In Chapter Two, I ask the question of “justice for what” by exploring the ways in which the (neo)liberal frames at the heart of the field have served to limit our sense of what the “justice” of transitional justice should reasonably be expected to cover. I argue that while there is increasing momentum behind the notion that the tools of transitional justice should be marshaled in response to large-scale human rights atrocities and physical violence—including murder, rape, torture, disappearances, and other crimes against humanity—the proper role of transitional justice with respect to economic violence—including violations of economic and social rights, corruption, and plunder of natural resources—is far less certain. Historically, if mass atrocities and physical violence have been placed in the transitional justice spotlight, issues of equally devastating economic and social justice have received little attention. The marginalization of the economic within the transitional justice agenda serves to distort our understanding of conflict, and the policies thought to be necessary in the wake of conflict. Key to reimagining transitional justice practice going forward then will be an embrace of more extended conceptions of violence and justice.