Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment, Jonathan. I think that your line of questioning—around the role of hybrid courts in an increasingly economically developed world—is quite pertinent. While I do agree with you that hybrid courts are likely to play a minimal role in more formal business transactions, I don’t think that limits their utility. I explore this a bit more in my next two posts (so stay tuned!) but, where they work, hybrid courts can play a role in addressing grievance and maintaining social harmony within communities. ‘Development’ introduces new (and commodifies existing) resources and redistributes power. Supporting measures to locally manage the inevitable negotiation and contestation around development processes is critical and it seems that hybrid courts can contribute in some contexts (for example, Papua New Guinea). I also welcome your point about the need for ‘temporary’ solutions in institutional development. I agree there is a need to embrace interim (or what the 2011 WDR calls ‘best fit’) arrangements, based on local context, that promote equitable and accountable dispute resolution in the near term. As I noted in my post, the WDR found that it took 41 years for the fastest developing 20 countries in the 20th century to achieve basic transformations in the rule of law. Given this pace of change, supporting interim justice arrangements seems to be essential in meeting the needs of many striving for justice around the world.