1 The Role of Justice in Development: Empirical Evidence 14 a significant role on crime desistance. For instance, two studies find that increasing non-carceral punishments such as fines or probation (in the context of DUI and traffic offenses) has a deterrent effect on reoffending (Hansen, 2015; Gehrsitz, 2017). Another intervention such as replacing short prison sentences or pre-trial detention with electronic monitoring also has net benefits on reducing recidivism–possibly due to the avoidance of the criminogenic effects of prison–and may improve secondary school completion for young offenders (Di Tella and Schargrodsky, 2013; Monnery, Henneguelle, and Kensey, 2016; Østergaard Larsen, 2017). On the other hand, the evidence on increasing prison sentences for those on the margin of being incarcerated shows mixed effects on future offending and employment.

There are two studies highlighting the importance of the difference between time served in prison relative and the initial, expected sentence (Bushway and Owens, 2013; Monnery, 2016). Conditional on the actual time served, those whose recommended sentences are longer tend to be more likely to recidivate after released.

There is also substantial evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy is effective at reducing recidivism (Voorhis et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2016; Barnes, Hyatt, and Sherman, 2017; Heller et al., 2017), and some evidence showing that drug courts (as an alternative to regular courts) can reduce recidivism (Prins and Officer, 2015). In addition, courts may increase access to jobs by providing rehabilitation certificates, shifting the risk of hiring someone from the employer to courts (Leasure and Stevens Andersen, 2016).

In a cross-country analysis using micro-data from 25 European countries, N. H. Mocan, Bielen, and Marneffe (2018) find that higher judicial quality, measured via the appointment procedures of judges and prosecutors, generates a two-fold effect: first, it diminishes individuals’ criminal and dishonest behaviors; and second, it reduces tolerance for unlawful behavior and increases regard for the rule of law, impacting society as a whole.

# **1.C Do Better Judicial Institutions Enhance Trust and Reduce Corruption?**

The fundamental basis of modern democracies is the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. When deriving the trias politica model, Montesquieu realized that “every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go” (Montesquieu, 1748). In order to prevent this abuse, a system was designed in which “power should be a check to power”, and the three branches would be separated, autonomous and independent from each other. In particular, the judiciary would hold accountable the other two branches and ensure fair resolution of conflicts among citizens. Even though the judiciary should hold accountable the other two branches of government, the empirical relationship between these two concepts is not so clearly defined.

Conceptually, the judiciary should play a crucial role in monitoring corruption as well as ensuring the integrity and quality of justice. A weak justice sector provides the ideal environment for corruption to expand and persist without being monitored. Moreover, when the justice sector institutions are seen as part of the corruption problem, access to a fair trial, and thus the quality of justice, are severely undermined. A corrupt judiciary opens the room for the powerful and wealthy to escape prosecution and conviction, and it may also preclude the rest of the population from their rightful access to a fair trial.

on actors varying from governments to private firms to individuals (Olken and Pande, 2012). Not only does it stunt economic growth, it might also invite political turmoil and diminish the quality of life. This section reviews literature on the effects of regulatory institutions as well as overall