Bargaining Outcomes with Double-Offer Arbitration
AbstractIncreasingly, arbitration is becoming used to resolve bargaining disputes in a variety of settings. Reducing dispute rates is often listed as a main goal in designing arbitration mechanisms. Conventional arbitration and final-offer arbitration are two commonly used procedures, but theoretical examinations of these arbitration procedures show that disputantsâ€™ final bargaining positions do not converge and disagreement is likely. This article contains results from a set of experiments designed to compare bargaining outcomes under the two commonly used arbitration procedures with outcomes under an innovative procedure called â€œdouble-offerâ€ arbitration (Zeng et al., 1996). This procedure requires that disputants make two final offers at impasse: a primary and a secondary offer. The arbitrator evaluates the pairs of offers using a linear criterion function, and theory suggests the secondary offers converge to the median of the arbitratorâ€™s preferred settlement distribution. Because the procedureâ€™s rules are that convergence of offers generates a settlement at those offers, this theoretical convergence result implies that arbitration is not needed in the end. Experimental results indicate that dispute rates in double-offer arbitration are, on average, about the same as dispute rates in conventional arbitration. However, other results show reason to favor double-offer arbitration. Specifically, in repeated bargaining, there is concern over whether use of an arbitration procedure becomes addictive and makes bargainers more likely to use the procedure in the future-a â€œnarcotic effect.â€ The data show that double-offer arbitration is non-addictive, whereas both conventional and final-offer arbitration are. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Experimental Economics.
Volume (Year): 8 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102888
dispute/conflict resolution; experiments; expectations;
Other versions of this item:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Crawford, Vincent P, 1979. "On Compulsory-Arbitration Schemes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(1), pages 131-59, February.
- Pecorino, Paul & Van Boening, Mark, 2001. "Bargaining and Information: An Empirical Analysis of A Multistage Arbitration Game," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 19(4), pages 922-48, October.
- Richard J. Butler & Ronald G. Ehrenberg, 1981. "Estimating the narcotic effect of public sector impasse procedures," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 35(1), pages 3-20, October.
- Steven J. Brams & Samuel Merrill, III, 1986.
"Binding Versus Final-Offer Arbitration: A Combination is Best,"
INFORMS, vol. 32(10), pages 1346-1355, October.
- Brams, Steven J. & Merrill, Samuel III, 1984. "Binding Versus Final-Offer Arbitration: A Combination is Best," Working Papers 84-07, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Ashenfelter, O. & Currie, J. & Farber, H.S. & Spiegel, M., 1990.
"An Experimental Comparison Of Dispute Rates In Alternative Arbitration Systems,"
55, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
- Ashenfelter, Orley, et al, 1992. "An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1407-33, November.
- Orley Ashenfelter & Janet Currie & Henry S. Farber & Matthew Spiegel, 1990. "An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems," NBER Working Papers 3417, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ashenfelter, O. & Currie, J. & Farber, H.S., 1990. "An Experimental Comparison Of Dispute Rates In Alternative Arbritation Systems," Working papers 562, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Henry S. Farber & Max H. Bazerman, 1989. "Divergent Expectations as a Cause of Disagreement in Bargaining: Evidence from a Comparison of Arbitration Schemes."," NBER Working Papers 2139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Babcock, Linda & Wang, Xianghong & Lowenstein, George, 1996. "Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 111(1), pages 1-19, February.
- David L. Dickinson, 2004.
"A comparison of conventional, final-offer, and "combined" arbitration for dispute resolution,"
Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 57(2), pages 288-301, January.
- David Dickinson, . "A comparison of conventional, final offer, and combined arbitration for dispute resolution," Working Papers 2001-04, Utah State University, Department of Economics.
- Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
- Farber, Henry S & Bazerman, Max H, 1989. "Divergent Expectations as a Cause of Disagreement in Bargaining: Evidence from a Comparison of Arbitration Schemes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 104(1), pages 99-120, February.
- Steven J. Brams & Samuel Merrill, III, 1983. "Equilibrium Strategies for Final-Offer Arbitration: There is no Median Convergence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(8), pages 927-941, August.
- David Dickinson, 2004.
"Expectations and Comparative Arbitration Institutions,"
04-22, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- David Dickinson, 2003. "Expectations and Comparative Arbitration Institutions," Working Papers 2003-02, Utah State University, Department of Economics.
- Bolton, Gary E. & Katok, Elena, 1998. "Reinterpreting Arbitration's Narcotic Effect: An Experimental Study of Learning in Repeated Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-33, October.
- David Dickinson & Lynn Hunnicutt, 2010. "Nonbinding recommendations: the relative effects of focal points versus uncertainty reduction on bargaining outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(4), pages 615-634, October.
- Deck, Cary A. & Farmer, Amy, 2009. "Strategic bidding and investments in final offer arbitration: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 361-373, May.
- repec:kap:expeco:v:10:y:2007:i:4:p:439-454 is not listed on IDEAS
- Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011.
"Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?,"
Handbook of Labor Economics,
- Gary Charness & Peter J. Kuhn, 2010. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," NBER Working Papers 15913, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter J., 2010. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," IZA Discussion Papers 4941, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.