A ‘divide and choose’ approach to compromising
We study dispute resolution in the compromise model of Börgers and Postl (2009), which provides an alternative framework for analyzing the real-world procedure of tri-offer arbitration studied in Ashenfelter et al. (1992). Two parties involved in a dispute have to choose between their conflicting positions and a compromise settlement proposed by a neutral mediator. We ask how an adaptation of the familiar ‘divide and choose’ mechanism (DCM) performs as a protocol for dispute resolution in the absence of an arbitrator. We show that there is a unique equilibrium of the DCM if the parties’ von Neumann Morgenstern utilities from the compromise settlement are drawn independently from a concave distribution, or from any Beta-distribution (which need not be concave). Furthermore, for Beta-distributions that concentrate increasing probability mass on high von Neumann Morgenstern utilities of the compromise, the social choice rule implied by the DCM is asymptotically ex post Pareto efficient.
If 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.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Orley Ashenfelter & Janet Currie & Henry S. Farber & Matthew Spiegel, 1990.
"An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems,"
647, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
- 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.
- Ashenfelter, O. & Currie, J. & Farber, H.S. & Spiegel, M., 1990. "An Experimental Comparison Of Dispute Rates In Alternative Arbitration Systems," Papers 55, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Discussion Paper.
- 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.
- de Clippel, Geoffroy & Eliaz, Kfir & Knight, Brian, 2011.
"On the Selection of Arbitrators,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
8724, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Tilman Börgers & Peter Postl, 2005.
122247000000000801, UCLA Department of Economics.
- John Morgan, 2004. "Dissolving a partnership (un)fairly," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 909-923, May.
- Brams, Steven J. & Kilgour, D. Marc & Merrill, Samuel III, 1991. "Arbitration Procedures," Working Papers 91-38, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:119:y:2013:i:2:p:204-209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.