Amended Final-offer Arbitration Outperforms Final-offer Arbitration
Amended final-offer arbitration (AFOA) has been developed as an attractive alternative mechanism to final-offer arbitration (FOA). Under AFOA, more reasonable offers win, but the outcome is determined by the loser's offer and the arbitrator's value. In AFOA, disputants making extreme offers are penalized, thereby encouraging compromise. This article compares the theoretical and behavioral properties of AFOA and FOA. Controlled laboratory experiments indicate that AFOA significantly outperforms FOA, generating substantially greater prearbitration settlement. Consistent with theoretical predictions, offers converge under AFOA; however, FOA offers neither converge nor are consistent with theoretical predictions. This work suggests practitioners should consider adopting AFOA over FOA. Copyright 2007, Oxford University Press.
Volume (Year): 9 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.aler.oupjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:amlawe:v:9:y:2007:i:2:p:384-407. 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: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.