INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, COMPETITIVE PRESSURE AND OVER-INFLUENTIAL PROFFESSORS: THE NEW JAPANESE BAR EXAMINATION

  • Eiji YAMAMURA Seinan Gakuin University, Department of Economics

Abstract

This paper attempts to analyze the results of Japan’s new bar examination, so far held in 2006 and 2007, and to investigate why the new bar examination had unanticipated outcomes. The major findings from regression analysis are: 1. The ratio of professor committee members affects the pass rate. Further, committee members specializing in the compulsory common subjects have a more significant effect than those specializing in the selective subject areas; 2. The high pass rate for prestigious national law schools is mainly to the result of the high ratio of professor committee members, while the pass rate of private law schools is partly related; 3. Ratios of committee members from prestigious law schools at 8-22% are significantly higher than for non prestigious law schools. The unexpected outcomes that stem from the shortcomings of the new bar examination are in line with concept that high-powered incentive schemes are likely to induce behavior distortions (Jacob, and Levitt 2003). To prevent professorial cheating and to achieve fairness in the new bar examination, the Ministry of Justice should at least take steps not to appoint law schools professors as committee members.

References

[1] 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.
[2] Asahi Newspaper Publishing. Daigaku Ranking. (University ranking). Various years.
[3] Asahi Newspaper. 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, 2007.
[4] Asahi Newspaper. 2007d. Hokadaigakuin: Ranritsu no Tuke ga Mawatte Kita. (New Law Schools: Rapid growth has a harmful influence). Asahi Newspaper, September 18, 2007.
[5] 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), 2007.
[6] Asahi Newspaper. 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, 2007.
[7] Asahi Newspaper. 2007b. Shin Shiho Shiken, Kosei sa Yuraide iru. (New bar examination: Fairness begins to waver). Asahi Newspaper, September 3, 2007.
[8] Chan, K,W. 2005. Foreign Law Firms: Implications for Professional Legal Education in Japan. Journal of Japanese Law, 10, 2005, 55-80.
[9] Daily Yomiuri. 2001. Council Finalizing Major Legal Reforms. Daily Yomiuri, May 24, 2001.
[10] Enomoto, O. 2007. Shiho Shiken „Kosei-sa‟ Usninau Osore. (Fear that bar examination will lose its fairness), Asahi Newspaper, September 7, 2007.
[11] Foote, D. 2005. Forces Driving and Shaping Legal Training in Japan. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 7, 2005, 215-240.
[12] Greene, W.H. 1997. Econometric Analysis, (3 eds), Prentice-Hall: London.
[13] Holmstrom, B., Milgrom, P. 1991. Multitask Principle-agent Analysis: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership and Job Design. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 7, 1991, 24-52.
[14] 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, 2007.
[15] 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, 2007.
[16] 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, 2006.
[17] Index Corporation. 2006. Chiiki toukei 2006 (CD-ROM edition), Tokyo: Index corporation, 2006.
[18] Ishiwatari, M. 2006. Igai na Kachigumi, Law School, Shin-shihoshiken Kaishi de Meian Kukkiri (Unexpected winners: the sart of the New bar Examination marks a stark contrast). AERA, Asahi News Publishing, October 9, 2006.
[19] Jacob, B. 2005. Accountability, Incentives and Behavior: The Impact of High-stages in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 2005, 761-796.
[20] Jacob, B., Levitt, S. 2003. Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 2003, 843-877.
[21] JFBA (Japan Federation of Bar Association). Judicial System Reform. http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/en/about/judicial_system.html.
[22] 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.
[23] Kakumu, S. 2005. Law School Hokai no Fuan: Futari ni Hitori wa Horitsuka ni Narenai. (Anxiousness about the collapse of a law school: Half of the candidates cannot become lawyers), AERA, Asahi News Publishing, April 18, 2005.
[24] Kinoshita, T. 2002. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Enlarging the Japanese Judicial System. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20, 2002, 179-192.
[25] Kinoshita, T. 2000. The Nature and Consequences of Lawyers. Market Regulation in Japan. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 2000, 181-193.
[26] Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 2004. Hoka daigakuin (Law Schools). http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/houka/houka.htm.
[27] Ministry of Justice. 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.
[28] 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.
[29] Ministry of Justice. 2007. 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.
[30] Nihon Keijzai Newspaper. 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, 2007.
[31] Nihon Keijzai Newspaper. 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, 2007.
[32] 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, 2007.
[33] Nikkei Career Magazine (ed.). 2005 – 2007. Hoka Daigakuin Tettei Guide. (An Exhaustive guide to law schools), Nikkei Jinzai Joho.
[34] Nishida, K. 2005. Challenging New Law School Education at Okayama University Graduate Law School — We will Survive. Journal of Japanese Law, 10, 2005, 115-122.
[35] Nottage, L. 2005. Build Postgraduate Law School in Kyoto, and Will They Come—Sooner or Later? Australian Journal of Asian Law, 7, 2005, 241-263.
[36] Omura, M., Osanai, S., Malcom, S. 2005. Japan’s New Legal Education System: Towards International Legal Education? Journal of Japanese Law, 10, 2005, 39-54.
[37] 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, 2007, 329-345.
[38] Saegusa, M., Dierkes, J. 2005. Integration of Alternative Dispute Resolution into the Japanese Legal Education. Journal of Japanese Law, 10, 2005, 101-114.
[39] Steele, S. 2005. Legal Education Reform in Japan: Teachers, Leave us Kids Alone? Australian Journal of Asian Law, 7, 2005, 264-287.
[40] 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).
[41] Taylor, V. 2005. Zen and the Law School. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 7, 2005, 293-309.
[42] Yamada, T. 2002. Hoka Daigakuin: Nihon Gata Law School towa Nanika. (Law school: What is the Japanese type of law school?), Heibon-Sha.
[43] Yonekura, A. 2007. Hoka Diagakuin Zakkicho: Kyodan kara Mita Nihon Law school. (A Law school notebook). Nihon Kajo Syuppan.
Published
2016-11-28
How to Cite
YAMAMURA, Eiji. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, COMPETITIVE PRESSURE AND OVER-INFLUENTIAL PROFFESSORS: THE NEW JAPANESE BAR EXAMINATION. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, [S.l.], v. 1, n. 1, p. 67-82, nov. 2016. ISSN 2068-696X. Available at: <https://journals.aserspublishing.eu/jarle/article/view/493>. Date accessed: 28 apr. 2024.
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol 1 No 1 (2010): JARLE Volume I Issue 1(1) Summer 2010
Section
Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics

Keywords

Competitive pressure, Japanese bar examination

The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.