This article presents a theoretical framework to aid researchers in navigating the efficiency-oriented criminal justice reform literature. It centres on the influential English and Welsh lower criminal court efficiency reform-oriented reports of Le Vay, Auld, and Leveson. In doing so, this article demonstrates that, historically, the literature has provided accounts of efficiency that have often been ambiguous and conflictual. As a result, it is often difficult to understand what efficiency advocates are advocating for and what efficiency critics are critical of. In view of these influential reports and other more contemporary supplementary works, this article critically discusses the theoretical contributions of Chase, Packer, and Macdonald. The result is that the present article provides readers with a revised typological research framework for navigating the often-confusing efficiency-oriented criminal justice literature. The framework organises efficiency constructions into four types: (i) referent-based, (ii) normative, (iii) ideal-type, and (iv) high-order abstractions. Whereas the first three types are useful for policy reform research, researchers should avoid conceptualisations of efficiency that match the fourth construction type, high-order abstractions. This work concludes by arguing that researchers beyond socio-legal studies and criminology could adapt the revised framework for analysing a range of social value-based reform ideas.
Yates et al. (Mon,) studied this question.