STITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | I STITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | I Prosperity Notes Sayed Madadi and Manuel Ramos-Maqueda through the JUPITER Assessment REFORMING JUSTICE Benchmarking Judicial Effectiveness © 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, links/footnotes and other information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522- 2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: © Po / Adobe Stock file #1143638880. Further permission required for reuse. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments 1 Key Findings 3 Purpose 4 Design 5 Access 7 Efficiency 8 Quality 9 Methodology 10 Conclusion 13 References 14 REFORMING JUSTICE 1 Prosperity Notes Acknowledgments This Note was written by Sayed Madadi and Manuel Ramos-Maqueda and builds on the JUPITER Methodological Note. Valuable comments were provided by Camilo Andres Avila Ceballos, Holly Burduja, and Zoran Skopljak. Overall guidance on the Note was provided by Arturo Herrera Gutierrez, Roby Senderowitsch, and Adrienne Hathaway-Nuton. This Note is part of a series of thematic briefs produced by the Global Program on Justice and Rule of Law. The series highlights lessons learned from justice reform efforts and focuses on the “why, how, and what” of reform. This publication was funded by the World Bank’s Governance & Institutions Umbrella Program (G&I). G&I is a multi-donor trust fund established in 2022 with the generous support of the Chandler Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation. Since then, the UK Government’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), the European Union, the Ministry of Economy and Finance of the Republic of Korea, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), the Federal Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Austria, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) have also joined the program. To learn more, please visit www.worldbank.org/giup. For questions on this Note, please contact Manuel Ramos-Maqueda at mramosmaqueda@worldbank.org. REFORMING JUSTICE Prosperity Notes © เด็กชาย นุ่มนิ่ม / Adobe Stock file #1320412345. Further permission required for reuse. REFORMING JUSTICE 3 Prosperity Notes KF. Key Findings • JUPITER can serve as a critical tool to support justice institutions—which often lack accurate data and performance indicators—to identify the barriers to, and opportunities for, justice reform. • JUPITER offers both operational and analytical advantages, focusing on challenges and recommendations to develop evidence-based interventions to improve the delivery of justice. • The JUPITER methodology is designed in a flexible manner to facilitate adaptation to various country contexts, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected settings. This Brief introduces the Justice Pillars Towards Evidence-Based Reform (JUPITER) initiative, a standardized yet flexible, country-based assessment tool that evaluates the effectiveness of justice systems across countries. Developed by the World Bank’s Global Program on Justice and the Rule of Law, JUPITER aims at identifying strengths and weaknesses in key pillars of judicial performance—access, efficiency, and quality. The Brief lays out key advantages of JUPITER’s comprehensive approach: its focus on areas with an empirical link to outcomes as investigated in rigorous academic research; its emphasis on the law as well as its application, which enables the identification of potential implementation gaps; its assessment of both the formal and customary justice institutions; and its coverage of the entire country. In so doing, we bring examples from its application in some of the poorest and most fragile countries in the world such as Liberia and South Sudan. This Brief explains the significance of access, efficiency, and quality for the effectiveness of justice delivery and how JUPITER measures performance in each of those areas. It concludes by discussing how the methodology could enable cross-country comparisons as more data is gathered through the JUPITER assessment. REFORMING JUSTICE 4 Prosperity Notes Purpose When justice institutions operate effectively, JUPITER’s goal is to identify strengths and accountability increases, trust in the government weaknesses around key pillars of judicial grows, and businesses can invest with confidence effectiveness and to serve as an entry point for that their rights will be protected. However, national institutions, international development measuring the performance of the justice system actors, and World Bank operational teams to and diagnosing any ineffectiveness is complex. propose and develop a practical sequence of actions Justice institutions often grapple with generating for reform. JUPITER offers several advantages and analyzing data. Moreover, legal professionals that complement and expand beyond existing and justice stakeholders typically fall short in methodologies. First, it only focuses on areas with adopting performance metrics and leveraging an empirical link to outcomes, drawing on rigorous data-driven diagnostics, traditionally prioritizing studies published in peer-reviewed journals (Bosio qualitative over quantitative measures of judicial 2024). The insights from this assessment are performance. Consequently, despite the critical tailored to inform policy decisions and to provide role of justice institutions, countries often find practicable and evidence-based reform options. themselves without accurate metrics to identify the Second, it captures information about the law as barriers to, and opportunities for, informed justice well as its application in practice. This enables the reforms (Ramos-Maqueda and Chen, 2025). identification of potential implementation gaps between the law as written and its actual usage, In 2022, the World Bank’s Global Program on as well as gaps in the legal framework. Third, in Justice and the Rule of Law launched the Justice pluralistic legal contexts in which the state-based Pillars Towards Evidence-Based Reform (JUPITER) legal system coexists with other forms of dispute initiative to overcome this challenge. JUPITER is a resolution that fall beyond the scope of the formal universally applicable country-based framework for justice system, JUPITER assesses both. Fourth, measuring the effectiveness of a country’s judiciary, JUPITER considers the entire country, as opposed where effectiveness is defined as the ability of a to other indicator sets that focus on the largest judicial system to qualitatively match the demands business city, and collects comparable data for for justice in a timely and cost-effective manner. The some of the poorest and most challenging countries assessment uses a standardized methodology to in the world. In addition, while it learns from existing compare key features of the justice system across regional assessments such as CEPEJ evaluation countries and over time, allowing governments to tools, it provides a global methodology that is track progress as reforms are implemented. The flexible and adaptable to different country contexts. three components of this methodology (access, Therefore, the output of a JUPITER assessment is efficiency, and quality) are applied uniformly to a study that provides the analytical underpinning have comparable results, while allowing some for dialogue on justice reform and helps to prioritize flexibility in the data collection instrument to adapt efforts according to the country’s needs. to country-specific contexts and priorities. JUPITER aims to become a methodology for assessing justice systems globally, with an initial focus on fragile states and countries transitioning out of fragility— where these measurements are most often lacking. REFORMING JUSTICE 5 Prosperity Notes Design JUPITER focuses on civil, commercial, and (Figure 1). Other institutions and services such as administrative justice, not on criminal justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or legal aid prosecution offices. It covers three main institutions: offered by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) the Judiciary, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), and or other organizations are captured only for their Legal Aid Services, or their functional equivalent effects on the performance of key institutions. Figure 1: Resourcing and performance of first-instance courts in Greece in civil cases Independent Judiciary Executive Legislative agencies Ministry of Legal Aid Institutions Justice Centers Courts State Parliament Law Ombudsman Justice Enforcement Functions: Drafting, Human Rights passing and Commission Other communicating Court- Ministries laws Annexed and Anti- ADR Regulatory corruption Agencies agency Customary law institutions Institutions Non-State (Customary, Religious and Traditional Courts) Civil society and private sector (ADR providers, Legal Aid NGOs, Bar Association, etc) Source: JUPITER Concept note, World Bank. Note: This diagram provides a simplified and generalized overview of justice institutions, without accounting for local nuances that may vary between countries. JUPITER benchmarks effectiveness in service the selection process for judges, and outputs, such delivery in three areas: access to justice, efficiency, as appeal rates and the consistency of decisions. and quality (Figure 2). The Access to Justice Pillar These areas were selected based on an extensive measures whether individuals have equal access to literature review covering more than 200 peer- the legal system. The Efficiency Pillar benchmarks reviewed academic papers in leading legal and the ability of courts to deliver justice in a timely and economics journals (Bosio 2024). The resulting cost-effective manner. The Quality Pillar examines Master Survey was peer-reviewed by 15 experts the rigor of decisions in terms of inputs, such as from the WBG and academia. REFORMING JUSTICE 6 Prosperity Notes Figure 2: JUPITER’s Substantive Focus GROWTH judge tion of Tran sp ifica s aren es al Pr o co iti ic i Q ual ox u tiv ud t cy im r t ac a-j ity tr Ex Eq u (ge al ac ial nd ces dic er. s Ju pay ..) ACCESS QUALITY Legal l aid/cost Appeal/reversa rates JUPITER Con all sis Sm ms dec tency isio cl i a o ns f ce ran EFFICIENCY IC T ea te Cl ra ma ad cas ge of nag Cas ment Disposition elo e e time A EQUALITY Source: JUPITER Concept note, World Bank. Each pillar is divided into five subpillars that focus 8 (pertaining to the Transparency subpillar) asks on various aspects of justice delivery and judicial whether judgments are made public or are publicly effectiveness. Questions in each subpillar are linked available in a timely manner. The answer elicits to multiple data points, with a total of 233 indicators information about multiple court levels—first and 373 data points that reveal key insights about instance, second instance, and the highest court the legal framework, the application of the law, as (e.g., Supreme Court). Therefore, the question is well as the users’ experience. For example, question linked to three datapoints. REFORMING JUSTICE 7 Prosperity Notes Access Lack of access to justice is commonly recognized not have access to appropriate assistance and as a fundamental barrier to the effective delivery representation (WJP 2022). Furthermore, these of justice. According to the World Justice Project, problems are particularly relevant for women, 1.5 billion people cannot obtain justice for civil, minorities, and rural populations. Equal access administrative, or criminal justice problems (WJP to justice for women is a major concern across 2021). Approximately half of the population the developing world and depends on a complex surveyed experienced a legal problem in the last interplay of social, cultural, and economic factors. two years, with the majority of them reporting that The enforcement of rights and women’s ability the legal problem adversely impacted their lives, to seek redress is therefore critical to translating such as through physical or stress-related ills, job formal laws into real outcomes. For instance, loss or relocation (Figure 3). In addition, these legal women often have limited land and property problems co-occur and potentially trigger each rights, face gender-based violence, and are more other. For example, a housing problem may then likely to be unaware of their legal rights. Therefore, cause subsequent legal issues related to money and crucial steps to bridge the justice gap will involve debt, employment, or public services. strengthening the transparency and availability of the legal framework (such as, for instance, making Citizens face enormous barriers to resolve laws and judgments publicly available), increasing such legal problems. In half of the surveyed the availability of legal aid and court services, countries, at least 35 percent of people with legal enhancing means to efficiently resolve disputes, problems could not find adequate information and ensuring that these rights and services are to solve them, and at least half of all citizens did accessible to all. Figure 3: People experiencing at least one legal problem in the two years prior to being surveyed 14% 89% Source: World Justice Project, 2022. REFORMING JUSTICE 8 Prosperity Notes In light of this, the JUPITER Assessment considers or may not be under the state domain. In most of the five key areas under the Access to Justice pillar: low- to low-middle-income countries, customary transparency, proximity to court, equal access, and informal institutions provide the primary legal aid and cost, and small claims courts. In means of access to justice to large segments of the each of these areas, the questions probe both population. In Africa, for example, these systems the legal framework and its practical application, cover up to 90 percent of the population (Chirayath, recognizing that equal access is determined not Sage, and Woolcock 2005). The pilot implementation only by law, but also by other factors such as the of JUPITER, which took place in Liberia in 2023, availability of resources. also showed that informal and customary justice institutions enjoyed noticeably higher credibility JUPITER also pays close attention to legal pluralism, among citizens. More than 70 percent of the people i.e., the co-existence of different legal systems seeking to resolve a dispute approached them to within a country. In many developing countries, the resolve various disputes, including petty crimes formal or statutory systems coexist with other forms (Bosio and Upegui 2023). of customary or informal justice systems, which may Efficiency The second key pillar of the JUPITER Assessment (Ramos-Maqueda and Chen, 2021; Amirapu, 2021; is the efficiency of justice system. There is a widely Boehm and Oberfield, 2020). held perception that courts are slow, costly, and JUPITER considers five key subpillars to measure inefficient at resolving disputes. In fact, the slow the justice system’s efficiency: clearance rate, speed of courts is often considered the most age of caseload, disposition time, case processing pervasive source of judicial dysfunction in developing and case management, and ICT. The first three countries (Amirapu 2021). For instance, India has subpillars measure efficiency in case proceedings over 50 million pending cases that are estimated by using standard metrics, such as the case to take over 300 years to clear (Yasir, 2024). Such clearance rate, age of caseload, and disposition slow resolution of proceedings negatively affects time. These follow the European Commission for contract enforcement and business growth and the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) indicators (CEPEJ, undermines access to and trust in the justice system 2022), as presented in Table 1. Table 1: Metrics on court efficiency Term Definition Formula Relationship between new cases and completed CR (%) = (Resolved cases/Incoming cases) Clearance rate (CR) cases within a period. * 100 Relationship between the number of resolved CTR=Resolved cases / Unresolved cases at Case turnover ratio (CTR) cases and the number of unresolved cases at the the end of the period. end of a period. Measure of how quickly the judicial system turns Disposition time (DT) DT (days) = 365 / CTR over received cases REFORMING JUSTICE 9 Prosperity Notes The remaining two subpillars analyze potential case management (CMIS) and the functionalities it sources of inefficiency. The case processing and offers judges and lawyers. If such a system does not case management subpillar evaluates, first, how exist, the assessment asks if data about incoming individual cases are processed according to legal and disposed cases are manually tracked at the procedures and frameworks and, second, how the court level. court manages its workload. Both can be evaluated The CMIS is intricately linked to the fifth subpillar for through data collected manually, through digital efficiency, which is information and communication systems, or with a combination of the two. JUPITER technology (ICT). The ICT subpillar explores the investigates the assignment of cases within a court level of access and use of ICT in court proceedings, and its transparency as a major component of case including the availability of internet infrastructure, management. The questionnaire asks whether the how judges, lawyers, and court users use digital law provides for the random assignment of cases, technologies in their work and in their relation to how it prevents abuse of the system, and how easy courts, the availability of online platforms for filing, it is to influence the process. The subpillar also document sharing and processing, and the potential examines the availability of an electronic system for use of virtual hearing by the courts. Quality The quality of court proceedings is essential The Quality pillar attempts to capture these to ensure the fairness and legitimacy of justice measures in five key subpillars: qualification systems. High-quality court proceedings ensure of judges, extra-judicial activities, judicial pay, that legal decisions are based on sound reasoning, appeal rates and reversal rates, and consistency impartiality, and consistent application of the law, of decisions. Each of these areas is considered an which are crucial for maintaining public trust in the important determinant of quality of justice. justice system. There are several factors that affect the quality of proceedings. Judicial qualifications, The qualification of judges subpillar examines the such as experience and education, impact the legal requirements for becoming a judge and how quality of judicial decision-making. Judicial pay they reflect the quality of decisions. In so doing, the affects performance and susceptibility to corrupt questionnaire asks how consistently and robustly practices. In addition, the consistency of decisions the legally established criteria are followed in is essential to ensure equal treatment under practice. To gauge the competence and integrity of the law. Lack of consistency, which is prevalent judges, respondents evaluate the knowledgeability across judicial systems, can result in arbitrariness, and honesty of judges in various courts and the unfairness, and discrimination in judicial decision- quality of their decisions. Respondents also making (Choi et al. 2022; Shayo and Zussman 2017), consider factors such as grammatical and technical as well as unpredictability of judicial outcomes. errors, precise and consistent application of the law, Additional measures of judicial quality, according assessment of evidence, and whether judgments to the academic literature, are appeal and reversal address the essential arguments of the case. rates. There is empirical evidence that lower quality Linked to the qualification of judges and judicial of judicial decisions, by weakening the protection independence are extra-judicial activities. This of creditor’s rights, negatively affects creditors’ subpillar explores whether judges have employment willingness to lend to firms (Shvets 2013). REFORMING JUSTICE 10 Prosperity Notes outside the judiciary, including engagement in judges’ salaries are publicized – to gauge their political activity through membership in political independence. The appeal and reversal rates parties, participation in political campaigns, subpillar measures the percentage of first instance or involvement in electoral commissions. The decisions that is appealed to a second instance questionnaire asks whether judges can combine court in both civil and administrative cases, and the their judicial work with such activities, whether the percentage of decisions that is reversed on appeal, law allows for additional temporary employment, respectively. This information could indicate the and what safeguards are in place to ensure judicial accuracy and quality of decisions made by first- independence. instance courts. The consistency of decisions subpillar measures to what extent similar cases are The judicial pay subpillar examines how the pay treated consistently. The questionnaire asks about of judges compares to that of other professionals the mechanisms in place to promote consistency with comparable qualifications. This information in judicial decisions, including whether judges are is important to know the caliber of people the required to explain departure from previous case judiciary attracts, which has direct impact on law and whether lower courts are sanctioned if the quality of decisions. Data collected covers inconsistent in their decisions. measures of transparency – for example, whether Methodology Data collection for JUPITER is conducted through For this reason, the Master Survey is divided a combination of a desk review of the legislative into four shorter questionnaires, one per group framework in place, analysis of administrative data, of respondents—lawyers, government officials, and interviews with various stakeholders. For an judges, and users. Whenever possible, each in-depth description of the JUPITER methodology, question is presented to at least two types of please consult the JUPITER Methodological Note respondents. In Liberia, the team collected (Bosio and Ramos-Maqueda, 2025). The questions data from a total of 222 experts from diverse in the JUPITER questionnaire cannot be answered in sociodemographic backgrounds. This was further their entirety by one category of legal professionals. complemented by data produced by other Most questions are designed for lawyers with organizations, including surveys, focus groups, expertise in civil law, commercial law, administrative interviews, and other sources of information. In law, civil procedure, administrative procedure, and total, the assessment in Liberia benefited from civil litigation; the remaining questions require the inputs of 11,892 individuals. input of government officials, judges, and users. Once the questionnaire is ready for distribution, Questions requiring the input of the government key stakeholders are identified. They include: include those related to the Judiciary’s budget, for example. Questions requiring the input of • Institutional actors in the judicial branch of the judges relate to internal court processes, such government—the Judiciary, including judges, as the availability of a case management system. lawyers, court clerks, bailiffs, administrators, Questions requiring the input of users include those and key staff members and departments of the related to the individual’s perception of access, judiciary. efficiency, and quality of the system. REFORMING JUSTICE 11 Prosperity Notes • Actors in the executive branch of the government Information provided by the respondents is – the MoJ, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and complemented with administrative data and an all their relevant departments. in-depth study of the country’s laws, regulations, and publicly available information. After the • Professional associations – the national bar questionnaires are received, extensive follow- associations, etc. up through email and phone calls are done to fill • Stakeholders influencing the judicial ecosystem potential data gaps, address conflicts in the dataset, in the country, including the Ministry of Foreign and understand unexplained discrepancies. If, for Affairs, the Ministry of Finance, and the example, answers by local experts differ, inquiries legislature. continue until the data are reconciled; these may include interviews on the ground conducted by • External stakeholders, such as international local WBG staff. This is an iterative process, where development organizations, donors, and NGOs, clarifications are requested at each level of review, and including the United Nations Development requiring the relevant staff to provide additional Programme (UNDP), the Hague Institute for information or further support a coding decision. Innovation in Law (HiiL), the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), among others. Lessons Learned from the first series of JUPITER Assessments The following three insights have emerged through the first series of JUPITER assessments: 1. The importance of considering the engagement between the formal and the customary justice system: To grasp access to justice in its full form, it is essential to consider the role of customary and informal justice providers, as well as the type of engagement between formal and customary justice systems in the country. Most low-income countries have legal pluralism, where customary systems are often more accessible and trusted to resolve citizens’ disputes. However, the co-existence between these plural systems diverges across countries, as explored in a parallel how-to note on Fostering Engagement Between Statutory Courts and Customary Law Systems (Bosio and McGrath, forthcoming). It is thus essential for JUPITER assessments to consider the type of engagement between the legal systems–whether it is combative, competitive, cooperative or complementary–and the avenues that citizens follow when resolving their disputes in each specific context. 2. Adapting JUPITER to diverse data ecosystems: In many justice systems-particularly in low-income contexts-collecting, analyzing, and sharing accurate data can be challenging. The availability of data ultimately shapes the scope and type of recommendations JUPITER can offer. For example, in countries with robust data systems like Kenya, JUPITER leverages administrative records, court user surveys, and legal needs data to conduct detailed, granular diagnostics that enable comparisons across court stations and socioeconomic groups. In contrast, in settings with limited data availability–such as most FCV countries– these constraints hinder comprehensive diagnostics of court operations and citizens’ experiences. To address this gap, JUPITER generates new data sources to provide critical insights into the functioning of the courts. This flexibility allows JUPITER to effectively complement existing data in data-rich environments while also creating essential information in data-poor contexts to guide judicial reforms. REFORMING JUSTICE 12 Prosperity Notes 3. Enhancing findings through collaboration: While JUPITER gathers new data on both the de jure and de facto functioning of courts, partnering with organizations engaged in complementary data collection efforts can significantly enhance the quality of its findings. Collaborative efforts ensure a more comprehensive analysis and contribute to broader justice reform initiatives. For instance, in Liberia, JUPITER enriched its data collection by incorporating UNDP data on legal needs and court experiences. Similarly, in South Sudan, the team leveraged partnerships with UNMISS, UNDP and HiiL, as well as the South Sudan Focal Point Network on Justice and the Rule of Law, to benefit from existing expertise and enhance the report’s impact and alignment with efforts to strengthen justice and the rule of law. In turn, the data produced by JUPITER and its dissemination efforts support the activities of its partners, leading to stronger coordinated engagement among country governments and development actors. The final report comprises two main components: revision, then peer-reviewed by World Bank experts (1) the responses to the JUPITER questionnaire before publication. Its key findings are further for the country under study (typically included disseminated through the report itself and through in the Appendix), and (2) an analytical report targeted presentations involving development outlining key insights, identifying barriers, and partners, country officials, and World Bank staff and highlighting opportunities for reform in the realms operational experts. This continuous feedback loop of access, efficiency, and quality within the justice reinforces the report’s goal of supporting justice system. After drafting, the report is shared with the reform through a rigorous, data-driven, evidence- designated government contact for feedback and based methodology. REFORMING JUSTICE 13 Prosperity Notes Conclusion JUPITER offers a standardized, country- factors, while at the same time ensuring the integrity based assessment tool for evaluating judicial and robustness of the methodology and its analysis. effectiveness within and across countries. The JUPITER is also tuned towards understanding the methodology relies on a comprehensive set interplay between the formal and customary justice of indicators validated by rigorous academic institutions, especially in African countries where literature, to measure judicial performance across the duality is prevalent. Future iterations of the three key areas: access, efficiency, and quality questionnaire may include a separate module for of justice. JUPITER’s evaluation includes both de customary justice, helping JUPITER to yield further jure metrics of performance—the strength of the insights on how the justice system overall can legal framework—and de facto indicators of the deliver better results for everyone. implementation and delivery of judicial services. JUPITER offers both operational and analytical This ensures a comprehensive assessment of gaps purposes. It aims to become a useful tool for in legal frameworks and practical implementation. governments and researchers alike to better The assessment’s design considers the broader diagnose, evaluate, and inform the implementation political economy context, acknowledging the of justice reforms. The tool’s focus on challenges complex factors that influence judicial systems and and recommendations is intended to help the World the delivery of justice. Bank and country policymakers to develop context- To date, the JUPITER assessment has been specific and evidence-based interventions to completed in two countries and is currently improve the delivery of justice. Its comprehensive underway in two others, with more in the planning datasets gathered through a standardized phase. Its methodology is designed in a flexible methodology help practitioners, researchers, and manner to facilitate adaptation to various country civil society to better understand the barriers and contexts, which can prove particularly important opportunities for reforming justice systems. As more in fragile and conflict-affected settings, where data is gathered from multiple country contexts, the political environment is highly uncertain. For JUPITER’s universal methodology and analytical instance, the JUPITER assessments in Liberia and rigor will facilitate cross-country comparisons and South Sudan customized court user questionnaires tracking progress. to the specific country contexts and sociocultural REFORMING JUSTICE 14 Prosperity Notes References Amirapu, A. 2021. “Justice delayed is growth denied: The effect of slow courts on relationship- specific industries in India.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 70 (1): 415–451. https://doi.org/10.1086/711171. Boehm, J., and Ezra Oberfield. 2020. “Misallocation in the Market for Inputs: Enforcement and the Organization of Production.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (4): 2007–2058. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa020. Bosio, E. 2024. “A Survey of Judicial Effectiveness: The Last Quarter Century of Empirical Evidence.” World Bank Research Observer. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkae007. Bosio, E., and Virginia Upegui. 2023. Improving access to justice in Liberia – A 2023 JUPITER assessment. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/40737. Bosio, E. and Philip McGrath. 2025. Reforming Justice – Fostering Engagement Between Statutory Courts and Customary Law Systems. Forthcoming. Bosio, E., and Manuel Ramos-Maqueda. 2025. JUPITER Methodological Note. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/ doc/6e743df1fadc6aa512dd2bb8dd691084-0350052025/jupiter-methodological-note Chirayath, L., Caroline Sage, and Michael Woolcock. 2005. “Customary Law and Policy Reform: Engaging with the Plurality of Justice Systems.” Washington, DC: World Bank. https://hdl. handle.net/10986/9075. Choi, D. D., J. Andrew Harris, and Fiona Shen-Bayh. 2022. “Ethnic bias in judicial decision making: Evidence from criminal appeals in Kenya.” American Political Science Review 116 (3): 1067–1080. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542100143X. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 2022. European judicial systems CEPEJ evaluation report: Part 1. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/cepej- report-2020-22-e-web/1680a86279. Update: Ramos-Maqueda, Manuel, and Daniel L. Chen. “The data revolution in justice.” World Development 186 (2025): 106834. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0305750X24003048. Shayo, M., and Asaf Zussman. 2017. “Conflict and the persistence of ethnic bias.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9 (4): 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1257/ app.20160220. REFORMING JUSTICE 15 Prosperity Notes Shvets, J. 2013. “Judicial institutions and firms’ external finance: Evidence from Russia.” The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 29 (4): 735–764. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ ews006. Yasir, S. 2024. “India’s judicial backlog poses serious challenges to justice.” The New York Times. January 13, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/13/world/asia/india-judicial- backlog.html. World Bank. 2022. Concept Note. Justice Pillars Towards Evidence-based Reform (ID: P179551). Washington, DC: World Bank. World Justice Project. 2019. Global Insights on Access to Justice. Washington, DC: World Justice Project. https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-A2J-2019.pdf. World Justice Project. 2021. “Measuring the Justice Gap: A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet Justice Needs Around the World.” https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research- and-data/access-justice/measuring-justice-gap. World Justice Project. 2022. Dissecting the Justice Gap in 104 Countries: WJP Justice Data Graphical Report I. Washington, DC: World Justice Project. https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/ files/documents/WJPJusticeDataGraphicalReport-Part1.pdf. The Times of India. 2010. “Courts Will Take 320 Years to Clear Backlog Cases: Justice Rao.” Times of India. March 6, 2010. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/courts-will-take-320- years-to-clear-backlog-cases-justice-rao/articleshow/5651782.cms. Prosperity Notes REFORMING JUSTICE | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | I 16 STITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | INSTITUTIONS | I