Throughout this volume, we have used the word 'reform' to refer to the changes to legislation governing deprivation of liberty in contemporary China, as well as to the institutions responsible for enforcing such legislation. As many other words do, 'reform' carries two distinct connotations, which depend on the ideological and cultural context of the speaker. For most western scholars who are active in the field of China studies, the word 'reform' conjures up the idea of a teleological march from Marxism to liberal modernity. This connotation is absent from the word 'gaige', the Chinese original for 'reform' which lacks such a directional element. Because of this, 'reform' is a term all those who, in China, write or speak about detention often want to use cautiously, as it belongs to two distinct universes of meaning at the same time.The chapters in this book explore and critically evaluate a number of significant positive developments in both discourse in the field of scholarship and practice in the areas of detention and imprisonment that have either occurred over the last decade or are currently under way. But equally, they attest to the problems inherent in marking a change as a 'reform' (at least in various and sometimes incompatible senses this term has been used by western scholars and the media). In fact, what we have called reform may be better understood and described as variations or fluctuations over time.