The Conclusion embeds the monograph’s primary claims in the wider scholarly debates, namely Enlightenment and Independence in South America, analysing the vestiges and legacy of print publications across the Atlantic.

Chapter 5 studies the reach of print by looking into modes of acquisition, various owners, and the uses of books in the viceroyalty of Peru. It shows how books permeated late colonial society on a broad scale, figuring as objects in the inventories of petty merchants, artisans, rural clerics, some women, and others who, in previous centuries, had been far less likely to possess books. Focusing on the traces of usage and the material environment, this chapter illustrates book use, which took place indoors as well as outside, solitarily and in groups, and was led by practices different from today’s, characterised above all by intensive reading, particular emotions, and interactions as well as reading aloud. Such an analysis allows a more nuanced assessment of the many protagonists from different backgrounds who participated in the colonial book market and had access to the contents of print publications.

Chapter 2 pursues a novel approach by combining the study of the local printing production and book imports to examine the different forms of market supply. It argues that the book trade was a rising though risky business. Mapping the workshops in Lima, it shows that print production was continuous and the output growing. However, even more reading material was imported into Peru, as proven by the quantitative evaluation of the number of boxes containing books, including the works of several representatives of the Catholic Enlightenment. Although most books had a licence, this chapter focuses on the illicit trade, in the form of titles in ships’ freight that were prohibited by the Inquisition and products from secret presses in Lima. The chapter lays bare the characteristics of a colonial book market fed by two totally differently structured supply sources that were both growing in late colonial times.

Chapter 2 introduces the conceptual and theoretical frameworks, as well as the study’s methodology. In this chapter I propose and defend a conceptualization of judicial impact. Then, I develop and explain the main argument: that two elements are key to shaping impact for structural rulings, namely monitoring mechanisms and legal constituencies. Deploying monitoring mechanisms allows courts (and other participants in monitoring venues) to impose costs on the targets of the rulings and to offset information and power asymmetries. Legally empowered advocacy organizations (legal constituencies) can exercise legal follow-up and mobilize around the issue in the aftermath of the ruling. On their own, the presence of court-promoted oversight mechanisms or of legal constituencies can promote some effects. However, when combined, they can configure a collaborative oversight arena and ultimately yield higher impact results. The chapter closes explaining the research design: I introduce the eight case studies (four rulings from Argentina and four from Colombia) and the logic of the cross-case comparisons.

Chapter 7 provides an overview of the book, its main findings and refinements to the theory based on the lessons learned. It closes by presenting the study’s broader implications for normative arguments against judicial intervention on socioeconomic rights, and for theories of judicial power. This book shows that high courts can contribute to the advancement of rights, though they cannot do so alone nor can they offer silver bullets. The Colombian and Argentine highest tribunals have, at times, successfully configured important new political spaces for effective pursuit of public policy goals, in conjunction and dialogue with external actors. In doing so, they have increased their power and positioned themselves as non-negligible political forces.

Chapter 3 presents comparative case studies of two structural socioeconomic rights rulings: Argentina’s Causa Mendoza – an environmental ruling – and Colombia’s T-760 – a ruling safeguarding the right to health. In both cases, a collaborative oversight arena was created as a result of the convergence of legally empowered advocacy organizations and court-promoted monitoring mechanisms. The collaborative oversight arenas created spaces in which different participants could exercise accountability for unfulfilled commitments from the government and private agents and, more specifically, for the implementation of different aspects of the rulings. Additionally, the creation of spaces for sustained interaction around offered the chance for the diffusion of policy ideas and a rights-based framework, while giving civil society actors access to the state. The case studies also identify unintended and negative consequences from the rulings, recognizing these as integral parts of impact.

Chapter 6 asks and answers the following question: Is there evidence that the presence of monitoring mechanisms and legally empowered organizations in civil society help us understand whether and to what extent other structural rulings (beyond those studied in previous chapters) can have significant impact? This chapter explores this question in a bounded manner, by conducting shadow case studies of rulings decided by the Indian Supreme Court. Here I use insights from the theoretical framework developed and illustrated in the Latin American context and apply them to the analysis of two rulings handed down by the Indian highest tribunal: the Right to Food case and the Delhi Vehicular Pollution case. Building on prior works and original research, the chapter shows that the creation of collaborative monitoring spaces in India also enhanced accountability and showed potential to shift the balance of power between a reluctant government and the litigants, allowing civil society actors, as well as others, access, and an unprecedented platform. At the same time, the cross-regional comparison highlights the dangers in lengthy time frames and excessive procedural flexibility.

Chapter 4 presents case studies of the impact of four landmark socioeconomic rights rulings. Each pair of case studies seeks to uncover the influence that one of two elements can have on judicial impact: court-promoted monitoring mechanisms and the presence of legal constituencies. The first pair of cases explores the aftermath of rulings that have dense legal constituencies but no court-promoted oversight mechanisms: First, Causa Verbitsky in Argentina, a decision in which the court safeguarded the rights of inmates in the Buenos Aires Province. Second, C-383 1999 in Colombia, a decision in which the court safeguarded the right to housing of Colombian mortgage debtors. The second paired comparison looks at two structural rulings in which monitoring mechanisms were put in place but where there were low density legal constituencies. The first case in this pair is Causa Badaro in Argentina, a decision in which the court protected the right to pension of Argentine seniors earning above 1,000 Argentine pesos. The second case is T-547 2010 in Colombia, a decision in which the court protected the right to prior consultation of the Indigenous people of the Sierra Nevada in Santa Marta.