Throughout his career J Mark Ramseyer (hereafter JMR) has delighted in generating an academic reputation as a contrarian who applies the “rationality of social science” to explain aspects of modern Japanese history that he considers others both in Japan and elsewhere to have failed to comprehend. His usual method is to create a simple model that he thinks illustrates the basic dynamics of the situation and then apply the logic of rational choice/game theory to it. It was probably only a matter of time before he turned his attention to some of the most controversial topics in twentieth century Japanese social history: Zainichi Koreans, the “comfort women” (ianfu) issue, Okinawans, and Burakumondai.

Reviewing the arguments about the early modern and pre-modern history of Buraku communities we would draw attention to the following mistaken assertions:

All quotes are from “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan”, The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series: No. 964

In March 2020, we wrote this paper in response to discussion paper No.964, “On The Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcaste in Japan”, June 20, 2018, written by J. Mark Ramseyer (JMR), which was released on the website of Harvard’s John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business.

We understand that after that a new version was published in the Review of Law and Economics, Volume 16 Issue 2, 2020, with the same title, However, we regard these two as essentially similar, so we are releasing this report critical of the former version.

Various problems can be found in the article by J. Mark Ramseyer (hereinafter, the article) to the extent that its content is hardly worthy of a serious refutation from an academic point of view. Although it is not clear whether it is intentional or simply a matter of negligence, there are many misrepresentations of facts. We should not underestimate the significance of the fact that such papers are being accepted in the academic world. Bearing this in mind, I will discuss the following three points related to modern Japanese history, my field of specialization:

1. 1) errors concerning the formation of modern Buraku,

2. 2) errors in the prejudicial equating of Buraku people with criminals, and

3. 3) errors concerning the Levelers' movement.

I consider problems in the references to the history of Buraku in J. M. Ramseyer’s article, “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan”, published in Review of Law and Economics in 2019. As a researcher on the history of those who had been subjected to discrimination in the early- modern era, mainly in East Japan, I would like to point out problems in the article, focusing on its references to and quotations from previous works.

We are researchers with strong concerns about J. Mark Ramseyer's (hereafter JMR) article “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan.” We are active in various disciplines and have published work on aspects of Buraku history and literature, as well as the history of slums, deviance, and marginality. The article comprises one part of a larger body of writing by JMR in recent years that has been critiqued and refuted for its misrepresentations of sources, which have in turn created larger historiographic misunderstandings that reproduce discrimination against Burakumin. At the same time we raise these questions, in Japan, scholars and representatives of the Buraku community have openly rejected the author's writings on Burakumin, including this 2019 article. They have specifically questioned his research methods; his use (and abuse) of evidence; his characterizations of people, problems, and processes; and the validity and truthfulness of his various claims about (1) the status of pre-modern Buraku occupations and social mobility, (2) the origins and nature of the Suiheisha, the first nationwide Buraku social movement, and (3) the character and impact of government Dōwa subsidies on Buraku communities since the 1960s.

We, the signatories to this statement, condemn the publication of J. Mark Ramseyer’s paper “On the Invention of Identity Politics: The Buraku Outcastes in Japan,” Review of Law and Economics (RLE) 16; 2 2020. The article does not meet scholarly standards; furthermore, the foundational argument is based on a logical fallacy, blaming Burakumin for the social conditions that underlie their oppression. This is a thin, recognizably reactionary move that has no place in scholarly journals.