ethnomethodological analysis
|
259
|
|
a. Goals
|
259
|
|
b. Leadership
|
260
|
|
c. Community
|
261
|
|
d. Donors
|
262
|
|
e. Independence
|
263
|
|
f. Training and capacity-building
|
264
|
|
g. Data
|
265
|
|
h. Results
|
266
|
|
5 Conclusions
|
267
|
|
a. Significance for the purpose of judicial reform
|
268
|
|
b. Significance for the evaluation of judicial reform
|
269
|
|
c. Ethnomethodological insights
|
270
|
|
6 Summing up Part 3
|
272
|
|
7 Generalised findings and observations from practice
|
275
|
|
11 The way forward
|
279
|
|
1 Putting this theory into practice
|
286
|
|
2 A taxonomy of just reform: court-focused and development-wide
|
288
|
|
3 Next steps
|
291
|
|
Annexes
|
293
|
|
Annex A Frameworks of measurement
|
295
|
|
1 Measuring justice – court-level measures
|
295
|
|
a. ABA-CEELI – Judicial Reform Index
|
295
|
|
b. Vera indicators for the justice sector
|
296
|
|
c. IFES Rule of Law Tool
|
296
|
|
d. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
|
297
|
|
e. Productivity Commission Reports on Government Services, Australia
|
297
|
|
f. Judicial quality: the Netherlands – RechtspraaQ
|
298
|
|
g. International Framework for Court Excellence, and Rule of Law Index
|
298
|
|
2 Measuring justice – government-level measures
|
299
|
|
a. The Bertelsmann Transformation Index
|
300
|
|
b. The Freedom House World Survey
|
300
|
|
c. The Global Integrity Index
|
300
|
|
d. The Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer
|
300
|
|
e. The Transparency International Diagnostic Checklist
|
301
|
|
f. DataGob
|
301
|
|
g. The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index
|
301
|
|
h. World Governance Assessment
|
301
|
|
i. The World Bank's ‘Doing Business’
|
302
|
|
j. Worldwide Governance Indicators
|
302
|
|
3 The challenge – balancing clarity with simplicity
|
303
|
|
Annex B Part 3: Empirical methodology and justification
|
305
|
|
1 Methodology
|
305
|
|
2 Participation
|
306
|
|
3 Ethnomethodological reflection
|
307
|
|
4 Annex B.1 – Chapter 8: methodology
|
308
|
|
5 Annex B.2 – Chapter 9: methodology
|
309
|
|
6 Annex B.3 – Chapter 10: methodology
|
310
|
|
Annex C Sample extracts of PNG newspapers, 2003–2004
|
312
|
|
Annex D Chapter 9: AusAID inventory of documents
|
314
|
|
Bibliography
|
319
|
|
Articles, books, reports and websites
|
319
|
|
Treaties and other international materials
|
350
|
|
Index
|
352
|