Yamamura, Eiji (2010): Introduction of the new bar examination and the changing effect of influential professors on its outcomes: The case of Japan 2006-2009.
Download (244Kb) | Preview
Japan’s new bar examination has been administered since 2006. This paper attempts to analyze how professors selected as members of the committee (The Justice Ministry's committee of the new national bar examination) influence the results of the examination. I use a panel data set to control for unobservable characteristics of universities when the numbers of successful candidate are examined. The major findings are: (1) From 2006 to 2007, number of professors on the committee affected the number of successful candidates. Furthermore, committee members specializing in compulsory common subjects had a significant effect but those specializing in a selective subject had no effect. (2) From 2008 to 2009, neither type of committee member influenced the number of successful candidates. The unexpected outcomes in 2006 and 2007 are considered to be the result of shortcomings in the new bar examination. This is in line with concept that high-powered incentive schemes are likely to induce behavior distortions (Jacob and Levitt, 2003). In 2008 and 2009, it is thought that social pressure against such unexpected behavior deterred such unfair behavior.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Introduction of the new bar examination and the changing effect of influential professors on its outcomes: The case of Japan 2006-2009|
|Keywords:||New bar examination, Behavior distortion, Fairness|
|Subjects:||K - Law and Economics > K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior > K40 - General
K - Law and Economics > K2 - Regulation and Business Law > K23 - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Insititutions > I28 - Government Policy
|Depositing User:||eiji yamamura|
|Date Deposited:||16. Mar 2010 01:25|
|Last Modified:||21. Feb 2013 03:31|
Ariyoshi, Y., Kato,Y., and Ishiwatari, M., 2006. Sekaishi mendo, juken joto? ‘hisshu more’ no tengoku to jigoku (Is World history bothersome? Is the entrance examination more important? Skipping compulsory subjects leads to heaven and hell), AERA, November 13, Asahi News Publishing.
Asahi Newspaper., 2007a. Roei, mondai gen-an subete riji, chokai menshoku e: Fukuoka kyoin saiyo shiken.” (Leaked examination, director dismissed in disgrace: examination for teacher employment in Fukuoka prefecture). Asahi Newspaper, January 12 (Western edition).
――――., 2007b. “Shin shiho shiken, kosei sa yuraide iru.” (New bar examination: Fairness begins to waver). Asahi Newspaper, September 3.
――――., 2007c. Shin shihosiken kosa iin eno kyoin toyo o ohabagen e. (Plan to reduce the number of professors appointed as a committee member of). Asahi Newspaper, September 12.
――――., 2007d. Hokadaigakuin: ranritsu no tuke ga mawatte kita.” (New Law Schools: Rapid growth has a harmful influence). Asahi Newspaper, September 18.
――――., 2007e. Shihosiken no shutusdai saiten iin 7 nin, taisaku koshu o shido: Hokadaigakuin. (Seven committee members conducted special courses: Law school). Asahi Newspaper, October 6.
Asahi Newspaper Publishing., various years. Daigaku Ranking. (University ranking).
Chan, K,W., 2005. Foreign law firms: implications for professional legal education in Japan. Journal of Japanese Law 10, 55-80.
Daily Yomiuri., 2001.Council finalizing major legal reforms. Daily Yomiuri, May 24.
Enomoto, O., 2007. Shiho Shiken ‘Kosei-sa’ Usninau Osore. (Fear that bar examination will lose its fairness), Asahi Newspaper, September 7.
Foote, D., 2005. Forces driving and shaping legal training in Japan. Australian Journal of Asian Law 7, 215-240.
Greene, W.H., 1997. Econometric Analysis (3 eds). London: Prentice-Hall.
Holmstrom, B., Milgrom,P.,1991. Multitask principle-agent analysis: incentive contracts, asset ownership and job design. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 7, 24-52.
Ichikawa, M.,2007. Jikosei ni ‘Saitenkijun’ shinshiho shiken senko iin no kyoju haifu omiyahoka daigakuin.” (A new bar examination committee member distributed marking criteria to students of Omiya Law School where he worked as a professor). Asahi Newspaper, June 29.
Ida, K., 2007. ‘Shinshiho shiken’2kaime ni 4607 nin, ‘mishu-sha’mo hajimete juken. ( 4607 applicants take the second new bar examination. Students completing the standard course sit for the first time). Asahi Newspaper, May 15.
Ida, K., Yatsu, N., 2006. Law school meian, shinshiho shiken, 5 wari gokaku. (The stark contrast among law schools, the pass rate is 50% in the new bar examination). Asahi Newspaper, September 22.
Index Corporation.,2006. Chiiki toukei 2006 (CD-ROM edition), Tokyo: Index corporation.
Ishiwatari, M., 2006. Igai na kachigumi, law school, shin-shihoshiken kaishi de meian kukkiri (Unexpected Winners: the Start of the New bar Examination Marks a Stark Contrast).” AERA, October 9, Asahi News Publishing.
Jacob, B., 2005. Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stages in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics 89, 761-796.
Jacob, B., Levitt, S., 2003. Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 843-877.
JFBA (Japan Federation of Bar Association). Judicial System Reform. http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/about/judicial_system.html.
JSRC (Justice System Reform Council)., 2001. Shiho seido shingi-kai iken sho. (Justice System Reform Council Opinion Paper).” http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/sihouseido/report/ikensyo/index.html.
Kakumu, S., 2005. Law school hokai no fuan: futari ni hitori wa horitsuka ni narenai. ( Anxiousness about the of collapse of a law school: Half of the candidates cannot become lawyers), AERA, April 18, Asahi News Publishing.
Kinoshita, T., 2000. The nature and consequences of lawyers’ market regulation in Japan. Contemporary Economic Policy 18, 181-193.
――――. 2002, A cost-benefit analysis of enlarging the Japanese judicial system. Contemporary Economic Policy 20, 179-192.
――――. 2009, Hoso-yosei no mechanism-no mondaiten ni tuite: Keizaigaku teki kanten kara. (About the problem of the mechanism of law school education: from the viewpoint of economics). Nihon Rodo Kenkyu Zasshi 594, 53-69.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology., 2004. Hoka daigakuin (Law Schools). http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/houka/houka.htm.
Ministry of Justice., 2005. Heisei 18 nendo shin shihoshiken kosa iin meibo. (List of the New Bar Examination Committee Members for 2006). http://www.moj.go.jp/SHINGI2/SHIHOU/050425-1-8.pdf
――――., 2006. Heisei 19 nendo shin shihoshiken kosa iin meibo. (List of the New Bar Examination Committee Members for 2007). http://www.moj.go.jp/SHIKEN/SHINSHIHOU/h19-16jisshi.pdf
――――.,2007 a. Heisei 20 nendo shin shihoshiken kosa iin meibo. (List of the New Bar Examination Committee Members for 2008). http://www.moj.go.jp/SHIKEN/SHINSHIHOU/h20-16jisshi.pdf
――――.,2007 b.Shin shihoshiken kosa iin no junshu jiko. (The Compliance Rule for the New Bar Examination Committee). http://www.moj.go.jp/SHIKEN/SHINSHIHOU/h20-15jisshi.pdf.
――――.,2008. Heisei 20 nendo shin shihoshiken kosa iin meibo. (List of the New Bar Examination Committee Members for 2009). http://www.moj.go.jp/SHIKEN/SHINSHIHOU/h21-14jisshi.pdf.
Nakazato, M., Ramseyer, J.M., and Rasmusen, E.B., 2007. The industrial organization of the Japanese bar: Levels and determinants of attorney income. American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings, paper 47. http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2022&context=alea.
Nihon Keijzai Newspaper., 2007a. Kosa iin no keidai kyoju kainin: gokaku ritsu appu ga juyo kadai. (A Keio University professor is removed as a member of the committee: The importance of raising the pass rate), Nihon Keizai Newspaper, June 29.
――――., 2007b. Gakuryoku test fusei, gakko gurumi mitomeru: adachi ku, ‘kocho ra shiji’. (Cheating in an achievement test, teachers admit their actions: As commanded by their schoolmaster), Nihon Keizai Newspaper, July 17.
――――. 2007c. Adachi-ku no gakuryoku test fusei: juni ga juatsu, kaikaku denaoshi. （The case of cheating in the Adachi district: Ranking pressure, results from new reforms.), Nihon Keizai Newspaper, October 8.
Nikkei Career Magazine (ed.)., 2005-2007. Hoka Daigakuin Tettei Guide. (An Exhaustive guide to law schools), Nikkei Jinzai Joho.
Nishida, K., 2005. Challenging new law school education at okayama university graduate law school — we will survive--. Journal of Japanese Law 10, 115-122.
Nottage, L., 2005. Build Postgraduate Law School in Kyoto, and Will They Come—Sooner or Later?-- Australian Journal of Asian Law 7, 241-263.
Omura, M., Osanai. S., Smith, M., 2005. Japan’s New Legal Education System: Towards International Legal Education? Journal of Japanese Law 10, 39-54.
Ramseyer, J.A., Rasmusen, E., 2007. The effect of political uncertainty’s on judicial recruitment and retention: Japan in the 1990s. Journal of Comparative Economics 35, 329-345.
Saegusa, M., Dierkes,J., 2005. Integration of Alternative Dispute Resolution into the Japanese Legal Education. Journal of Japanese Law 10, 101-114.
Steele, S., 2005. Legal education reform in Japan: teachers, leave us kids alone? Australian Journal of Asian Law 7, 264-287.
Tamura, H., 2007. Henbo suru manabi (5): Ranritsu Hokadaigakuin ni Shiren.” ( Learning is different from what it used to be: The proliferation of law schools presents difficulties), Nihon Keizai Newspaper, April 2 ( An evening edition at Osaka area).
Taylor,V., 2005. Zen and the law school. Australian Journal of Asian Law 7, 293-309.
Woodridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Yamada, T., 2002. Hoka Daigakuin: Nihon Gata Law School towa Nanika. (Law school: What is the Japanese type of law school?), Heibon-Sha.