🔎 What This Study Does
Investigates the institutionalisation of state Public Defender's Offices in Brazil before and after a reform that granted them formal independence and new functions. Focuses on whether legal (de jure) changes translated into real autonomy in the everyday exercise of public defence and access to justice.
📚 Theoretical Lens
Uses competing perspectives on judicial empowerment to interpret institutional change:
- Ideational perspective
- Governance perspective
These perspectives guide understanding of how norms, ideas, and institutional arrangements shape whether formal reforms become meaningful.
📊 How the Analysis Was Conducted
Examines Brazilian states through a comparative analysis of institutionalisation using two indicators measured across three time periods:
- Time periods: before, during, and after the reform
- Units of analysis: state Public Defender's Offices
- Focus: the relationship between formal (de jure) legal advances and the actual exercise of autonomy
⚖️ Key Findings
- Formal legal independence was achieved in many states, but legal status did not reliably produce actual institutional independence.
- The majority of state Public Defender's Offices remain effectively dependent despite statutory reforms.
- There is a substantial gap between what laws stipulate and how public provision of access to justice operates in practice.
🌍 Why It Matters
Results show that legal reform alone is insufficient to secure genuine institutional autonomy. Policymakers and scholars should attend to governance mechanisms and ideational factors that determine whether formal rights and functions are realized on the ground, with direct consequences for access to justice in Brazil.
