IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v49y2017icp33-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing ADR or litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Deffains, Bruno
  • Demougin, Dominique
  • Desrieux, Claudine

Abstract

We model the decision by two contestants to select one of two conflict resolution forums in which to address their conflict; alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or litigation. Given a forum, we represent the parties’ behavior by a Tullock contest. Because of the additional constraints disputants face in courts, we assume that the cost structure of providing effective legal arguments is higher under litigation. Paradoxically, litigation may be procedurally more efficient in equilibrium. The final choice of the parties is based on their respective utility and we show that a tension may arise with procedural efficiency. Finally, we also show that the timing of the decision of the conflict resolution mechanism (before or after the conflict arises) affects the choices the parties make.

Suggested Citation

  • Deffains, Bruno & Demougin, Dominique & Desrieux, Claudine, 2017. "Choosing ADR or litigation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 33-40.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:49:y:2017:i:c:p:33-40
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2016.11.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818816300679
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George A. Akerlof & Janet L. Yellen, 1990. "The Fair Wage-Effort Hypothesis and Unemployment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 255-283.
    2. Alfredo Garcia & James Reitzes & Juan Benavides, 2005. "Incentive Contracts for Infrastructure, Litigation and Weak Institutions," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 5-24, September.
    3. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Francesco Parisi, 2014. "Returns to effort in rent-seeking games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 99-104, April.
    4. Strausz, Roland, 2012. "Mediated contracts and mechanism design," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(3), pages 1280-1290.
    5. Hirshleifer, Jack & Osborne, Evan, 2001. "Truth, Effort, and the Legal Battle," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 108(1-2), pages 169-195, July.
    6. Barbara Luppi & Francesco Parisi, 2012. "Litigation and legal evolution: does procedure matter?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 181-201, July.
    7. Kay Mitusch & Roland Strausz, 2005. "Mediation in Situations of Conflict and Limited Commitment," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 467-500, October.
    8. Goltsman, Maria & Hörner, Johannes & Pavlov, Gregory & Squintani, Francesco, 2009. "Mediation, arbitration and negotiation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1397-1420, July.
    9. David Rahman & Ichiro Obara, 2010. "Mediated Partnerships," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 285-308, January.
    10. Luis Corchón, 2007. "The theory of contests: a survey," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 11(2), pages 69-100, September.
    11. Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 1999. "Legal Expenditure as a Rent-Seeking Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 100(3-4), pages 271-288, September.
    12. Shavell, Steven, 1995. "Alternative Dispute Resolution: An Economic Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 1-28, January.
    13. Ivanov, Maxim, 2010. "Communication via a strategic mediator," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 869-884, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:eee:irlaec:v:49:y:2017:i:c:p:33-40. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/irle .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.