Granted on paper, undermined in practice
Fee waivers and access to civil justice in Chile
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.2614Palavras-chave:
fee waivers, access to justice, civil procedure, legal aid, empirical legal studiesResumo
Fee waivers constitute a fundamental mechanism for removing economic barriers to civil justice, yet empirical evidence on their effectiveness remains scarce in Latin America. This study provides the first systematic empirical assessment of the privilegio de pobreza (poverty privilege) in Chilean civil procedure. Using a mixed-methods design, we analyzed 326 case files from 99 first-instance courts (2020-2024) and conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with judges, attorneys, and users. Our findings reveal a paradox: while the formal grant rate reaches 100%, practical effectiveness is undermined by implementation gaps. In 11.7% of cases, court auxiliaries charged fees despite judicial authorization. Median time for executing procedural acts (23 days) substantially exceeded time for granting the benefit (7 days). Qualitative data identified three gap dimensions: implementation failures by court auxiliaries, lack of uniformity across public institutions, and information asymmetries. These findings suggest that fee waivers operate as incomplete guarantees requiring complementary institutional reforms
Downloads
Metrics
Estatísticas globais ℹ️
|
17
Visualizações
|
18
Downloads
|
|
35
Total
|
|
Referências
Abel, L. K., and Vignola, S., 2010. Economic and other benefits associated with the provision of civil legal aid. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 9(1), 139–167.
Auerbach, C. F., and Silverstein, L. B., 2003. Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York University Press.
Bazeley, P., 2018. Integrating analyses in mixed methods research [online]. London: Sage. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526417190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526417190
Berger, R., 2015. Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research [online], 15(2), 219–234. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
Bocardo, A., Martínez, J. J., and Valenzuela, M. J., 2019. Medir para decidir: Encuestas de necesidades jurídicas y políticas públicas de acceso a la justicia. Santiago: Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas (CEJA).
Brinks, D. M., Levitsky, S., and Murillo, M. V., 2019. Understanding institutional weakness: Power and design in Latin American institutions [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108772211 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108772211
Brinks, D. M., Levitsky, S., and Murillo, M. V., eds., 2020. The politics of institutional weakness in Latin America [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776608 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776608
Cappelletti, M., and Garth, B., 1978. Access to justice: a world survey. Milan: Giuffrè.
Chávez Chávez, E. A., 2021. Derecho procesal orgánico y funcional. 8th ed. Santiago: Tolufex.
Corbin, J., and Morse, J. M., 2003. The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry [online], 9(3), 335–354. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403009003001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403009003001
Couture, E., 1942. Fundamentos de derecho procesal civil. Buenos Aires: Depalma.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L., 2017. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6.
Ewick, P., and Silbey, S. S. 1998. The common place of law: Stories from everyday life [online]. University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226212708.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226212708.001.0001
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., and Creswell, J. W., 2013. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research [online], 48(6), 2134–2156. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
Florida Bar Foundation, 2017. Study finds civil legal aid yields seven-fold return on investment. Disponible en: fundingfla.org.
Galanter, M., 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review [online], 9(1), 95–160. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053023
García Pino, G., Contreras Vásquez, P., and Martínez Placencia, V., 2014. Diccionario Constitucional: Cuadernos del Tribunal Constitucional N°55. Santiago.
Genn, H., 2010. Judging civil justice [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192378 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192378
González Postigo, L., Bocardo, A., and Echegoyemberry, N., 2025. Necesidades jurídicas insatisfechas en Iberoamérica. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L., 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods [online], 18(1), 59–82. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Halliday, S., and Morgan, B., 2013. I fought the law and the law won? Legal consciousness and the critical imagination. Current Legal Problems [online], 66(1), 1–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cut002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cut002
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., and Marconi, V. C., 2017. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research [online], 27(4), 591–608. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
Hunter, I., 2011. La iniciativa probatoria del juez y la igualdad de armas en el proyecto de Código Procesal Civil. Ius et Praxis [online], 17(2), 53–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122011000200004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122011000200004
Kritzer, H. M., 2010. The antecedents of disputes: complaining and claiming. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 1(6), 1–17. Available at: https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/53
La Rota Uprimny, M. E., et al., 2014. Ante la justicia: Necesidades jurídicas y acceso a la justicia en Colombia. Bogotá: Dejusticia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.16192252
Lipsky, M., 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public service. 30th Anniversary Expanded ed. New York: Russell Sage.
Moorhead, R., and Pleasence, P., 2003. Access to justice after universalism: Introduction. Journal of Law and Society [online], 30(1), 1–10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00242 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00242
OECD, 2019. Equal access to justice for inclusive growth. Paris: OECD.
Pásara, L., 2014. Una reforma imposible: La justicia latinoamericana en el banquillo [online]. Lima: Fondo Editorial PUCP. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18800/9786124146749 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18800/9786124146749
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14.1.
Pleasence, P., and Balmer, N. J., 2014. How people resolve ‘legal’ problems. Cambridge: Legal Services Board.
Rhode, D. L., 2004. Access to justice. Oxford University Press.
Rhode, D. L., Eaton, K., and Porto, A., 2018. Access to justice through limited legal assistance. Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, 16(1), 1–22.
Rodríguez-Garavito, C., 2011. Beyond the courtroom: the impact of judicial activism on socioeconomic rights in Latin America. Texas Law Review, 89, 1669–1698.
Sandefur, R. L., 2014. Accessing justice in the contemporary USA: Findings from the community needs and services study [online]. American Bar Foundation. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2478040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2478040
Suchman, M. C., and Mertz, E., 2010. Toward a new legal empiricism: Empirical legal studies and new legal realism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science [online], 6, 555–579. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131617 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.093008.131617
Tashakkori, A., and Teddlie, C., 2010. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research [online]. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193
Thornburg, E. G., 2008. The managerial judge goes to trial. University of Richmond Law Review, 44, 1261–1298.
UNODC and UNDP, 2016. Global study on legal aid: global report. Vienna: UNODC.
Vargas, M., and Fuentes, C., 2017. Introducción al derecho procesal. Santiago: DER.
World Bank, 2020. A tool for justice: The cost–benefit analysis of legal aid. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
World Justice Project, 2019. Measuring the justice gap. Washington, D.C.: WJP.
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 Leonel Gonzalez Postigo, Daniel Sanzana Gonzalez
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence and it regulates how others can use your work. Further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
