This paper reviews the state of knowledge on the role of security and justice (S&J) in the development process. It presents available evidence and assessing the state of knowledge, describing the methodological challenges and how they are being addressed, and proposing areas for further research. The purpose is to enable donors to gain a better understanding of the returns available from investments in this area, in terms of economic growth, poverty reduction and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The paper looks at theories on the links between S&J and development, and the evidence used to test them, across a number of areas. It begins with the two main branches of research in the field: econometric studies on the impact of law and justice on economic performance; and bottom-up analysis (variously called access to justice or legal empowerment) on how insecurity and injustice affect the lives of poor people. It then considers evidence of linkages across four specific areas identified by DFID in the Terms of Reference: property and housing; crime and violence; gender discrimination; and governance.
Key findings of the paper are the following:
Overall, the literature makes a strong case that there are times and place where investments in S&J can be a very effective means of promoting development. Yet it is also clear that many of the claims made in the literature go beyond the available evidence, and need to be treated with some care. As one author put it, the idea of the rule of law may become ?conceptually overburdened when it is invoked for too many potentially opposed reasons.?29 To disentangle the web of causality involved, it may be useful to distinguish between four different potential linkages between S&J and development as follows:
Justice and poverty alleviation: Insecurity and injustice can be an acute source of vulnerability, due to loss of land and housing, crime and violence, or persecution and discrimination. The returns available from investment in S&J for poverty alleviation depend on the scale and nature of the underlying problems. For example, if the management of slum settlements is becoming a major issue, then the return on investment in urban S&J programmes may be very high. Likewise, if dispossession of widows is causing widespread destitution among female-headed households, then investments in property rights will emerge as a priority. The causal links between S&J and poverty alleviation are therefore strongly context-dependent. S&J programmes offer a set of tools that can be used in conjunction with other measures to address specific, observed causes of poverty.
Justice and efficient markets: The balance of evidence suggests that the commercial justice system needs to evolve in tandem with the market itself. There is unlikely to be much value in investing in commercial laws and institutions before there is a demand for them. In low-income contexts, reform of laws and justice institutions may facilitate foreign investment, although care should be taken to identify the specific needs in each country context. Where crime is a significant impact on business, policing resources can be channelled to specific places or to address particular crimes. This might include providing neighbourhood security in areas with a high concentration of household businesses. The priority given by the Commission on Legal Empowerment to legalising the informal sector needs to be further tested empirically. There may be options for building legal ?bridges‘ between the informal sector and the formal economy, to enable micro-business to access public goods and private services and trade more effectively.
Justice and social change: Legal systems both reflect and reinforce power relations and social exclusion, creating barriers that prevent certain social groups – women, casted groups, slum residents, ethnic minorities – escaping from poverty. Where this occurs, reform to laws and justice institutions may provide an avenue for social change. The legal empowerment literature argues persuasively that the answer is not generic investments in the justice system, but politically informed strategies to help the poor use the legal system to their advantage. However, where the justice system itself is a structural cause of inequality, it is by no means certain that it can become part of the solution. Legal empowerment may be most effective where promising dynamics (e.g., signs of judicial activism) are already observable, and when combined with other advocacy approaches in civil society or the political sphere.
Justice and governance: States must provide a minimum level of justice and security, or the vacuum is quickly filled by violence and disorder. All states therefore need to build and maintain a basic institutional infrastructure for making and enforcing laws. In circumstances of state fragility, investing in these institutions may be the overwhelming priority. Beyond establishing legitimate authority, states need the capacity to use law as a tool of policy, if they are to promote development. At a minimum, they need a basic set of rules and institutions to enable the market to operate. As their development goals become more ambitious, states need the capacity to use law to correct for market failures and address policy goals like environmental protection or public service provision. This suggests that the priorities are (1) to construct and maintain a basic institutional capacity to provide security and justice; and (2) to ensure that the development of these institutions keeps pace with the demands of the market and the willingness and capacity of the state to pursue development goals.
It is apparent that there is a need for a conceptually clearer and more empirically based ‘storyline’ of the role in S&J in development. However, it also appears that the evidence does not support the idea of a single, causal chain, applying across different countries and stages of development. Rather, the S&J field offers a repertoire of tools and techniques that developing countries and donors can bring to bear on specific development challenges.
