¹ United Nations ESCAP, Fact Sheet (Bangkok: United Nations Economic & Social Commission for Asia & the Pacific, 2006).Google ScholarPubMed

² They are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), and Vietnam. I associate Southeast Asia with the territories of these 11 states while bearing in the mind that state borders and States are socially constructed and that they are resisted and contested by the people they claim to govern. See, e.g. Scott, James C., The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010)Google ScholarPubMed. All of the 11 states are members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), with the exception of Timor-Leste, which is seeking to become a member.

³ Terms such as “socio-legal studies,” “sociology of law,” and “law and society” may carry different connotations for different scholars, depending on their backgrounds. Nelken, David, Beyond Law in Context: Developing a Sociological Understanding of Law (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009).Google Scholar In this article and the Southeast Asian project described herein, “socio-legal studies” and “law and society” are used interchangeably. As explained in the main text, I take the position that while socio-legal research should exclude studies that focus on doctrinal analyses or leading appellate cases, it should embrace diverse methods and methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative, as well as scholars from a wide range of backgrounds and training.

⁴ In this article, I use “law” to refer to formal rules enacted by the State, that is, state or official law, and “other normative orderings,” “alternative norms” or like phrases to refer to non-state rules that also have the effect of regulating and organising social life and human relations. Examples include religious norms, customs, community practices, and unwritten, implicit conventions that govern political behaviour. Nonetheless, I recognise and accept that socio-legal scholars have different views about the definition of “law.” Some scholars believe that “law” should encompass non-state or unofficial law; others reserve the term exclusively for state-enacted rules. Merry, Sally E., “Legal Pluralism” (1988) 22 Law & Society Review 869–896 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tamanaha, Brian Z., “Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global” (2008) 30 Sydney Law Review 375–411 Google Scholar. The debate overlaps with contentions over the meaning of “legal pluralism.” In the social science sense, “legal pluralism” refers to an empirical reality of multiple normative orders, meaning that legal pluralism is a universal feature of social organisation in any society ( Griffiths, John, “What is Legal Pluralism?” (1986) 24 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar), where law is the self-regulation of a semi-autonomous field porous and susceptible to influences by rules and elements external to that field. Moore, Sally Falk, “Law and Social Change: The Semi-autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study” (1973) 7 Law & Soc’ Rev. 719–746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benda-Beckmann, Franz von, “Comment on Merry” (1988) 22 Law & Soc’y Rev. 897902.Google Scholar This conceptualisation of “law” is broader than the juristic sense (Griffiths, ibid.) that delineates the different bodies of state law enacted to govern different population groups. See, e.g. M. B. Hooker, Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-colonial Laws (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975). According to the first view, excluding unofficial normative orderings from “law” privileges the centralism of state law in the study of legal pluralism; however, critics find the formulation too elastic (see, e.g. Tamanaha, ibid.) or worry that it de-centres attention on the coercive power of States and its monopoly over symbolic power wielded through its laws (Merry, ibid.). One way to navigate this tension is to regard the plurality of normative orders as a point of departure for empirical research (Benda-Beckmann, F., ibid.) rather than a source of contention, and be clear about one’s chosen approach and level of analysis. Benda-Beckmann, Franz von, “Who’s Afraid of Legal Pluralism?” (2002) 47 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 37–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Geertz, Clifford, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (New York: Basic Books, 1983)Google Scholar cited in Harding, Andrew J., “Comparative Law and Legal Transplantation in South East Asia: Making Sense of the ‘Nomic Din’” in Nelken, D. & Feest, J., eds., Adapting Legal Cultures (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001)Google Scholar.

⁶ The Law & Society Association has a vibrant “East Asian Law & Society” research network that holds a separate, biannual regional conference with the same name. It is predominantly made up of scholars who research Northeast Asian countries such as China, Japan, and Korea. In recent years, however, their leaders have made effort to reach out to Southeast Asian-oriented colleagues. Partly due to their outreach and partly due to initiatives such as the one related to this special issue, Southeast Asia is gaining more visibility within this larger East Asian community, including the new Asian Journal of Law & Society launched in January 2014. For more about the new journal’s coverage on Southeast Asia, see note 40.

⁷ Nelken, supra note 3.

⁸ Also see the Preface in this special issue.

⁹ Frank Munger, “Revolution Imagined: Cause Advocacy, Consumer Rights, and the Evolving Role of NGOs in Thailand (2014); John Gillespie, “New Transnational Governance and the Changing Composition of Regulatory Pluralism in Southeast Asia (2013); Helena Whalen-Bridge, “Conceptualisation of Pro Bono in Singapore” (2014); Agung Wardana, “Alliances and Contestation in the Legal Production of Space: The Case of Bali” (2014); Stacia Haynie & Tao L. Dumas, “The Philippine Supreme Court and Regime Response” (2014).

¹⁰ See note 4.

¹¹ Benda-Beckman, Franz von & Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von, “The Dynamics of Change and Continuity in Plural Legal Orders” (2006b) 53–54 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law Google Scholar 1-44.

¹² Halliday, Terence & Carruthers, Bruce, Bankrupt: Global Lawmaking and Systemic Financial Crisis (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

¹³ Merry, Sally E., Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The introduction by Collier et al. (1994) to the 1994 Law & Society Review, the journal’s only special issue on Southeast Asia, elucidates some of these pluralistic characteristics. Collier, Jane et al., “Editors’ Introduction” (1994) 28 Law & Soc’y Rev. 417–428.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Only Thailand, or Siam at the time, avoided becoming formally colonised by Western powers. However, it faced constant threats from the British to its west, and the French to its east, and tried to construct Western-style political and legal institutions over existing ones. Ibid.

¹⁶ That is, 20 per cent or more of a national population are aged 15-24, and the cohort of working-age adults are growing relative to the dependent population. United Nations ESCAP, supra note 1.

¹⁷ United Nations ESCAP, ibid.

¹⁸ Collier et al., supra note 14 at 417.

¹⁹ Simon, Rita J. & Lunch, James P., “The Sociology of Law: Where We Have Been and Where We Might Be Going” (1989) 23 Law & Soc’y Rev. 825–848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mather, Lynn, “Reflections on the Reach of Law (and Society) Post 9/11: An American Superhero?” (2003) 37 Law & Soc’y Rev. 263–282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morrill, Calvin, “Opening Remarks” presented at The Center for the Study of Law & Society’s 50th Anniversary Conference: The Future of Law & Society (California, Berkeley, 3 Nov 2011)Google Scholar.

²⁰ Scott, James C., Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Resistance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

²¹ Merry, Sally E., “Resistance and the Cultural Power of Law” (1995) 29 Law & Soc’y Rev. 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Ewick, Patricia & Silbey, Susan S., The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).Google Scholar

²³ Gilliom, John, Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).Google Scholar

²⁴ Nielsen, Laura Beth, License to Harass: Law, Hierarchy, and Offensive Public Speech (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004).Google Scholar

²⁵ To be clear, Scott, supra note 20, does not speak of everyday resistance specifically in relation to state law. He differentiates between personal rule (e.g. landlord-tenant relationships) and impersonal rule (e.g. scientific technologies, bureaucratic rules, state regulations, and other modern forms of social control), but points out that a mediating element of personal rule also exists in the impersonal rule of modern social control that Michel Foucault had in mind. Scott, James C., Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990)Google Scholar. Ewick and Silbey, supra note 22, adopt the approach that “law” and “legality” encompass state law and non-state normative orders, such as community practices, whereas Gilliom, supra note 23, and Nielsen, supra note 24, appear to denote “law” more clearly as being that of official law.

²⁶ Engel, David M. & Engel, Jaruwan S., Tort, Custom and Karma: Globalization and Legal Consciousness in Thailand (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

²⁷ Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, Toward a New Common Sense: Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition (New York: Routledge, 1995).Google Scholar

²⁸ See, e.g. Benda-Beckmann, Franz von & Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von, Political Transformations of an Indonesian Polity: The Nagari from Colonisation to Decentralisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von, “Forum Shopping and Shopping Forums: Dispute Processing in a Minangkabau Village in West Sumatra” (1981) 19 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 117–159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von, “The Social Significance of Minangkabau State Court Decisions” (1985) 23 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 1–68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von, “Development, Law and Gender-skewig” (1990-1991) 30&31 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 87–120 Google Scholar; Benda-Beckmann, Franz von & Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von, “Property Politics, and Conflict: Ambon and Minangkabau Compared” (1994) 28 Law & Soc’y Rev. 589–608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Benda-Beckmann, Franz von & Benda-Beckmann, Keebet von, “Changing One Is Changing All: Dynamics in the Adat-Islam-State Triangle” (2006a) 53-54 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Merry, Sally E., “Law and Colonialism” (1991) 25 Law & Soc’y Rev. 889–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Huat, Chua Beng, Communitarian Politics in Asia (London: Routledge Curzon, 2004).Google Scholar

³¹ See, e.g. McCann, Michael, Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Scheingold, Stuart A., The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change, 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² See, e.g. Chua, Lynette J., Mobilizing Gay Singapore: Rights and Resistance in an Authoritarian State (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

³³ Sidel, Mark, Law & Society in Vietnam: The Transition from Socialism in Comparative Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Harding, supra note 5.

³⁵ Rose, Carol V., “The “New” Law and Development Movement in the Post-Cold War Era: A Vietnam Case Study” (1998) 32 Law & Soc’y Rev. 93–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Rajah, Jothie, “Punishing Bodies, Securing the Nation: How Rule of Law Can Legitimate the Urbane Authoritarian State” (2011) 36 Law & Soc. Inquiry 945–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ See, e.g. Hussin, Iza, “The Pursuit of the Perak Regalia: Islam, Law, and the Politics of Authority in the Colonial State” (2007) 32 Law & Soc. Inquiry 759–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Feener, Michael R., “Introduction: Issues and Ideologies in the Study of Regional Muslim Cultures” in Feener, Michael R. & Sevea, Terenjit, eds., Islamic Connections: Muslim Societies in South and Southeast Asia (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2009) at xiii.Google Scholar

³⁹ Even in the area of comparative law within the legal academy, scholars have taken little account of this region. “Scholars in the field of law in South East Asia have therefore trodden a somewhat lonely path”. Harding, supra note 5 at 199.

⁴⁰ My search included the Canadian Journal of Law & Society, but it did not produce any relevant result. The newly launched Asian Journal of Law & Society (also see note 6) was excluded from the search; however, in its first and only issue so far, four out of the 10 articles are Southeast Asian. They are Trzcinski, Leah M. and Upham, Frank K., “Creating Law from the Ground Up: Land Law in Post-Conflict Cambodia” (2014) 1 Asian Journal of Law & Society 55–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pellegrina, Lucia et al., “Measuring Judicial Ideal Points in New Democracies” (2014) 1 Asian Journal of Law & Society 125–164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stanton, Thomas H., “Law and Economic Development: The Cautionary Tale of Colonial Burma” (2014) 1 Asian Journal of Law & Society 165–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chua, Lynette J., “Rights Mobilization and the Campaign to Decriminalize Homosexuality in Singapore” (2014) 1 Asian Journal of Law & Society 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ In fact, in response to this phenomenon, David Engel and I are collecting and examining publications outside of socio-legal journals to understand how Southeast Asian-oriented scholars understand and characterise “law” in their work.

⁴² This count excludes Black, Ann, “Replicating ‘A Model of Mutual Respect’: Could Singapore’s Legal Pluralism Work in Australia?” (2012) 44 Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 65–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as it focuses on Australia and discusses whether certain features of legal pluralism in Singapore could be applied to the former.

⁴³ Also see Collier et al., supra note 14.

⁴⁴ Salim, Arskal, “Dynamic Legal Pluralism in Indonesia: Contested Legal Orders in Contemporary Aceh” (2010) 61 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Moustafa, Tamir, “Liberal Rights versus Islamic Law? The Construction of a Binary in Malaysian Politics” (2013b) 47 Law & Soc’y Rev. 771–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Prill-Brett, June, “Indigenous Land Rights and Legal Pluralism among Philippines Highlanders” (1994) 28 Law & Soc’y Rev. 687–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁷ Zerner, Charles, “Through a Green Lens: The Construction of Customary Environmental Law and Community in Indonesia’s Maluku Islands” (1994) 28 Law & Soc’y Rev. 1079–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Gillespie, supra note 9.

⁴⁹ Wardana, supra note 9.

⁵⁰ That is, legal pluralism in the broader social science sense. See note 4

⁵¹ Merry, supra note 4.

⁵² See, e.g. Macaulay, Stewart, “Non-contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study” (1963) 28 American Sociological Review 55–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Albiston, Catherine R., Institutional Inequality and the Mobilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act: Rights on Leave (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Or, as von Benda-Beckmann (1988), supra note 4, puts it, scholars have come to realise that the latter also has legal pluralism; moreover, these latter sites also experience constant migration, and the imposition of state law on alternative normative orders: Benda-Beckmann & Benda-Beckmann, supra note 11.

⁵³ Collier et al., supra note 14.

⁵⁴ See, e.g. Engel, David M., “Landscapes of the Law: Injury, Remedy, and Social Change in Thailand” (2009) 43 Law & Soc’y Rev. 61–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chua, Lynette J., “Pragmatic Resistance, Law, and Social Movements in Authoritarian States: The Case of Gay Collective Action in Singapore” (2012) 46 Law & Soc’y Rev. 713–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ See, e.g. Prill-Brett, June, “Contested Domains: The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and Legal Pluralism in the Northern Philippines” (2007) 55 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 11–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hussin, supra note 37.

⁵⁶ Gillespie, supra note 9.

⁵⁷ Wardana, supra note 9.

⁵⁸ Garth, Bryant G., “Law and Society as Law and Development” (2003) 37 Law & Soc’y Rev. 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Trubek, David & Galanter, Marc, “Scholars in Self-estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development Studies in the United States” (1974) 4 Wis. L. Rev. 1062–1103.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid. See also Dezalay, Y. & Garth, B., Global Prescriptions: The Production, Exportation and Importation of a New Legal Orthodoxy (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trubek, D. M. & Santos, A., The New Law and Economic Development: A Critical Appraisal (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davis, K. & Trebilcock, M., “The Relationship Between Law and Development: Optimists versus Skeptics” (2008) 56:4 Am. J. Comp. L. 895–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Rose, supra note 35.

⁶² Sidel, supra note 33.

⁶³ Gillespie, supra note 9.

⁶⁴ Benda-Beckmann & Benda-Beckmann (2006b), supra note 11.

⁶⁵ See, e.g. Burns, Joseph J., “Civil Courts and the Development of Commercial Relations: The Case of North Sumatra” (1980-1981) 15 Law & Soc’y Rev. 347–368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Silliman, Sidney G., “A Political Analysis of the Philippines’ Katarungang Pambarangay System of Informal Justice through Mediation” (1985) 19 Law & Soc’y Rev. 279–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowen, John R., “Consensus and Suspicion: Judicial Reasoning and Social Change in an Indonesian Society, 1960-1994” (2000) 34 Law & Soc’y Rev. 97–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ See, e.g. Engel, David M., “Litigation across Space and Time: Courts, Conflicts, and Social Change” (1990) 24 Law & Soc’y Rev. 333–344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engel, David M., “Globalization and the Decline of Legal Consciousness: Torts, Ghosts and Karma in Thailand” (2005) 30 Law & Society Inquiry 469–514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engel, supra note 54.

⁶⁷ Felstiner, William L. F. et al., “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming...” (1981) 15 Law & Soc’y Rev. 631–654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Millar, Richard E. & Sarat, Austin, “Grievances, Claims and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture” (1981) 15 Law & Soc’y Rev. 525-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸ Merry, supra note 4.

⁶⁹ Albiston, Catherine R., “Legal Consciousness and Workplace Rights” in Steiner, B. & Nielsen, L. B., eds., New Civil Rights Research: A Constitutive Approach (Dartmouth, UK: Ashgate Press, 2006) at 56.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Moustafa, Tamir, “Islamic Law, Women’s Rights and Popular Legal Consciousness in Malaysia” (2013a) 38 Law & Soc. Inquiry 168–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Kongcharoen, Nuthamon, “Community Forest Management in Northern Thailand: Perspectives on Thai Legal Culture” (PhD Diss., University of Victoria, Faculty of Law, 2012)Google Scholar.

⁷² Chua, supra note 32.

⁷³ Munger, supra note 9.

⁷⁴ Recognising the importance of legal consciousness to understanding Southeast Asia’s complicated plurality, Andrew Harding and I, together with David Engel, responded to the December 2012 recommendations by organising a conference entitled Researching State and Personhood: Law and Society in Southeast Asia. Planned for December 2014, the follow-up conference solicits papers that draw on original fieldwork to interrogate the relationship between the state and social actors, particularly the ways in which individuals or local communities experience, resist, or otherwise navigate state law (possibly in interaction with other social norms and practices). A special issue of select papers from that upcoming conference is also planned for a different journal to reach out to the wider socio-legal studies community, the second identified target audience. Also see the Preface of this special issue.

⁷⁵ Whiting, Amanda J., “Secularism, the Islamic State and the Malaysian Legal Profession” (2010) 5 As. J.C.L. 1–34.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Chua, supra note 32.

⁷⁷ Whalen-Bridge, supra note 9.

⁷⁸ Munger, supra note 9.

⁷⁹ Feener, Michael R., Sharia and Social Engineering: The Implementation of Islamic Law in Contemporary Aceh, Indonesia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁰ See, e.g. Benda-Beckmann & Benda-Beckmann (2006a), supra note 28; Benda-Beckmann & Benda-Beckmann (1994), supra note 28; Irianto, Sulistyowati, “Competition and Interaction between State Law and Customary Law in the Court Room: A Study of Inheritance Cases in Indonesia” (2004) 49 Journal of Legal Pluralism & Unofficial Law 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸¹ Engel & Engel, supra note 26.

⁸² See, e.g. Kongcharoen, supra note 71.

⁸³ My collaborator for the December 2012 workshop, Andrew Harding, has since organised a separate workshop to begin charting research strategies on law and religion in Asia more generally.

⁸⁴ Wardana, supra note 9.

⁸⁵ Seron, Carroll & Silbey, Susan, “Profession, Science and Culture: An Emergent Canon of Law and Society Research” in Austin, Sarat, ed., Blackwell Companion to Law and Society (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See, e.g. Merry, Sally E., Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among Working-class Americans (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Greenhouse, Carol J. et al., Law and Community in Three American Towns (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Ewick & Silbey, supra note 22; Engel, David M. & Munger, Frank W., Rights of Inclusion: Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁷ See, e.g. Rosenberg, Gerald, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moustafa, Tamir, “Law versus the State: The Judicialization of Politics in Egypt” (2003) 28:4 Law & Soc. Inquiry 883–930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brace, Paul & Hall, Melinda Gann, “‘Haves’ versus ‘Have Nots’ in State Supreme Courts: Allocating Docket Space and Wins in Power Asymmetric Cases” (2001) 35 Law & Soc’y Rev. 393–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Farole, Donald J. Jr., “Reexamining Litigant Success in State Supreme Courts” (1999) 33 Law & Soc’y Rev. 1043–1058.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Cheesman, Nick, “How an Authoritarian Regime in Burma Used Special Courts to Defeat Judicial Independence” (2011) 45 Law & Soc’y Rev. 801–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁹ Haynie & Dumas, supra note 9.

⁹⁰ Galanter, Marc, “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change” (1974) 9 Law & Soc’y Rev. 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹¹ See also Tate, Neal & Haynie, Stacia L., “Authoritarianism and the Functions of Courts: A Time Series Analysis of the Philippine Supreme Court, 1961-87” (1993) 27 Law & Soc’y Rev. 707–740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haynie, Stacia, “Politicization of the Judiciary: The Philippines Supreme Court and the Post Marcos Era” (1998) 22 Asian Studies Review 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹² Gillespie, supra note 9.

⁹³ David Trubek, “Law and Development 50 Years on” International Encyclopedia of Social and Behaviorial Science (forthcoming). Electronic copy is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2161899 (last accessed 17 September 2014).

⁹⁴ Geertz, supra note 5.

⁹⁵ I thank one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out.

⁹⁶ Kuan-Hsing, Chen & Chua, Beng Huat, “Introduction: The Inter-Asia Cultural Studies: Movements Project” in Chen, K. & Chua, B. H., eds., The Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 2007).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Institutional affiliations as known at press time.