Turning Data Into Action: The World Justice Project and the Rule of Law

The phrase “The Rule of Law” is one we often hear and many of us invoke, but do we have a shared understanding of what it means? And even if we can arrive at a common definition, why does the Rule of Law matter? If it does matter, how well is it faring today in the tumultuous times in which we find ourselves? And where it needs to be defended, who are its champions? 

In this episode of Higher Callings, I talk with two champions of the Rule of Law, both of whom do that work through a nonprofit and non-partisan organization called the World Justice Project. Elizabeth (Betsy) Andersen is the Executive Director of WJP, and for several years has been leading WJP’s important and impressive work. Karen Green is a former guest on this podcast, a retired lawyer and judge, and now a mediator. She is a member of WJP’s Rule of Law Leadership Council, focused on bringing WJP’s work to the judiciary and the bar. Together, Betsy and Karen explain the work WJP does and why that work has become highly valued by organizations and governments throughout the world.

You can learn more about the World Justice Project at its website: https://worldjusticeproject.org/

Transcript

Turning Data Into Action: The World Justice Project and the Rule of Law
Host: Don Frederico
Guests: Elizabeth Andersen and Karen Green
Recorded: April 2024

Don: The phrase “the rule of law” is one we often hear and many of us invoke. But do we have a shared understanding of what it means? And even if we can arrive at a common definition, why does the rule of law matter? If it does matter, how well is it faring today in the tumultuous times in which we find ourselves? And where it needs to be defended, who are its champions? 

In this episode of Higher Callings, I talk with two champions of the rule of law, both of whom do that work through a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization called the World Justice Project. 

Elizabeth Anderson is the Executive Director of WJP, and for several years has been leading WJP's important and impressive work. 

Karen Green is a former guest on this podcast, a retired lawyer and judge, and now a mediator, who is a member of WJP's Rule of Law Leadership Council and is focused on bringing WJP's work to the judiciary and the bar. 

Together, Betsy and Karen explain the work WJP does and why that work has become highly valued by organizations and governments throughout the world.

(Excerpt) Betsy: We have a new strategic plan that is very much focused, as you suggest, in turning the data into action. And that's a sound bite. And it's taking advantage of the commitment that we see in a growing number of governments to take this data seriously and take action to strengthen the rule of law. And really working with those governments and other stakeholders in those countries where there is that kind of political will, to understand the data, diagnose the problems, and then co-create solutions. 

Don: I'm Don Frederico, and this is Higher Callings.

This is Don Frederico. I am really pleased today to be with two people who are involved in an organization called the World Justice Project. One of them is Karen Green, who has been a guest on this podcast before, and Karen is involved in dispute resolution now with her firm Greenlaw LLC. Welcome, Karen, to the podcast.

Karen: Thank you. 

Don: And I would encourage people to go back and listen to Karen's episode. Karen's a retired Superior Court judge in Massachusetts, and we had a wonderful discussion last year, which is when I learned about our next guest, Elizabeth Anderson. And may I call you Betsy? 

Betsy: Absolutely, please do.

Don: Okay, Betsy. You've gotten me used to that. Betsy is the Executive Director of the World Justice Project, which is really a very impressive and ambitious organization that's doing a lot of good in the world. So Betsy, welcome to the podcast. 

Betsy: Thanks so much. Delighted to be here. 

Don: Betsy, tell us a little bit about your background. What was it that prepared you for the work you're doing now at the World Justice Project? 

Betsy: Sure. Thanks very much. 

I'm a lawyer by training, but I've always been interested in using the law to strengthen governments. And I've done that in a number of different roles over the course of my career.

I got my start in this area first working for Human Rights Watch, documenting human rights violations and arguing to strengthen governments in the court of public opinion. And then I shifted to development approaches, working with development agencies to try to support government improvement through technical assistance, training, and advisory support for governments that were committed to reform and strengthening the work that they do. I did that with the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative, and then most recently have been with the World Justice Project. 

Don: What was it that inspired you to get involved in that kind of work?

Betsy: It's a really good question. I come from a background of business people in my family. But they were always, everyone in my family my father and mother, my grandparents, were very civically minded. And were involved in business, but also in community leadership and strengthening the quality of governance broadly through civil society. And I guess that's really inspired me and infused my career. 

Don: Was that something you were thinking about when you decided to go to law school or did that come up a little later for you? 

Betsy: Absolutely. When I went to law school, I actually got a joint degree in law and public policy. So I was, from the get go, committed to using law to strengthen governance.

Don: Karen, you have a role with the World Justice Project as well. I know you've been involved only relatively recently compared to Betsy. What is your role? 

Karen: So I've been a member of the Rule of Law Leadership Council since 2022. And I got involved after a good friend, Judy Perry Martinez, told me about the work she was doing. And I received an invitation to become a member and immediately accepted. 

Don: And what kinds of things have you done with the organization? 

Karen: I can tell you what I'm doing now. I've obviously tried to promote the data that the WJP produces, and I'm sure we'll hear more about that, through my various contacts, particularly within the judiciary and in the bar. And I'm currently serving as a judge in the World Justice Challenge, which I'm sure we'll hear more about. 

Don: I know a lot of the work that WJP does involves the rule of law. That's a term that gets bandied about a lot and I think it means some things to some people and different things to other people. But I'm wondering, Betsy, I know your organization has a definition of it. I just wonder, before we get too much into this conversation, I think it would be helpful if we explain to listeners what we mean when we say the rule of law.

Betsy: Sure. Well, it's actually a really important place to start because as you mentioned, we hear this phrase all the time in popular media, but it's often misused. In fact, I have a ever- growing file of news articles in which two people on different sides of different issues have claimed that their position is the rule of law position. And that's really confusing, I think, to the general public. 

So what we mean when we talk about the rule of law at the World Justice Project, and I should say this is not just us, this is an approach that has been embraced by the UN and is widely accepted around the world. We take a pretty broad and comprehensive approach to the rule of law. It's not just the laws and institutions on the books, but how are they working in practice. 

And our definition is that the rule of law is a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community commitment. That's an important piece, that the whole community has to be a part of it, that delivers on four universal principles. Accountability. That means both of private and public actors. Just laws. That the laws are clear, publicized, and stable, and applied evenly, and that they ensure basic human rights. Third principle is open government. That the processes by which the laws are adopted, administered, adjudicated, and enforced are accessible, fair, and efficient. And finally, that there is accessible and impartial justice. That justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals, like Karen, who are accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities that they serve. 

Don: That's quite a definition. And I guess if anybody wants to go back and look at it, that can be found at the WJP website too.

Betsy: Absolutely, in five different languages. 

Don: Okay. And that's worldjusticeproject.org, right? 

Betsy: Correct. 

Don: Okay. 

Well, I asked that question in part because it was just a few months ago, I think, when I heard somebody use the phrase rule of law as kind of an equivalent of what we used to hear and maybe still do as law and order. You know, before there was a TV show by that name. I know we're all probably old enough to remember when Richard Nixon was President. He was the law and order President. Even before that, when we look at what happened in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention in 1968, the sending in of the police, I guess it was, I don't think it was the National Guard, right, in Chicago.

But the troops that went in, that was all because law and order had to prevail. And that was a phrase that I've always understood to mean law enforcement. Law enforcement kind of dominating and stifling dissent, which is very different from the rule of law as you just described it and as we know it.

Betsy: Absolutely. We often talk about the distinction as the difference between rule of law and rule by law And what you're describing in law and order is really more rule by law But that distinction, it's quite fine and often lost on people.

Don: It's pretty subtle, but it's important. And I guess, just the phrase rule of law itself should be self-explanatory The law rules. It's not a person who rules. 

Betsy: Right. That's often, one of the shorthand expressions is no one above the law or a government of laws and not men, or people. So coming back to the law and order, that means the law applies also to the law enforcement. So they are bound. Certainly law enforcement is part of rule of law. But that's only half of the equation. That power is also constrained by law. 

Don: Yep. Karen, were you going to say something? 

Karen: No, I was just going to say that WJP's definition is not rule by law regardless of whether those laws are fairly, equitably, transparently, consistently, and justly enforced.

Don: Yeah . Okay. You know, it strikes me, we're going to move beyond this in a minute, but before we do, I just want to say, it strikes me what an extraordinary time we're in in this country right now for the rule of law. We just heard a Supreme Court argument about separation of powers and the power of a President, which is a very important rule of law issue.

We now see a former President on trial in a state court in New York for alleged criminal conduct. So we're seeing really extreme examples of the rule of law playing out in our country right now in ways that maybe we would never have predicted. And I think it's a test. I think our rule of law in this country to some extent is being tested.

And I don't mean that in a partisan way. Whichever side of the political debate you support, I think you'd have to admit that if you're focused on the rule of law, these are really extraordinary times. 

Betsy: There's no question. Yeah. This is in many ways the issue of our time.

Don: And I guess, the one last question before we move on is why does it matter? Why is this so important? Why do you have a whole organization that is committed to the promotion and assessment of the rule of law throughout the world? 

Betsy: Well, we at WJP, and our data bears this out, really think that the rule of law is foundational. That this is kind of critical to so much that we are trying to achieve in our societies more broadly. That the rule of law creates kind of a level playing field in which communities can prosper, in which there is opportunity and justice and peace. And we see that, I'll tell you in a bit, about our Rule of Law Index.

It's an annual measure of the rule of law that we do globally. And we can see in that data very clear correlations. between rule of law and GDP. Rule of law and health outcomes. 

Don: And these are positive correlations. 

Betsy: Absolutely, absolutely. The more rule of law, the longer life expectancy or the lower infant mortality, for example.

The more rule of law, higher levels of education in societies. So, these are correlations. The causal relationships are rather complex, but we believe quite fervently that the rule of law contributes significantly to these outcomes. 

Don: And it's certainly always been an important foundation for the United States, from its founding.

We'll get to the Rule of Law Index in a minute because that is really fascinating work that WJP does. But before we drill down to that, can you talk a little more broadly about what is the mission of WJP? What are the types of things it does? 

Betsy: Sure. Broadly, our mission is to build knowledge, create awareness, and stimulate action to strengthen the rule of law around the world.

We really think of ourselves as a resource to the global rule of law movement, something of a think tank that brings data and evidence to bear on rule of law questions and supports stakeholders across the globe who are working to strengthen rule of law and governance in their communities. 

Don: And can you give us some examples? How are you doing that? We'll talk about the Index, so I know that's a big part of what you do. But it's not the only thing you do. What else does the organization do? 

Betsy: A big part is the Index and other efforts to really measure the rule of law. Bring data and evidence to bear on these questions so people can identify strengths and weaknesses in their governance and then work on the areas that need attention.

We try to identify effective strategies for strengthening the rule of law. Karen mentioned the World Justice Challenge. She's a judge of this year and this is a global competition that we run annually in order to identify innovators and effective actors and strategies for strengthening the rule of law. And then we support those organizations with grants and we promote their approaches to others around the world. 

We do a lot of convening at the national, regional, and global level to bring this community together for shared problem solving and learning from one another. Our World Justice Forum is a biennial convening. We like to think of it as the Davos for the rule of law community. And we hope folks will think about joining us next time. 

Don: And you have some pretty high-level people involved in this. I've noticed some world leaders who may no longer be in their leadership roles in their countries are affiliated in some capacity with WJP. And you were founded by somebody who was a very high-level person at Microsoft at one time and President of the American Bar Association. Do you want to talk at all about that? 

Betsy: Sure. WJP was the brainchild of Bill Neukom, who, as you mentioned, had been the longtime chief legal officer at Microsoft. And he was in 2007, 2008, serving as President of the American Bar Association. And as his presidential initiative for the bar, decided that he would focus on the rule of law, and in particular, defining and measuring it. 

We have a saying here at WJP, "If you want to change it, you gotta measure it." And that really is a mantra that we inherited from Bill and has informed our work from the get-go.

And we have his leadership in an on ongoing way as our co-founder and CEO. But as you mentioned, many other prominent individuals, not just from law. One of the things that we emphasize at WJP is that the rule of law is not just for judges and lawyers. It's really something that benefits all of us and that everyone in society has a role in strengthening.

And so we have on our board, for example, leading journalists, engineers, judges and lawyers, of course, business people, and other prominent leaders in their communities. 

Don: And I noticed, too, when I was looking through the lists of people, I know you have different categories that they fall in, but to the extent I could tell, it looked like It was, as it should be, it was a nonpartisan organization.

I think I recognize some Democratic names and some Republican names, very much at high levels within your organization. Am I right about that? 

Betsy: Absolutely. We are fervently nonpartisan. We do think that this is a cause that all should embrace. 

Don: Karen, can you tell us a little bit about some of the work you've been doing with the part of World Justice Project you're involved in?

Karen: What I've been doing is, as I said, is largely trying to increase awareness about WJP's work. And some of the ways I've been doing that is by talking to some people we know, Don, at the Boston Bar Association and other organizations, including the Fleishman Foundation, where Betsy graciously served as a speaker as recently as about a month ago.

So I've been doing that and I've been thinking about judicial independence and how I can assist WJP in some of the work it's doing to ensure judicial independence. But the immediate thing I'm doing, and that I'm going to be focused on in the next month. Is the World Justice Challenge. 

Don: So what is that exactly? What is the World Justice Challenge? 

Karen: So it's basically a challenge in which WJP invites people to compete, to develop effective and replicable rule of law initiatives. The theme this year is the Rule of Law: Foundations of Democracy. And WJP has received over 400 applications, representing ideas from 109 countries. The field's now been narrowed to a number of finalists who are competing for five awards of $20,000 each in five different categories, which this year are electoral processes, justice institutions, media and information, because the media obviously has a role to play, youth engagement, and the U. S. Building Trust Initiative. And the committee, in which I'm only a member, and is being chaired by two very well-respected members of the board, will select awardees in four of these five categories. One category, the selection will be made by past awardees. 

Don: That's an example of how international the organization is. And just one example of the work you do, that has to take a lot of time and involve a lot of people. 

Betsy, I'm wondering, I don't know how you would count this, but you probably do, if I were to ask you how many people are involved in the World Justice Project worldwide, what are we talking? We're not talking about two dozen people. We're talking about large numbers of people contributing to the work, right? 

Betsy: In one way or another, absolutely. 

We have a staff and consultants working as part of our team of about 65. We of course have board and our leadership council dozens in those cohorts. 

And then we start thinking about our data collection. And we survey about 3, 000 lawyers annually for our WJP Rule of Law Index in 142 countries. And that data also reflects the views of over 100, 000 households who are interviewed as part of that. 

Don: And those are not just lawyers in other words.

Betsy: Yeah. Those are just ordinary folks. 

Don: Okay. That's really extraordinary. And I think where I see it reflected the most probably is in the Rule of Law Index, so maybe we can turn to that now. Tell us what it is, how long it's been going, how it works. I can break that down for you if you want, but can you get started?

Betsy: Sure. No, I'm happy to. 

The Index is an annual study of the rule of law. It measures the rule of law now in 142 countries. We've been doing this exercise since 2008. We started just in eight countries, and it's grown over that time, now covering 142 countries. 

And we measure the rule of law in eight different dimensions. Those are constraints on government powers, the checks and balances that we often associate with the rule of law. Absence of corruption is the second factor. Third is open government. Fourth is fundamental rights. Fifth is order and security. That's the law-and-order piece that you mentioned, but it's only one of eight. Sixth is regulatory enforcement. Seventh is civil justice. And eighth is criminal justice. 

And then we break each of those factors down into sub-factors. For example, in corruption, we break that down into, is it corruption in the executive branch, or in the legislature, or in the judiciary, or in the police and military? And by slicing and dicing the rule of law in this way, it helps various stakeholders to understand in a more fine-grained way what's really going on. Where are the strengths and where are the weaknesses. Makes the data more actionable.

Don: So tell me about the collection of the data. How do you go about getting this information from the people that are being surveyed?

Betsy: So from the beginning, we knew we wanted to go beyond just measuring which laws and institutions are on the books, what's in the Constitution. We really wanted to know, how is that all working in practice? Because as we well know, many countries have beautiful constitutions, perfect laws, but they're not implemented or enforced in practice. And it's that rule of law, the rule of law in people's lives, that we really wanted to measure. 

So to do that, we developed a survey methodology. And we have a series of surveys that we undertake to ask both practitioners, legal practitioners and academics, and also health practitioners, interestingly. We've found in the health sector we can ask questions about, especially corruption and discrimination. If there's corruption and discrimination in a society, it's going to show up in the health system. So we ask questions about that of health practitioners. 

And then we survey ordinary folks, a representative sample of households in each country. All told, we ask over 550 questions of these different cohorts. And they're multiple-choice questions, so we can systematically assign numeric values to the answers, add them up and average them, and come up with a score and ranking for each country on each of those factors and each of the sub-factors as well as overall.

Don: Wow. For somebody like me who, I guess when I think of the rule of law, I think of it in qualitative terms. It seems quite innovative to try to quantify it. 

Tell me about that decision and how you confirm the validity of the results of the survey? In lay terms. I don't want to get into a technical conversation about that, but just how do you take something that intuitively is a qualitative thing and develop a scoring system and make sure that scoring system is accurate to measure it quantitatively?

Betsy: You're absolutely right. This was the innovation behind the Index, the innovative idea behind the Index when it was established in 2007, 2008. Since that time, other metrics have been developed of the same kind. But we are still, I think, the leading source of independent and original data on the rule of law that is quantitative. 

And that's quite helpful for a number of reasons. One, it makes it globally comparable. So we're asking the same surveys and have the same methodology now in 142 countries. You can make comparisons across countries. And that's quite useful to learn what's working, what's not, where might we adopt a model from another place that's getting a better score, for example.

Second, it makes the data useful in these analyses of correlations with other outcomes that I mentioned that makes a very powerful case for the rule of law. And it makes it quite actionable around those issues. 

Also, I think, with qualitative data there's a risk sometimes that findings can be dismissed as, oh, that's a rogue actor or just one case. But when you bring a quantitative evidence base to bear, then you have a much more powerful diagnostic of what's going on. 

Don: Yeah, especially when you're getting that information from large numbers of people like you do.

Betsy: Exactly. 

Don: So what's the point, though? I ask that somewhat facetiously. You're measuring it and it's important to measure it, but then once you have the data, and I understand you do this every year, what do you do with that? How does it make a difference? 

Betsy: What we've found is this data is quite valuable to a wide range of decision makers. And it's now, this data set has been embraced by a number of international organizations and other stakeholders as a tool for their own decision making. 

For example, the World Bank and the IMF use it to evaluate their investments. The U. S. Chamber of Commerce has incorporated it into its rule of law dashboard to inform its members about the risk profile of places in which they may do business. A lot of multinational corporations use it. The rating agencies use it to evaluate risk. And why that is important is that then it becomes quite salient and motivating to governments across the world who are interested in attracting investment. And they recognize that these decision makers care about the rule of law and are using this metric to inform their decision making.

And so more and more we have now governments coming to us and saying, "We get it. It's important. How can we improve in your Index?" 

Don: Do you see it actually making a difference in people's lives? 

Betsy: Oh, absolutely. What we see playing out now in scores of countries is that these indicators have been officially embraced by governments and tied to specific plans for reforms, for development efforts, governments reforming laws, creating new institutions to strengthen the rule of law in ways that will show up in our Index. 

Just one example from Uzbekistan. The former Soviet state was for almost two decades following the end of the Cold War really stuck in a very repressive, regressive regime. But with change in government in recent years there are reformists who have come into the fore. They have embraced the Index and made commitments to strengthen the rule of law. They've studied the methodology and what its findings show about the weaknesses in Uzbekistan. And they have designed reforms to be responsive. 

They have, for example, eliminated many laws and regulations which were essentially gumming up the works and creating opportunities for corruption and graft in their system and complicating people's lives and economic activity in the country. They've created new courts and jurisdiction for citizens to sue the government. And this is, seems maybe something we take for granted here in the United States, but this is quite extraordinary in that context. 

And the Minister of Justice told an audience at our last World Justice Forum that citizens were winning in more than 50 percent of the cases in against the government. And he was proud of that, as well he should be, as a sign of accountability that was going in both ways. And it was quite new in that country. 

Don: Oh, that's great. 

We've been talking about the Index, but we haven't actually described it for people. 

And I guess I'm thinking of it right now as, if somebody is familiar with the college rankings that U. S. News puts out, it just measures different things about colleges, different factors, and then it comes up with a ranking, and everybody who has college age children or has been to college recently should be familiar with those. 

And this is something very similar. There's a lot more that goes into this than I suspect goes into U. S. News college rankings, though I don't really know what they do. And you end up with a list of countries and they're ranked from one to 142. First, they have a point score and their point score then translates into a ranking of number one through 142, one being the strongest in the Rule of Law Index and 142 being the weakest in the Rule of Law Index, right?

Betsy: That's right. 

Karen: But you can slice and dice the data for any particular country as well. 

Don: In other words, you can dig right into all the different factors that they consider. 

Betsy: And that's quite interesting because many countries may be in one place in their overall ranking, that's the average of the eight, but in any one of those factors, they could have some real weakness.

Don: And I actually saw that, and we're going to talk about that in a minute, with the United States ranking. But before we get to that, I guess the value of that is they can see where they're weak and where they need the most work, and they can dedicate resources to that if they choose to do so. 

Betsy: Yeah, and the ranking gets a lot of attention. And when we first started the Index, we didn't have the rankings in the first edition or two. And there was a lot of debate internally about whether we should do that, or would it become really distracting? In the end, we decided to do it. It is attention getting. Countries care about where they are, particularly vis a vis their neighbors. 

But when we get into dialogue with governments, we really try to move attention beyond the rankings and talk more about the scores on specific issues. And most importantly, which direction? What's the trend? Are they moving up or down in their score? And that's what we care about most. 

Don: Yeah, that comes out in the reports you produce. All of this again is on the World Justice Project website. I'll put a link to the website in the show notes for this episode of the podcast. But there is a lot of focus in the summaries of the rankings and the scoring on directions, and how many countries are doing better compared to previous years, and how many countries have gone down in their points in the rule of law from previous years.

And I have to say, I'm concerned about what I see. There are more countries that seem to be falling in the rule of law than countries that are doing better in the rule of law. Do you want to talk about that? 

Betsy: Yeah, unfortunately that's a persistent trend that we have seen since 2016. That's what we really mark as the beginning of what we characterize as a rule of law recession. Every year since 2016, we've seen more countries declining than improving. 

Don: Is that the year you started the Index or did you start it before that? 

Betsy: No, we started back in 2008. But it's been really since that period.

Don: And am I right, it's been a consistent downward trend for those years? 

Betsy: Yes and no. Among all those countries, it's not the same countries declining every year. It's a majority every year that is declining. But many countries go up and down. But overall the vast majority have declined over that period. And each year, a majority has declined. 

Moreover, what we find is that the declines, the countries that are declining in the Index, the declines are steeper than those that are improving. Overall, that, too, is quite concerning. And we see many countries declining year over year. It's only a handful that are improving year over year. 

Don: So I have to say, I've looked at the Index and a few things jumped out at me. The first thing that jumped out at me was your top seven countries. They're all in Northern Europe. It's Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Do you have any hypothesis or theory about why those countries that are located in that particular region are doing so well? 

Betsy: There's strong commitment to these values in those countries. It's reflected in their constitutional order and in the institutions that implement those constitutional structures. They are wealthy countries, so they are able to invest in their justice systems in ways that I think generate positive outcomes. They are generally more homogenous countries. And so they don't have some of the tensions and issues of discrimination that are reflected in negative scores in the Index as well. 

Don: I was a little disappointed to see where the United States is in the ranking. The United States as of 2023 was at number 26. The U.K. is at 15. But some of the countries, in addition to the ones I just rattled off, that are ahead of the U.S. in the rankings include countries like Estonia, Japan, Lithuania, Czechia, Latvia, Spain, and Uruguay. For a country that prides itself so much on our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our system of government, our separation of powers, I was just surprised that we're not in the top 10 at least. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised. But the United States ranking also has been falling as I understand it, right? 

Betsy: It has, yes, since 2016. Again, those trends have been playing out here in the U. S. as well.

Don: Karen?

Karen: I was just going to say there was a slight uptick improvement after 2020, but then it declined again in 2023. 

Don: Yeah. And then I want to talk a little more about the findings, and then I want to hear from you, Betsy, about. what can be done. I guess in our own country, maybe what can be done in other countries as well.

But I looked at some slides you had presented to the American Bar Association, and they summarized some of the data, in particular with respect to the United States. And this is what really shocked me. On the category of accessibility and affordability of civil justice, the United States ranked 115. On discrimination, 106. On impartiality of the criminal justice system, 109. On the absence of discrimination in civil justice, 124. So we must have done pretty well on some other categories to end up at 26, but those scores are just horrible. 

And I wonder, as I think about the meaning of those categories, the one common thread I can discern is race. That there's a lot of potentially race and our racial strife in this country, racial tension is contributing to all of those scores. But maybe that's not right. And I thought I'd just ask you what you read into those numbers. 

Betsy: Yeah. I think race is certainly a part of it, but there's more than that. And maybe I can drill down on accessibility and affordability of civil justice as an example, where the U. S. is 115th, as you mentioned.

And certainly that is a challenge for people of color in this country, but not just for people of color. Our research, and we've done separate studies beyond the Index of access to justice. We did legal needs surveys in 101 countries, including the United States, and found pretty astonishing data about the prevalence of legal problems that people have. The data suggests that over 60 percent of Americans have had a legal problem in the last two years prior to when this study was conducted. And the vast majority did not turn to lawyers and courts to solve those problems. 

The most common reason they didn't is that they didn't even understand their problem as legal. So we have a basic issue around education of people about their legal rights and the avenues for redress. And then there were significant problems about affordability of assistance and whether people could afford legal counsel or other assistance needed to solve their problems, and other barriers of that nature that prevent people from accessing justice. So yes, race is a factor, but it is not the only factor. 

Don: Okay, yeah. 

I guess I'm wondering what do other countries do that we aren't doing? The countries that are doing better in these categories, what are they getting right that we're getting wrong?

Betsy: There are a range of strategies and approaches, and we often emphasize that the solution has to be tailored to each context. It's not a cookie-cutter approach where you can say, "Oh, Estonia's got it figured out. Let's try that here in the United States." Because it's a very different context.

But where we see progress are jurisdictions that are embracing principles of openness in their justice system. They are embracing deregulation, elimination of red tape and complicated legal requirements, simplifying forms, making it easier for people to understand and navigate the system.

And jurisdictions that are embracing technology. And Estonia is a great example of this. They've probably got one of the best systems in the world in terms of, it's a small country so they can afford to do it and do it efficiently, but they've really embraced technology in their justice system in ways that are contributing to efficiency and effectiveness and justice outcomes.

Don: What can governments, bar associations, lawyers in the United States be doing? Do you have any concrete recommendations other than just pouring more money into the system to support legal services for people that can't afford their own lawyers? 

Betsy: Yeah. Specifically on affordability and accessibility of the justice system, there is a lot of innovation underway in the United States and other places.

Most states have an Access to Justice Commission and there's great work being done there to study what are some of the obstacles that people face and design reforms and laws and processes to make it easier for people to solve their problems. Bar associations and lawyers can get involved with and support those efforts.

More broadly, beyond the affordability and accessibility of the justice system, thinking about other rule of law challenges in the United States, I think it's critically important that we educate our citizens about the justice system and about the rule of law. 

Don: Civics education is just so pathetic in our country. We've gone downhill quite a bit, as far as I can tell. 

Betsy: We really have. And I know Karen cares a lot about this, so maybe she wants to jump in with some ideas. 

Karen: I was just going to say that there are organizations and bar associations throughout the country who are trying very hard. to come up with creative ideas, including the use of AI, which is being used in interesting ways to simplify forms, make things easier for people who wish to access the justice system. But we do have a long way to go. 

Don: Yeah. And civics education is much broader than that too. It's not just about the justice system. It's about government as a whole. And I think I read somewhere in one of the reports that WJP puts out, that is an area that needs focus more broadly than just in terms of providing affordable legal services.

Karen: I think also that there's a need to educate younger folks about history, and what we can learn from history. I heard several people recently speak about how, particularly currently, knowing one's history can help one understand how to get over some of the problems we're now confronting.

Don: Absolutely. Go ahead, Betsy. 

Betsy: Yeah, I was just going to say, really coming back to our earlier discussion about the definition of rule of law, I think that lawyers and bar leaders in particular have a role to play in standing up for the true rule of law ideals and refuting those who misuse the concept, abuse the concept. And I encourage folks to do that in their everyday conversations, op-eds, letters to the editor, any opportunity that they can.

Karen: And WJP has a toolkit that can be used by bar leaders to do just that kind of education and to basically assist people throughout the country, to the extent we want to focus on the U. S., in presenting what the data shows and brainstorming on ways to advance the rule of law, rather than further its decline.

Don: Yeah. And I know, we're lucky in Massachusetts to have good bar associations that are very committed to that kind of work. I don't know if every bar association in the country is. I tend to think there's probably a wide range of experience there. The American Bar Association, I know, is very committed to the rule of law.

Karen, you and I both have had different involvements in the American Bar Association. Betsy, I know you present at the annual and midyear meetings to the ABA on the work that WJP is doing, which was an offshoot of an American Bar Association project, as I understand it. 

I've seen in some of your materials the plans that WJP has for this year, some of the new initiatives that it's launched. What is the WJP planning to do? I think, as I understand it, you're moving from an emphasis on measuring to doing more action. Can you talk about that a little bit? 

Betsy: Sure. We have a new strategic plan that is very much focused, as you suggest, in turning the data into action. And that's a sound bite. And it's taking advantage of the commitment that we see in a growing number of governments to take this data seriously and take action to strengthen the rule of law. And really working with those governments and other stakeholders in those countries where there is that kind of political will, to understand the data, diagnose the problems, and then co-create solutions, identify reforms that can be implemented to address the weaknesses. And then use the data to keep track of that, hold folks accountable, see what's working, and continue to refine the efforts and move forward.

We've got projects. I was just in the Dominican Republic over the weekend, signing a memorandum of understanding with the President of the Supreme Court there to work together on a major initiative to develop indicators that the court can use for the entire justice system to measure their progress and their goals that they're developing to improve the efficiency and accessibility of their justice system.

Don: That's great. I know you had mentioned when we talked earlier something about Thailand and I had told you the story about how I had just been in the right place at the right time to meet a group of lawyers from Thailand who were called The Lawyers Council of Thailand. But this was years ago. This was probably 15 or 20 years ago now. But I know you've been doing work there and in other countries. I know we talked about Mexico and I think a few others. What initiatives are you particularly proud of at this point with some of the countries you've worked in? 

Betsy: You mentioned Mexico and that really stands out as a place where we've worked for a number of years in a rather intensive way to pursue this strategy of gathering data and then working with local stakeholders to take action on it. There we've done something that we'd like to do in other jurisdictions where we've measured the rule of law at the sub national level. 

Mexico is of course in our index, but we took that same approach and measured the rule of law in all 32 states of Mexico. Mexico, like the United States, is a federal system. So a lot of the rule of law action is at the local level, at the state level, or even municipal level. So when you map it across the states, we can see differences. Some states are stronger in different issues. 

And then we've fostered that same kind of process. Some healthy competition among states. Some learning from one state to the other about what's working in one place and another. We had 28 of the 32 states that have embraced this data as one of their official metrics for diagnosing, defining their reform challenges and then measuring progress going forward.

We're doing a project like that in all 27 member states of the European Union right now. We're measuring the rule of law at the sub national level again so we can get down at the local level, see urban and rural, where are the strengths and weaknesses, and then work with different partners to address those weaknesses.

We would love to do that project in the United States. We think there are obviously differences in the quality of the rule of law across our 50 states. And it would be quite beneficial to bring this kind of evidence to bear on conversations about that. 

Don: Have you been getting any interest from our judiciary or other branches of government here in the U. S.? 

Betsy: Absolutely. It's really quite remarkable. I've had a growing number of, for better or worse, a growing number of invitations from judicial bodies, institutions, and organizations in the United States to come talk to them about our data and what it should focus them on. I think there's some anxiousness in our judiciary about the quality of the rule of law here in the United States and an interest in understanding what this data tells them.

Don: That sounds actually very encouraging. That's great. 

I know you're going to be presenting again to the American Bar Association at the annual meeting in August. I don't know if you want to say a few words about that. 

Betsy: Absolutely. I think Karen mentioned our U. S. building trust campaign, and this is a project that's focused on the United States right now because we do see these worrying trends in the United States and a ripple effect from them around the world. So we want to do what we can to reverse those negative trends. 

So we are doing extra data collection in the United States. We are running our household survey in the United States right now. And we'll be publishing the results of that in a report that launches at the ABA meeting in August and will, we think, be a real call to action for lawyers and others to address the concerns that data highlight.

We are bringing our World Justice Challenge finalists, this competition that Karen is involved in, we're bringing those 30 finalists to the ABA annual meeting and we'll have a day-long convening there. We're calling it "Meet the Challenge," and an opportunity for people to learn from these change makers from all over the world and hopefully be inspired to take similar action here in the United States.

Don: This is just so exciting. And I haven't heard much about this until Karen brought it to my attention last year when we spoke. I hope you're getting the word out. I hope people become more aware of this. I hope this podcast helps in whatever small way it can. I think the work your organization is doing is just so exciting and so inspiring and important, critically important to the future of our democracy in the United States, but also to other countries as well.

Are there any parting words you'd like to say to our listeners, about the rule of law, about what they could be doing, anything at all that you'd like to convey? 

Betsy: I guess I would just emphasize some of the ideas that we've been talking about throughout the program, which is, there are very serious rule of law concerns in the United States and around the world. That this is something that all of us need to take seriously and all of us can do something about. And it's not irreversible.

I think sometimes it feels overwhelming and folks throw their hands up, but we know from our data lots of examples of countries that have frankly had much worse rule of law challenges than the United States does currently and have turned it around, and we can too. 

Don: Strikes me that the rule of law is something that many people may not think about until they lose it.

Karen: That's exactly right. 

Don: It's just so important not to let that happen. 

Thank you both for all the work you're doing. Karen, for your involvement in WJP. Betsy, for your leadership of the organization. I don't know how you find time to sleep, frankly, with all the things going on. It's really heartening to hear about the important work that's going on and all the people who are contributing to it and care enough about the rule of law to take it on. So thank you both very much and I look forward to getting the word out when this podcast is ready to post. 

Betsy: Thank you.

Karen: Thank you.