IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v38y1985i4p558-570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Norms of Distributive Justice in Interest Arbitration

Author

Listed:
  • Max H. Bazerman

Abstract

This study uses a simulation methodology to analyze the use of three alternative norms of distributive justice by arbitrators in conventional interest arbitration. Sixty-nine experienced arbitrators each provided decisions in 25 hypothetical wage cases in which seven factors, such as the inflation rate and the ability to pay, were systematically varied. Individually, most arbitrators were very consistent in the weights they gave to these seven factors in their decisions across cases, but arbitrators differed significantly among themselves in the weight assigned each factor. Also, arbitrators' subjective assessments of their weighting policies often differed from their actual weighting practices. The most common norm followed by these arbitrators was “anchored equity†: maintaining the status quo by adjusting the present wage by the average negotiated increase in the industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Max H. Bazerman, 1985. "Norms of Distributive Justice in Interest Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 38(4), pages 558-570, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:38:y:1985:i:4:p:558-570
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ilr.sagepub.com/content/38/4/558.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. David E. Bloom, 1988. "Arbitrator Behavior in Public Sector Wage Disputes," NBER Chapters, in: When Public Sector Workers Unionize, pages 107-128, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Bloom, David E, 1986. "Empirical Models of Arbitrator Behavior under Conventional Arbitration," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 578-585, November.
    4. Nathalie Chappe, 2001. "L'analyse économique d'un mode de résolution des litiges : l'arbitrage," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 15(4), pages 187-208.
    5. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    6. Bryan W. Husted & Robert Folger, 2004. "Fairness and Transaction Costs: The Contribution of Organizational Justice Theory to an Integrative Model of Economic Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 719-729, December.
    7. Bénédicte Reynaud, 1993. "Les théories de l'équité, fondements d'une approche cognitive du salaire d'efficience," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 44(1), pages 5-22.
    8. Henry S. Farber & Max H. Bazerman, 1987. "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.
    9. Bolton, Gary E. & Karagözoğlu, Emin, 2016. "On the influence of hard leverage in a soft leverage bargaining game: The importance of credible claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 164-179.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:38:y:1985:i:4:p:558-570. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.