Existing reparations literature tends to focus upon particular cases or to subsume discussion into grand theories of justice or recognition. The paper seeks to fill part of the gap ‘in the middle’ by distinguishing and critiquing two ideal-type reparation models. The first, the individual¬-experience model attends to injuries suffered by particular individuals. The second, the common-experience model, makes a general type of event the basis for redress. This paper traces the outlines of each model, showing how their differences affect the nature of a programme’s role in promoting good governance as assessed from both restorative and corrective justice perspectives. In light of this matrix of costs and benefits, the paper develops an argument in favour of ‘hybrid’ programmes.
