Global COE Hi-Stat Newsletter

No. 5 (February 2011)

Contents
Open Forum: A Re-examination of the Government’s New Growth Strategy
Activities of the Micro-Data Analysis Section

Daiji Kawaguchi...1

Yukinobu Kitamura...3

Global COE Seminar with Professor Daniel Hamermesh...5

Discussion Papers ...10
Seminars and Conferences ...11
Awards …14

Open Forum: A Re-examination of the Government’s New Growth Strategy
Daiji Kawaguchi
Micro Analysis (Households/Corporations) Group
Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics, Hitotsubashi University

On December 15, 2010, Hitotsubashi University’s

discussion with them through a question and answer

Global COE program “Research Unit for Statistical andsession.

Empirical Analysis in Social Sciences” held an open

The open forum started with an outline of the aims offorum at Josui Lecture Hall in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Wardthe open forum by Prof. Yukinobu Kitamura. Prof.

titled “Re-examination of the Government’s New

Kitamura provided a broad overview of the objectives

Growth Strategy.” The fourth in the series of openof the government’s New Growth Strategy and pointed

forums aimed at presenting the research results of theout that in all areas it showed a lack of politicalprogram to a broader audience, the event focused on

decisiveness.

the government’s New Growth Strategy decided by the

specific aspects of the New Growth Strategy. Prof.

cabinet in June 2010, with experts in the fields ofKyoji Fukao considered ways to raise labor productivity,

macroeconomics, taxation, and labor economics

Prof. Tsutomu Miyagawa assessed the growth policies

assessing the policies laid out in the New Growthfrom a macroeconomic perspective, Prof. Eiji Tajika

Strategy, followed by a discussion of desirable policies

focused on the debate on lowering the effectivewith the audience. It was a successful event which

corporate tax rate and related issues, and Prof. Daiji

allowed researchers with an independent perspective

Kawaguchi considered ways to respond to the problem

to assess policies and the audience to engage inof the working poor.

1

Variousspeakersthenexamined

To

start

with,

Prof.

Fukao

summarized

thelabor-intensive

toacapital-intensive

andgovernment’s New Growth Strategy, describing it as “aknowledge-intensive

set of policies that aim to promote growth through thetherefore needs to develop a blueprint for such acreation of new demand and jobs in order to overcome

transition to a knowledge-intensive economy with skills

the problems facing Japan’s economy.” Moreover,at its core, and to spare no effort to support education

given the large output gap in the economy, Prof. Fukao

and skill formation.

economy.

The

government

showed some understanding for the general policy

A key prerequisite for the acceleration of structural

direction, with its focus on boosting demand in thechange in the economy is a vibrant business sector.

short-term. However, he then pointed out that when

Looking at government policies to support this, Prof.

considering the underlying causes of the long-term

Tajika focused on the topic of corporate tax reductions.

stagnation of the Japanese economy, the New Growth

He began by introducing an OECD study on 21

Strategy is short on concrete policies to create

countries including Japan that examines the impact ofdemand in the medium-term. According to Prof. Fukao,

tax structures on economic growth and suggests that,the cause of Japan’s long-term economic stagnation iscompared with taxes on fixed investment and income

not impediments to private investment as a result oftaxes, by far the most damaging to economic growth

the non-performing loan problem; rather, the cause isare personal income taxes, and that, moreover, fromthat capital accumulation, which – with the exception of

the perspective of economic growth, corporate taxes

investmentcommunication

are extremely undesirable. Prof. Tajika then pointed

technology (ICT) – had been buoyant, did notout that a reduction in corporate taxes increases firms’

sufficiently raise productivity and profitability in theinternal funds and therefore raises their ability to takeeconomy. Therefore, he argued, what is important is torisks, and that, moreover, it would promote investment

implement policies to promote productivity-increasingfrom overseas. In addition, he argued that different

ICT-related investment and investment in intangible

from tax reductions for policy purposes, such as thoseassets such as research and development andtargeting new investment or specific industries,

organizational structure, and to attract foreign firms

across-the-board tax reductions lighten the tax burden

and

firms

in all industries and are therefore important from thethrough regulatory reforms and greater labor market

perspective of tax neutrality. He concluded byflexibility in order to raise long-term productivity growthhighlighting that the current tax reductions at theand, ultimately, demand and employment.

national and regional levels together amounted to 5

innurtureinformation

andemployment-creating

start-up

Following the presentation by Prof. Fukao, Prof.

percentage points and were extremely important for

Miyagawa argued that the collapse of the bubble

Japan’s growth strategy.

represented the end of one particular pattern of growth

Next, Prof. Kawaguchi's presentation focused on

for the Japanese economy and that in order to put

labor market trends, which also play an important role

Japan’s economy on a new growth trajectory,

amid

structuralwhichhighlighted that over the past 20 years, the Japanesebyemployment system has seen substantial changes andhigh-productivity firms. However, because Japan wasthat employment increasingly is on a short-term and/or

slow to undertake this structural transformation, it was

non-regular basis. Given this situation, he argued thatthe country affected the hardest among advanced

it is necessary to create new labor market structures in

economies by the recession following the collapse ofwhich career formation through job changes becomes

Lehman Brothers. Prof. Miyagawa suggested thatpossible. Government proposals in the New Growthsuch structural change involves the move from a

Strategy for an expansion of the job card system andchangelow-productivity

was
firms

necessary
wereinreplaced2

thesestructuralchanges.

Specifically,

he

the

publicvocationalProf.

break, during which written questions and comments

Kawaguchi argued, go in the right direction to help thisfrom the audience were collected. The ensuingtransition. Going forward, a careful assessment of

discussion, conducted with great enthusiasm, focused

theseconsidering

on desirable forms of job training and school education,measures to help the working poor, Prof. Kawaguchi

the importance of basing policy debates on empiricalpointed out that a slight negative correlation between

evidenceminimum wage increases and employment can be

improving the quality of asset markets, challenges toobserved. Therefore, he argued that there was an

realizing a further reduction in corporate taxes, andurgent need to press ahead with the introduction ofother issues. Finally, Prof. Fukao, the leader of theincome tax credits.

Global COE program, closed the forum, remarking thatpoliciesiseducationrequired.

system,Finally,using

micro-data,theimportanceof

program members would continue to examine a wide
range of policy issues on the basis of empiricalanalyses and in doing so hoped for the continued
encouragement from the audience.

Handouts and video clips (in Japanese) of the open
forum can be accessed at the following website:
http://www.hit-u.ac.jp/function/outside/news/2010/1224_2.html

These presentations were followed by a coffee

Activities of the Micro-Data Analysis Section
Yukinobu Kitamura
Program Sub-Leader / Leader, Micro Analysis (Households/Corporations) Group
Professor, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University
The Research Centre for Information and Statistics ofwhere information on survey slips has been processedSocial Science (RCISSS) attached to the Institute ofso as to ensure that the individuals and companies

Economic

University

surveyed cannot be identified). The Micro-Dataconcluded a partnership and cooperation agreement

Analysis Section of the RCISSS plays a leading role inwith the National Statistics Center (NSTAC) at the end

these services and provided anonymized data to 32

of March 2009. Since then, the RCISSS has been

researchers involved in 10 projects in the academic

engaged in research, development, promotion, andyear 2009, and to 30 researchers engaged in 15

education concerning the secondary use of official

projects so far in the current year (April – December

statistics jointly with the NSTAC. In addition, the2010). In May and August of 2010, the Micro-Data

RCISSS has been serving as the satellite institute forAnalysis Section held briefing sessions for researchers

the data archives operated by the NSTAC, providing

who were planning to use anonymized data andresearchers and others conducting academic studies

provided them with explanations regarding how towith anonymized data (data from official statistics,

create documents to submit in the procedure for

Researchat

Hitotsubashi

3

obtaining permission to use the data and precautions

research institution and the NSTAC, which aims atregarding making entries in the documents.

enhancing the system for the secondary use of official

Research using anonymized data is steadily being

statistics and supporting academic research, haspromoted, and some of the members of the Global

accelerated since April 2009 when the new Statistics

COE program have utilized such data, including

Act came into full force and systems for promoting the

Associate Professor Hiroyuki Okamuro (Program

effective use of statistical data were developed. The

Member/Graduate School of Economics, Hitotsubashi

Graduate School of Economics in the Faculty of

University) who investigates “Determinants of the

Economics at Kobe University, the Japan Statistics

Transfer to and the Success of Self-employment,” andResearch Institute at Hosei University (Machida City),

Associate(Programand the Institute of Statistical Mathematics (Tachikawa

Member/Graduate School of Economics, HitotsubashiCity), which is part of the Research Organization of

University), who used data from the “Employment

Information and Systems, also became satellite

Status Survey” for a course on labor economics at theinstitutes and have been cooperating with the NSTAC.

Graduate School of Economics at Hitotsubashi

Other institutes are expected to become satellite

University in the 2010 academic year. In addition,

institutes in the future. There is concern that too many

Assistant Professor Ken Yamada (COE Visiting Youngsatellite institutes will reduce the uniqueness of

Scholar/Singapore Management University) has been

Hitotsubashi University and may cause some newproceeding with a study on “Consumption, Income,satellite institutes to have extremely small numbers ofand Wealth Inequality in Japan” using data from theusers. However, the number of users of a satellite“National Survey of Family Income and Expenditure.”

institute likely depends on the number of researchers

Furthermore, jointly with Dr. Takeshi Miyazaki (COEin the area. As a result, the current situation does not

Visiting Young Scholar/Meikai University), the author

pose a significant problem for our university, which isof these lines used anonymized data for research

located in an area with a relatively large number ofpublished in August 2010 as a Global COE Hi-Stat

researchers.

Professor

Daiji

Kawaguchi

Discussion Paper published under the title “TheCustom tabulations (including statistical tabulations

Elasticity of Taxable Income and the Optimal Income

commissioned by the public and undertaken by using

Tax

surveyRate

inJapan:

Evidence

fromJapanese

information

fromofficial

statistics)

areHousehold Microdata.” We have undertaken further

undertaken by the NSTAC, and the RCISSS will also

research since then.

conduct these tabulations if there is demand. Moreover,

In December 2010, the RCISSS opened a facility at

the RCISSS, in conjunction with the Global COE

the Kodaira International Campus of Hitotsubashi

program, conducts and makes available to the public

University for onsite data access providing advanced

its own tabulations in areas which appear important

information security. This is the first facility in Japan

from a research point of view but which are notestablished by an academic research institute incovered by the departments and agencies undertaking

collaboration with the NSTAC. This facility is available

the surveys. The number of these tabulations

for use by external researchers as well as those fromconducted to date is still small, and the RCISSS

within our university. Researchers are encouraged tointends to increase them.

make full use of the survey data available after

The RCISSS is also strengthening its cooperation

obtaining the approval of government agencies orwith the NSTAC and the Ministry of Internal Affairs andother organizations that hold jurisdiction over theCommunications (MIC), to which the NSTAC belongs,

individual surveys.

as well as the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.

This form of cooperation between an academic

One person has been seconded from MIC and one,

4

Associate Professor Yoshiyuki Kobayashi, from theit becomes more likely that new viewpoints will not

NSTAC, who is participating in the Global COE

come to the fore. The use of such data by young people

program as a Program Member. The RCISSS has also

and researchers from other fields will broaden

concluded a consignment contract with the Ministry ofperspectives and make new discoveries possible.

Health, Labour and Welfare concerning the creation of

Accordingly, the main purpose of promoting the use ofanonymized data from the “Comprehensive Survey of

micro-data in an organizational manner is to disclose

Living Conditions,” so personnel exchanges with thestatistical data to a broader range of people, which isstatistics and information department have been

consistent with the objectives of the RCISSS and thefurthered.

Global COE program. It is strongly hoped that the use

For policy implementation, it is important andof official statistics will be further promoted throughindispensable that not only specific researchers, but all

cooperation between government and academia, andresearchers in Japan, have access to governmentthat vigorous policy discussions will be held based on

statistical data and make policy recommendations

empirical evidence.

based

on

empirical

research.

Universities

needorganizations that enable them to use official statistics,
and it is important for universities to serve as liaison

Information on the use of government statistical

offices that coordinate with ministries and agencies thatmicro-datahold jurisdiction over statistical surveys, listen to

education (in Japanese) is available on the RCISSS’s

requests from researchers, and convey the requests to

website:the relevant ministries and agencies. In addition, if data

http://rcisss.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/Japanese/micro/index.html

foracademic

researchandhigherare made available only to those who always use them,

Global COE Seminar with Professor Daniel Hamermesh
The G-COE Hi-Stat Program invited Professor Daniel Hamermesh from the University of Texas at Austin to the
Global COE Seminar on November 24, 2010. In the first part of this seminar, he lectured on “How to Publish in a
Good Journal” and in the second part, he presented the paper, “Strike Three: Discrimination, Incentives and
Evaluation” (with Christopher A. Parsons, Johan Sulaeman, and Michael C. Yates, forthcoming in American
Economic Review). Here, we report on the second part of this seminar. (For the tables and figures, please refer to
pp. 27-39 of the paper [https://webspace.utexas.edu/hamermes/www/Baseball4Authors.pdf].)
Introduction

Second, if there is discrimination in the market, theThe strike zone in baseball is subject to the judgment ofpeople who are discriminated against will change their

the home-plate umpire. In particular, the edge of the

behavior. This changing behavior will alter what they do

strike zone allows the umpire the greatest discretion.

and alter the nature of evaluations as well. This paper

This raises a simple question. “Is there discrimination inshows how this works in baseball. Third, these effects

umpires’ decisions to call a ball or strike?” The novelty

lead to biased measures of productivity, which in turnof this paper lies in the following: First, it attempts tolead to an underestimate of the extent of wage

demonstrate that this kind of discrimination exists anddiscrimination. In other words, if the productivity

that discrimination decreases as its price increases.

measure itself is biased as a result of discrimination,5

people will underestimate the effects of minority status

Black, or Asian. As Table 1 indicates, approximately 90

on outcomes. This paper demonstrates explicitly how

percent of umpires are White, while only 70 percent of

this process works and what impact it has.

pitchers

areWhite.

Therefore,

we

are

mostlyA number of studies have examined racial match

discussing the possibility of greater discrimination by

preferences. The most relevant one is the one by

White umpires against minority pitchers. Our analysis

Joseph Price and Justin Wolfers (2010), who look at

first focuses on pitches that were called strikes or balls,

the racial makeup of referees and players of thewhich account for 54 percent of all pitches, and thenNational Basketball Association and assess whether

looks at the rest of pitches as well in analyzingreferees treat players differently depending on theirchanged behavior. Of the called pitches, about 32

race. The first part of our analysis is similar to theirs

percent are called strikes and 68 percent are called

but we differ in some respects. For example, the costballs.

of discrimination is involved. More importantly, we
discuss all the behaviors that will change.

Called Pitches and Umpire-Pitcher Matches
Table 2 presents the number of umpires’ called pitches
by umpire-pitcher racial/ethnic match. However, thesestatistics do not reveal anything about discrimination,
partly because they ignore possible differences
inherent in the quality of pitchers by race/ethnicity. The
productivity concept is lacking here. Identification ismade by changing the match of individual umpires andpitchers by race/ethnicity.
We estimate the probability that a pitch is called astrike against a large number of controls. The equationis:
I(Strike│Called Pitch)i = γ0 + γ1UPMi + γ2Controlsi + εi,

From Panel A of Table 3, we can see that umpires
judge pitchers of the same race/ethnicity more

Professor Hamermesh presenting his paper

favorably. The results in Column (9) suggest that if theDatapitcher and umpire match race/ethnicity, pitches are

Our data set contains information on every pitch

0.16 percentage points more likely to be called a strike.

thrown in every regular season game in American

Accordingly, an extra one out of 200 pitches is likely to

Major League Baseball (MLB) for the five years

be called a strike if the pitcher and umpire match.

2004-2008. The data set consists of information on

Given the fact that during a typical game each team’s

about 3,500,000 pitches in total. For each pitch, we

pitchers throw 150 pitches, this effect is not large.

identify the pitcher, batter, catcher, pitch count, state of
the game (score), inning, and pitch outcome. The data

Direct and Indirect Costs of Discrimination

set also includes other relevant information: in which

Next we consider the role of monitoring. During theballpark each pitch was thrown, what team was playing,

period from 2004-2008, QuesTec’s Umpire Information

the game’s outcome, and the identities and positions

System, a computerized monitoring system, wasof all four umpires.

installed in 11 out of 30 ballparks. This system was

We classify pitchers, batters, and umpires byused by MLB to evaluate umpires’ fairness. If an

race/ethnicity into four categories: White, Hispanic,

umpire, during one regular season, had miscalled6more than 10 percent of the pitches he saw, he wasas “non-terminal.” From Figure 3, we see the sameconsidered to have underperformed, and this would

contrast as before. We expect that the price ofaffect his promotion and even retention in MLB. So thediscrimination is higher late in the game, when there isquestion to ask is, “Did umpires’ behavior differ

more scrutiny, than early in the game. Accordingly,

depending on where they were calling pitches?

umpires are likely to discriminate less later in the game.

Figure 1 shows that if the umpire and pitcher match

In fact, our analysis indicates that the effect of thein a Non-QuesTec ballpark, more strikes are called. If

terminal count is much greater early in the game thanthey do not match, the opposite occurs. If the umpire

late in the game (Table 5B).

and pitcher match in a QuesTec ballpark whereWe

consider

all

three

monitoringproxies

discrimination has a price, the umpire is less likely tosimultaneously (Table 5C). If a pitch is thrown in acall a strike. Thus, if the price of discrimination is

Non-QuesTec park, in a poorly-attended game, with adirectly imposed, we observe fewer discriminatory

non-terminal count, the effect is 0.0089, or an increase

outcomes. This contrast can be seen for both Whiteof about 3 percent (0.0089/0.32) in the chance of aand minority pitchers, but the effects for minority

strike being called when the umpire and pitcher match

pitchers are much greater.

race/ethnicity. Given 300 pitches a game, that isIn

Non-QuesTecparks,

thecoefficientonsubstantial. In contrast, when the UPM is interacted

umpire-pitcher match (UPM) is 0.59 percentage points

with any one of three proxies for the scrutiny ofper pitch, which represents an increase of about two

umpires, the impact of the match disappears.

percent (0.0059/0.32). On the other hand, in QuesTecparks, the coefficient is negative, -0.48 percentage

Robustness Tests

points (Table 4). This suggests that discrimination

Umpires might discriminate not against pitchers but

exists in ballparks where it is not costly.

against batters or catchers. So we included new

Following this discussion of the direct cost ofmatching variables. However, this did not make any

discrimination, we now think about the indirect cost.

difference. Umpires decide how a pitch is thrown by

We break games down into two categories in terms offocusing on the pitcher. It is logical, then, that thecrowd attendance, “well-attended,” which is above

umpire-pitcher match is what matters.

medianpercentage

capacity(70

percent),and

The umpire’s behavior may be affected by his own“poorly-attended.” More attendance means morecharacteristics. We compiled data on an umpire’s state

scrutiny. Therefore, we expect that umpires willof birth and residence, but found no evidence tobehave impartially if more people are watching the

support that argument. We might also argue thatgame. Figure 2 shows that umpires favor pitchers ofexperienced umpires are likely to discriminate less due

matched race/ethnicity at poorly-attended games while

to two reasons: 1) experienced umpires may havematching umpires call fewer strikes in well-attended

learned more; 2) selection by the employer, i.e., if angames. Again, there are greater effects for minority

umpire is a serious discriminator, MLB will not retain

pitchers than for White pitchers.

him. In fact, we do find some evidence to support thisThe next question we ask is, “When does it matter ifargument.

an umpire discriminates?” It matters when batters

Umpires may discriminate less if a game is played inmight be called out. Specifically, when players face athe city with a greater proportion of minorities.

count with three balls and/or two strikes, the next pitch

However, there is no evidence to support this.

can be decisive. In this situation, the umpire’s

The effects of umpire-pitcher matches are expectedjudgment is likely to be scrutinized more heavily. We

to be smaller in post-season games as there is moredefine such a pitch as “terminal” and all other pitches

scrutiny and the price of discrimination is higher. We

7find weak evidence in favor of this, but it is not

umpires’ bias would adjust strategies and change

statistically significant since the sample of such games

behavior, which in turn can induce changes in theis too small.

batter’s behavior.

A baseball manager might behave differently

We estimate the effects on the probability of a pitch

depending upon where a game is played. We find thatbeing in the edge of the strike zone. If the pitcher

in QuesTec parks 39 percent of home pitchers arematches the umpire in a Non-QuesTec park, he isminorities and in Non-QuesTec parks 36 percent of

about one percentage point more likely to throw a pitch

pitchers are minorities. Consequently, mangers areto the edge. That is quite a significant effect, given that

more likely to have minority pitchers in ballparks where

only 20 percent of pitches are thrown in the edge. If thediscrimination is apparently less. However, this does

pitcher matches the umpire in a QuesTec park, thenot affect our results because our regression analyses

effect disappears entirely (Table 6C).

included fixed effects for each pitcher, umpire, andSecond, we consider the kind of pitch, whichbatter, as well as for the presence or absence ofincludes a fastball and various off-speed pitches such

QuesTec.

as curveball, slider, change-up, and knuckleball. A
fastball (straight pitch) is easier for the umpire to judge.

The Effects of Biased Evaluations

If the matching pitcher wants to throw a pitch that is

How do these effects affect game outcomes? To

difficult for the umpire to judge, he will not throw aanswer this question, we think about incentives forfastball. We expect the matching pitcher will throw

umpires and players. We supplement pitch-level data

more breaking pitches, which allow the umpire morewith a data set on pitch characteristics. For a year anddiscretion.

a half from 2007-2008, computerized technology

We estimate the effects on the probability of acalled PITCHf/x was installed at all major league

curveball. If the pitcher matches the umpire in aballparks. This enables us to identify the type and

Non-QuesTec park, the effect increases by more thanlocation of a pitch. First we look at the location of all

one percentage point. Given that curveballs accountcalled strikes (Figure 4). On the “inside” of the strike

for about 10 percent of all pitches, that is substantial. Ifzone, the probability of a pitch being called a strike isthe pitcher matches in a QuesTec park, the effect0.87. On the “outside,” 4 percent of chances are called

almost disappears (Table 6D). In Non-QuesTec parks,

a strike. If a ball is thrown to the edge, however, it hasfor all kinds of off-speed pitches, the effects increase if

a 44 percent chance of being called a strike. In otherthe pitcher and umpire match, and the effects are thewords, in the edge area, umpires apparently have

opposite if they do not match. In QuesTec parks, thetremendous discretion. If a pitcher matches thepitcher-umpire match has virtually no effect.

umpire’s race/ethnicity and expects that the umpire will
favor him, he will adjust his strategy to capitalize on

Implications of the Results

this advantage; he will throw a ball to the edge where

Figure 5 shows the outcomes when the pitcher

the umpire exercises more discretion. A ball in thematches the umpire in Non-QuesTec ballparks. If theyedge is, from the pitcher’s point of view, very beneficial

match, the pitcher is more likely to win the game andbecause it is hard for the batter to hit. Let’s think aboutallow fewer home runs, fewer earned runs, fewer hits,a minority pitcher. If he does not match the umpire, heand fewer walks. Only strikeouts go in a direction

will not throw a ball in the edge because the umpire is

opposite to that expected. Table 7 presents thelikely to call a ball. Therefore, he will throw either

estimated

outside where “ball” is called, or inside where he isumpire-pitcher match. The negative number, -0.046

more likely to give up a hit. Thus, pitchers anticipatingmeans that in Non-QuesTec parks, compared to8

effectsontheperformanceofanKrautmann et al. (2003), the estimate of βφ = 0.074.

QuesTec parks, White pitchers win 4.6 percentage
points more games if they match umpires. Also, White

The main point is a general one. You can actually

pitchers allow 0.15 fewer hits and 0.12 fewer runs. For

measure the extent of the bias. The question is,minority pitchers, the effects are even greater. If they

“Would it be larger or smaller in the real world?,” in

do not match umpires in Non-QuesTec parks, they willother words, “Would there be more misevaluation oflose games with an increased frequency of 12.9

people in a factory setting than in baseball?” I would

percentage points. And they give up extra 0.47 hitsargue that the effects are probably bigger in the realand extra 0.44 runs. The match effect on gameworld, since pitchers are evaluated all the time and inoutcomes is much bigger than the outcome on called

the real world evaluations are, in most cases, madepitches.

quite subjectively once a year.

Ourfindings

haveimportant

implications

forSome previous studies have already pointed out thatmeasuring the extent of discrimination generally. A

bias will affect measures of productivity. Glen Cain’s

typical wage equation is as follows:

paper (1986) is one example; however, our study is theW i = α’Mi + βPi + υi ,first that has tried to explain the size of these effects

a regression of log wage against minority status, andand to simulate them in a real world case. It is alsomeasured productivity. If you assume that majority

possible to replicate them in a variety of contexts.

people are evaluated properly, it does not matter.
However, if you assume that the evaluation ofConclusions

minorities is shaded negatively, which we have shownWe

here, and if you estimate the equation with productivity

racial/ethnic preferences exists and that this kind of

measurement errors biased against minorities, you will

discrimination is price-sensitive. More importantly, we

understate some of the impacts on minority status. In

have demonstrated that discriminatory behavior bysuch cases negative coefficients on minority status

judges will alter behavior in a number of different ways.

would be biased positively.

Pitchers anticipating biased evaluations adjust theirhave

demonstrated

that

discriminationby

To derive the size of the effects using the example ofstrategies and change their behavior, which in turn willbaseball, we use the outcome in Figure 5 and simulate

alter batters’ behavior. These changes in behavior will

the size of the bias from our own data and studies ofultimately affect the outcomes of games. Finally, in

the impacts of these characteristics on wages. We

terms of evaluating outcomes, we have shown that

estimate from these studies how large a bias in theignoring these considerations leads people to missestimated impact of minority status on salary would

something very important in the study of discrimination.

arise from the misevaluation of productivity. Making

I would like to encourage people to think about thisreasonable assumptions about the means of outcomesalong these lines, because it is a better way of thinking

for starting pitchers in 2004-2008, applying the effects

about discrimination.

in Figure 5, and using parameter estimates of
Lawrence M. Kahn (1993, Table A2) yields anestimated bias of βφ = 0.034. Mark P. Gius andThis summary report was compiled by COE Researcher

Timothy

Takako Kimura with contributions from Professor Daniel

P.

Hylan

(1996,

Table

6.2)

*

use

strikeouts/inning, walks/inning and winning that are

Hamermesh and Professor Daiji Kawaguchi.

also conformable with our outcome measures. The
same method based on their parameter estimates
produces an estimate of βφ = 0.012. Finally, using theestimatesforstarting

pitchers

byAnthony* I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Professor

C.

Hamermesh and Professor Kawaguchi.

9Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Papers (July 2010－January 2011)
No. 146 (July 2010) Kazuya Wada, “Effects of Land

Licensing.”

Holding on School Enrollment in Rural Kenya” (inNo. 156 (December 2010) Shinya Tanaka and Eiji

Japanese).

Kurozumi, “Investigating Finite Sample Properties ofNo. 147 (July 2010) Hiromi Hara, “The Incidence andEstimators for Approximate Factor Models When N

Impact of Firm-Provided Training among Japanese

Is Small.”

Non-Regular Workers” (in Japanese).
No.

148

(August2010)

KiminoriNo.
Matsuyama,

157(December“Nonparametric“Endogenous Ranking and Equilibrium Lorenz

2010)

Quantile

ToshioHonda,

Regression

withHeavy-Tailed and Strongly Dependent Errors.”

Curve Across (ex-ante) Identical Countries.”

No. 158 (December 2010) Koichi Tadenuma andNo. 149 (August 2010) Yukinobu Kitamura and Taisuke

Yongsheng Xu, “The Walrasian Distribution of

Uchino, “The Effect of Academic Background on

Opportunity Sets: An Axiomatic Characterization.”

HouseholdPortfolio

Selection:

Japanese

Repeated Cross

Evidence

from

Section Data”(inNo. 159 (January 2011) Richard Baldwin, “Unilateral
Tariff Liberalization.”

Japanese).

No. 160 (January 2011) Kazuya Kikuchi, “Privately

No. 150 (August 2010, Revised: September 2010)

Informed Parties and Policy Divergence.”

Yukinobu Kitamura and Takeshi Miyazaki, “TheNo. 161 (January 2011) Hun-Chang Lee, “Internal

Elasticity of Taxable Income and the Optimal Income

Reasons for the Colonization of Korea in 1910.”

Tax Rate in Japan: Evidence from JapaneseNo.

Household Microdata” (in Japanese).
“Selling,

Passingon(January

2011)

Tsutomu

Miyagawa,“Economic Slowdown in Japan and the Role ofNo. 151 (October 2010) Martina Battisti and Hiroyuki
Okamuro,162

orIntangible Assets on the Revitalization of the

Closing?

Japanese Economy.”

Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intentions on Exit

No. 163 (January 2011) Osamu Saito, “The Economic

Modes.”

History of the Restoration Period, 1853-1885.”

No. 152 (October 2010) Kazuyasu Sakamoto, “TheNo. 164 (January 2011) Yasuhiro Hara, “Examination

Effects of Work-Life Balance Systems on Fathers'of Mining Production Data in Korea under JapaneseHousework and Child-rearing Time: An Analysis

Occupation” (in Japanese).

Using a Labor Union's Survey” (in Japanese).

No.

No. 153 (October 2010) Eiji Ogawa and Junko Shimizu,

165(January“Incomplete“AMU and Monetary Cooperation in Asia.”

2011)

Procurement

Takeshi

Nishimura,Contracting

with

a

Risk-Averse Agent.”

No. 154 (November 2010) Hao Feng and Ming Lu,“School Quality and Housing Prices: Empirical
Evidence Based on a Natural Experiment in

Global COE Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series

Shanghai, China.”

http://gcoe.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/english/research/discussion/i
ndex.html

No. 155 (November 2010) Junichi Nishimura and
Yosuke Okada, “R&D Portfolios and Pharmaceutical

10

Seminars and Conferences (July 2010－January 2011)th

co-organized with the TCER Seminarth

24 Contemporary Normative Theory Seminar

Peter Zeitz (University of California, Los Angeles),co-organized with the Center for Research on“Short-Run

Contemporary Economic Systems

Evidence from State-Owned Enterprises in China”

135 (July 2, 2010)

Incentives

andMyopicBehavior:st

141 (July 31-August 1, 2010)

Takao Sasaki (Hokkaido University Public Policy
School), “The Political Economy of International

Hitotsubashi Conference on International Trade andPublic Goods: Crisis, Structural Change, andIndustrial Organization

International Cooperation” (in Japanese)co-organized with Osaka University Global COEth

136 (July 6, 2010)

Program, the Center for Research on Contemporary

Workshop on International Trade and FDI

Economic

co-organized with the Center for Research on

Scientific Research (A)Contemporary Economic Systems and the Tokyo

142 (August 23-24, 2010)

Systems, and

the Grant-in-Aid forndCenter for Economic Research (TCER) Seminar

G-COE

Hi-StatWorkshopon

Financial

Xuan T. Nguyen (University of New South Wales),Econometrics“Technology Spillover and Export-Platform FDI” (withTaro Kanatani (Shiga University), “Subsampling

Arghya Ghosh and Hodaka Morita)

Cumulative Covariance Estimator,” Peter Hansenth(Stanfordth

10 Global COE Research Workshop

Complete Model of Returns and Realized Measures

Tetsushi Murao (Hitotsubashi University), “Theof Volatility,” and Koichi Maekawa (Hiroshima

Informal Sector Behind the Phillips Curve in

University

Developing Countries” (in Japanese)

Aggregate Squared GARCH (1,1) Process”

137 (July 8, 2010)

thof“Realized

Economics),

GARCH:“Long

MemoryA

inrd

138 (July 13, 2010)
Industrial

University),

143 (September 3, 2010)

Organization

and

Labor

Economics

Economic Development Workshop

Workshopco-organized

co-organized with the TCER Seminar

Institutions

Serguey Braguinsky (Carnegie Mellon University),

Stephen Broadberry (University of Warwick), “British“Borrowing

EconomicforCollegeandPost-Graduation

Earnings”

withGrowth,theCenterfor

1270-1870”

Economic

(with

Bruce

Campbell, Alexander Klein, Mark Overton, and Basth139 (July 22, 2010)

van Leeuwen)th

144 (September 24-26, 2010)

Workshop on Economic TheorythComparative Analysis of Enterprise Data &co-organized with the Center for Research on

10

Contemporary Economic Systems and the TCER

COST Conference 2010

Seminarco-organizedwithNaoki Masuda (University of Tokyo), “Dynamics ofManagement

Research

Opinion Formation on Networks: Identifying Key

Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST),

Players” (in Japanese)

Institute for Employment Research (IAB), Nationalth140 (July 27, 2010)
Industrial

Organization

Advanced(AIM),

InstituteofEuropeanEndowment for Science and Technology and the
and

Labor

Economics

Arts (NESTA), UK Innovation Research Centre

Workshop(UK-IRC), Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and

11

the

Organisationfor

Economicst

Co-operation

151 (October 28, 2010)th

12 Global COE Research Workshop

Development (OECD)th145 (October 5, 2010)
Industrial

Organization

Ryota Yabe (Hitotsubashi University), “The Problem
and

Labor

Economicsof the Unit Root Test for Perron's Continuous Time

WorkshopModel and its Resolution,” and “Dickey-Fuller Typeco-organized with the TCER Seminar

Unit

Tue

Gorgens(Australian

National

University)

Root

Tests

for

the

Fractional

Labor

Economics

Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Process”“Private School Usage in Australia”

152

nd

(November 2, 2010)th

Industrialth

11 Global COE Research Workshop

Workshop

Akiko Nasuda (Hitotsubashi University), “Does Land

co-organized with the TCER Seminar

Lease Reduce the Effect of the ‘Wealth Paradox’ forAlexanderChild Labor?: Evidence from Time Use Data in Rural“Monitoring Managers: Does It Matter?”

146 (October 7, 2010)

(New

York

University),rdth

147 (October 19, 2010)
Organization

Ljungqvistand153 (November 5-6, 2010)

Cambodia” (in Japanese)
Industrial

Organization

Asian
and

Labor

Economics

Conference

2010

on

AppliedInternational

Exchange

Micro-Economics/Econometrics

Workshopco-organized

co-organized with the TCER Seminar

Seminar

Gaaitzen J. de Vries (University of Groningen),

Fali Huang (Singapore Management University),“Productivity in a Distorted Market: The Case of

Kamhon Kan (Academia Sinica), Daiji Kawaguchi

Brazil's Retail Sector”(Hitotsubashi University), Ayako Kondo (Osakath148 (October 22, 2010)

with

the

University), Chul-In Lee (Seoul National University)

RIETI/G-COE Hi-Stat International Workshop on

Jungmin Lee (Sogang University), Myoung-jae Lee

Establishing Industrial Productivity Databases for(KoreaChina (CIP), India (IIP), Japan (JIP), and Korea

National University), Hideo Owan (University of(KIP)

Tokyo), Ken Yamada (Singapore Managementth

149 (October 23-24, 2010)

University),

University),

Ryo

Shintaro

Nakajima(Yokohama

Yamaguchi(McMasterHitotsubashi G-COE Lectures and Workshop on

University), and Thomas Lemieux (University of

Choice, Games, and Welfare

British Columbia)th154 (November 9, 2010)

co-organized with the Center for Research onContemporary

Economic

SystemsandIndustrial

theOrganization

and

Labor

Economics

International Exchange SeminarWorkshop

William Thomson (University of Rochester), “On the

co-organized with the TCER Seminar

Axiomatics of Resource Allocation”

Hiroaki Ino (Kwansei Gakuin University), “Feeth150 (October 25, 2010)

versus Royalties in General Cost Functions”th

155 (November 11, 2010)

Workshop on International Trade and FDIthco-organized with the Center for Research on

13 Global COE Research Workshop

Contemporary Economic Systems and the TCER

Maki Michinaka (Hitotsubashi University),

Seminar”Multidimensional

Hodaka Morita (University of New South Wales),Aggregation and Their Historical Transitions”

Poverty

Rankingsth

156 (November 13-14, 2010)“FDI and Technology Spillover under Verticalth

5 Applied Econometrics Conference

Product Differentiation”

12

withoutco-organized with Osaka University Global COE

co-organized with the Center for Research on

Program, “Human Behavior and Socioeconomic

Contemporary

Dynamics”

International Exchange Seminarth

157 (November 13-14, 2010)

Economic

SystemsandtheRichard Baldwin (Graduate Institute of International

Hitotsubashi COE Trade Workshop for YoungandResearchers(Universite Libre de Bruxelles), Arnaud Costinot

co-organized with the Center for Research on(MassachusettsContemporary Economic Systems

Furusawa (Hitotsubashi University), Arghya Ghosh

Development

Studies),

Institute

of

Paola

ConconiTechnology),

Taiji

th

(University of New South Wales), Gene Grossmanth

14 Global COE Research Workshop(Princeton University), Oleg Itskhoki (Princeton

Satoshi Inomata (Institute of Developing Economies,

University), Ngo Van Long (McGill University),

Japan External Trade Organization), “Asia Beyond

Kiminori Matsuyama (Northwestern University), Kaz

the Crisis: Visions from International Input-Output

Miyagiwa (Emory University), Hiroshi Mukunoki

Analyses”(Gakushuin University), and Ralph Ossa (The158 (November 18, 2010)th

159 (November 18-19, 2010)

University of Chicago Booth School of Business)th

164 (December 14, 2010)

Hitotsubashi Lecture Series on Statistics andEconometrics

Industrial

In Choi (Sogang University), “Almost All about Unit

Workshop

Roots”

co-organizedth

160 (November 19, 2010)
Lee(Korea

with

and

the

Labor

Economics

International

Exchange

SeminarInternational Exchange Seminar
Hun-Chang

Organization

University),

Erik Stam (Utrecht University), “Intrapreneurship“Internal

versusIndependent

Entrepreneurship:A

Reasons for the Colonization of Korea in 1910” (inCross-national Analysis of Individual Entrepreneurial

Japanese)

Behavior”

st

161 (November 20-21, 2010)
with

the

Niels

Bosma

and

SanderWennekers)th165 (December 15, 2010)

Hitotsubashi Conference on Econometrics 2010
co-organized(withEconometrics

Open

and

Forum:

A

Re-examination

of

the

Quantitative Finance Section at the Japan Statistical

Government’s New Growth Strategy

Society and the International Exchange Seminarco-organized with Hitotsubashi University Policy

N. H. Chan (The Chinese University of Hong Kong),

Forum

In Choi (Sogang University), William Dunsmuir

Kyoji(University of New South Wales), Cheng Hsiao

Kawaguchi (Hitotsubashi University), Eiji Tajika(University of Southern California), and Pentti(Hitotsubashi

Saikkonen (University of Helsinki)(Gakushuin University), and Yukinobu Kitamura

nd

Fukao

(Hitotsubashi
University),

162 (November 24, 2010)(Hitotsubashi University)

Global COE Seminar

166 (December 15, 2010)

University),
Tsutomu

Daiji

MiyagawathDaniel Hamermesh (University of Texas), “How to

Hitotsubashi GCOE Lectures on International Trade

Publish in a Good Journal” and “Strike Three:

Gene Grossman (Princeton University)th167 (December 16, 2010)

Discrimination, Incentives and Evaluation”rdth

163 (December 11-12, 2010)15 Global COE Research Workshop

Hitotsubashi GCOE Conference on International

Kazuya Kikuchi (Hitotsubashi University), “Political

Trade and FDI 2010

Competition over a Multidimensional Policy Space”

13

th

168 (December 17, 2010)

Statistical System of the Governor-General of Korea

Workshop on Asian Historical Statistics (ASHSTAT)
Yasuhiro

Hara(Hitotsubashi(in Japanese)rd

173 (January 25, 2011)

University),“Examination of Mining Production Data in Korea

Industrial

under Japanese Occupation” (in Japanese)

Workshop

Organization

and

Labor

Economics

thco-organized with the TCER Seminarth

10 Panel Survey Conference

Masayuki Morikawa (Research Institute of Economy,co-organized with the Institute for Research on

Trade and Industry), “Economies of Agglomeration,

Household Economics, the COE Programs by Keio

Productivity,

University and Osaka University, and the Institute ofJapanese)

169 (December 24, 2010)

Wages,

andEnvironment”

(in

th

174 (January 27, 2011)

Social Science at the University of Tokyoth

19 Global COE Research Workshopth

16 Global COE Research WorkshopthNuttapon

Keiya Eto (Hitotsubashi University), “Long-Term

University), “Innovation and Production Offshoring:

Economic Statistics of China, Agriculture 1949-“ (inImplications on Welfare”

170 (January 6, 2011)(Hitotsubashith

175 (January 29-30, 2011)

Japanese)st

171 (January 11, 2011)
Industrial

Photchanaprasert

Organization

Construction of Longitudinal Network with Middle
and

Labor

Economics

EasternCountries:

Towardthe

MutualWorkshop

Understanding and Development of Joint Research

Tsuyoshi Tsuru (Hitotsubashi University), “Productco-organized with the Ministry of Education, Culture,

Development and Human Resource Management inSports, Science and Technology’s Need-Based

East Asia: Analyzing Japanese, Korean, andProgram for Area Studies Middle East within Asia

Chinese Firms” (in Japanese)172

nd(January 13, 2011)
Past Seminars

Workshop on Asian Historical Statistics (ASHSTAT) /http://gcoe.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/english/events/past_seminarsth

17 Global COE Research Workshop/index.html

Yoonseock Lee (Hitotsubashi University), “TheAwardsst

1 Award for Research Excellence from the Japan

Excellent Paper Award at the Fifth AppliedSociety of Political Economy

Econometrics ConferenceProf. Naoki Yoshihara, Program Member of the Global

Ms. Akiko Nasuda, COE Young Researcher of the

COE Hi-Stat Program (G-COE Hi-Stat), received the

G-COE Hi-Stat Program, presented a paper titledstAward for Research Excellence from the Japan“Does Land Lease Reduce the Effect of the "WealthSociety of Political Economy for his book, Toward a

Paradox" for Child Labor?: Evidence from Time Use

Welfare Theory of Labor Exploitation (in Japanese,

Data in Rural Cambodia” (in Japanese) at the Fifth

Iwanami Shoten, 2008).

Applied Econometrics Conference held on November

113-14, 2010, and won an Excellent Paper Award for

14

th

this paper.

Economics, Fudan University), received the 5 Junzo
Kashiyama Memorial Prize for his book, China’sth

5 Junzo Kashiyama Memorial Prize

Economic Development － Initial Conditions, Policy

Dr. Tangjun Yuan, COE Visiting Scholar of the G-COE

Choices and Resource Allocation, 1860-2004 (inHi-Stat Program (Associate Professor, School ofJapanese, University of Tokyo Press, 2010).

Global COE Hi-Stat Newsletter No. 5 (February 2011)
Issued by Hitotsubashi University Global COE Program
Research Unit for Statistical and Empirical Analysis in Social Sciences
c/o Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University
2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, Tokyo 186-8603 Japan
Tel: +81-42-580-8386
Fax: +81-42-580-8333
E-mail: GCOE-info@ier.hit-u.ac.jp
URL: http://gcoe.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/english/

15