Note from the Editors

Ng, K. Y.; Hunt, Grace; McDow, Daniel; Strelis, Anna

doi:10.5840/wipj2007/200842

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wisdom of judging in China was not just about knowing how to apply the law rightly; it was also about knowing when it was the right moment to apply the law and when it was not. 69 It is hardly surprising that the group of indices that made up "fairness" were mostly measurements of an internal, bureaucratic type. The "fairness" index included, as we have seen, reversal and retrial rates.…”

Section: Discussion: Judging About Judgingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Metric Fixation and China’s Experiment in Quantified Judging

Chan

2021

AsianJLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the ambitious Case Quality Assessment System (CQAS) that the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) promoted during the first half of the 2010s. It offers a case-study of Court J, a grassroots court located in an affluent urban metropolis of China that struggled to come out ahead in the CQAS competition. The article discusses how the SPC quantified judging and the problems created by the metricization process. The CQAS project is analyzed as a case of metric fixation. By identifying the problems that doomed the CQAS, the article points out the challenges facing the authoritarian regime in subjecting good judging to quantitative output standards. The CQAS is a metric that judges judging. It reveals how judging is viewed by the party-state. The article concludes by discussing the legacy of the CQAS. Though it nominally ended in 2014, key indicators that it introduced for supervising judges are still used by the Chinese courts today. The CQAS presaged the growing centralization that the Chinese judicial system is undergoing today. Though the SPC has terminated the tournament-style competition that defined the CQAS, the metric remains the template used to evaluate judging.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Judging About Judgingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Metric Fixation and China’s Experiment in Quantified Judging

Chan

2021

AsianJLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Note from the Editors

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Metric Fixation and China’s Experiment in Quantified Judging

“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Metric Fixation and China’s Experiment in Quantified Judging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About