Access to justice is an important issue for people around the world. In many African countries, citizens most typically access justice through customary, community-level institutions. States and international actors, however, are attempting to extend the reach of the formal justice sector in many countries, under the logic that such institutions may provide more equitable access. In Mali, disputes requiring access to justice are common but use of the formal justice system is rare. We conduct a survey experiment among a sample of rural Malians to explore how people think about formal versus customary justice institutions in the context of a land dispute in terms of their responsiveness, fairness, and costliness. In general and in line with responses to descriptive questions, the evidence shows that the group of Malians in our study think that customary institutions, as compared to the formal court system, will be quicker, fairer, and less likely to require payment for the resolution of a land dispute. We find that these perceptions hold among individuals who report having used the formal justice system, who would consider using the formal justice system in the future, and who are most likely to be marginalized from customary justice institutions. Legal reform advocates need to consider these strong preferences for customary justice institutions when thinking about plausible reforms.

诉诸司法对世界各地的人们来说都是重要的问题。在许多非洲国家，公民最通常通过习惯的社区级机构诉诸司法。但是，各国和国际行为体正试图在许多国家扩大正规司法部门的覆盖面，其逻辑是此类机构可以提供更公平的机会。在马里，需要诉诸司法的争端很普遍，但很少使用正式司法系统。我们在一个样本的马里农村居民中进行了一项调查实验，以探讨人们在土地纠纷中如何考虑正式和习惯司法机构的响应能力，公平性和成本性。一般而言，与对描述性问题的回答一致，证据表明，在我们的研究中，马里人小组认为，与正式的法院系统相比，习惯机构将更快，更公平，并且为解决土地纠纷所需的付款更少。我们发现，在使用过正式司法制度，将来会考虑使用正式司法制度，最有可能被习惯司法制度边缘化的个人中，这种观念仍然存在。法律改革的倡导者在考虑合理的改革时，需要考虑对习惯司法制度的强烈偏好。我们发现，在使用过正式司法制度，将来会考虑使用正式司法制度，最有可能被习惯司法制度边缘化的个人中，这种观念仍然存在。法律改革的倡导者在考虑合理的改革时，需要考虑对习惯司法制度的强烈偏好。我们发现，在使用过正式司法制度，将来会考虑使用正式司法制度，最有可能被习惯司法制度边缘化的个人中，这种观念仍然存在。法律改革的倡导者在考虑合理的改革时，需要考虑对习惯司法制度的强烈偏好。