IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/rfreco/rfeco_0769-0479_2001_num_15_4_1506.html

L'analyse économique d'un mode de résolution des litiges : l'arbitrage

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie Chappe

Abstract

[eng] Arbitration is a procedure whereby the disputing parties present their cases to a third party who makes a binding decision. In France, it is not largely used, whereas in the United States arbitration has been just routine for several decades. So, the economics literature on arbitration is significant. We focus on the analysis on the arbitration process. Two major procedures of arbitration exist. In conventional arbitration, the arbitrator can make the decision he wants. He can not do so in final offer arbitration. He is constrained to make a decision that is equal to the defendant offer or to the plaintiff offer. In each procedure, we study first the arbitrator behavior, then the parties one's. [fre] L'arbitrage est une procédure de résolution des conflits qui consiste à faire trancher un litige par un tiers dont la sentence a la même autorité que celle d'un juge. Ce procédé qui émerge en France est une véritable institution outre-Atlantique. Nous présentons les principaux résultats des analyses sur la procédure d'arbitrage en elle-même et éludons les questions liées à la comparaison des modes de résolutions alternatifs des litiges. Aux Etats-Unis, il existe différentes formes d'arbitrage qui se dif- férencient par la liberté accordée à l'arbitre dans le choix de sa sentence. Dans l'arbitrage conventionnel, le choix de l'arbitre n'est pas contraint, alors que dans l'arbitrage entre offres finales il est limité aux seules propositions des parties. Ces deux procédures sont présentées d'abord en étudiant le comportement de l'arbitre, puis celui des parties.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:prs:rfreco:rfeco_0769-0479_2001_num_15_4_1506
    DOI: 10.3406/rfeco.2001.1506
    Note: DOI:10.3406/rfeco.2001.1506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/rfeco.2001.1506
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/rfeco_0769-0479_2001_num_15_4_1506
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/rfeco.2001.1506?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gibbons, Robert, 1988. "Learning in Equilibrium Models of Arbitration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(5), pages 896-912, December.
    2. Crawford, Vincent P, 1979. "On Compulsory-Arbitration Schemes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 87(1), pages 131-159, February.
    3. Muthoo,Abhinay, 1999. "Bargaining Theory with Applications," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521576475, August.
    4. Zeng, Dao-Zhi & Nakamura, Shinya & Ibaraki, Toshihide, 1996. "Double-offer arbitration," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 147-170, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Ashenfelter, Orley, et al, 1992. "An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1407-1433, November.
    7. Max H. Bazerman, 1985. "Norms of Distributive Justice in Interest Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 38(4), pages 558-570, July.
    8. Max H. Bazerman & Henry S. Farber, 1985. "Arbitrator Decision Making: When are Final Offers Important?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 39(1), pages 76-89, October.
    9. Vincent P. Crawford, 1982. "Compulsory Arbitration, Arbitral Risk and Negotiated Settlements: A Case Study in Bargaining under Imperfect Information," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(1), pages 69-82.
    10. Marburger, Daniel R., 1993. "Exchangeable arbitrator behavior : A closer look," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 219-220.
    11. Henry S. Farber & Harry C. Katz, 1979. "Interest Arbitration, Outcomes, and the Incentive to Bargain," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 33(1), pages 55-63, October.
    12. Thomas A. Kochan & Jean Baderschneider, 1978. "Dependence on Impasse Procedures: Police and Firefighters in New York State," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 31(4), pages 431-449, July.
    13. Farber, Henry S & Bazerman, Max H, 1986. "The General Basis of Arbitrator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Conventional and Final-Offer Arbitration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1503-1528, November.
    14. Craig A. Olson & Gregory G. Dell'omo & Paul Jarley, 1992. "A Comparison of Interest Arbitrator Decisionmaking in Experimental and Field Settings," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 45(4), pages 711-723, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Henry S. Farber, 1981. "Splitting-the-Difference in Interest Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 35(1), pages 70-77, October.
    17. Crawford, Vincent P, 1981. "Arbitration and Conflict Resolution in Labor-Management Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 205-210, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alan Speight & Dennis Thomas, 1997. "Arbitrator Decision‐Making in the Transfer Market: an Empirical Analysis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 44(2), pages 198-215, May.
    2. Marselli, Riccardo & McCannon, Bryan C. & Vannini, Marco, 2015. "Bargaining in the shadow of arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 356-368.
    3. Daniel R. Marburger & Paul L. Burgess, 2004. "Can Prior Offers and Arbitration Outcomes Be Used to Predict the Winners of Subsequent Final‐Offer Arbitration Cases?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(1), pages 93-102, July.
    4. Armstrong, Michael J. & Hurley, W. J., 2002. "Arbitration using the closest offer principle of arbitrator behavior," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 19-26, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Craig A. Olson & Barbara L. Rau, 1997. "Learning from Interest Arbitration: The Next round," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 50(2), pages 237-251, January.
    7. Klement, Alon & Neeman, Zvika, "undated". "Does Information about Arbitrators’Win/Loss Ratios Improve Their Accuracy?," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275786, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Janet Currie, 1989. "Wages and Arbitrator Behavior," UCLA Economics Working Papers 562, UCLA Department of Economics.
    9. David L. Dickinson, 2004. "A Comparison of Conventional, Final-Offer, and “Combined†Arbitration for Dispute Resolution," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 57(2), pages 288-301, January.
    10. Henry S. Farber, 2001. "Notes on the Economics of Labor Unions," Working Papers 831, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    11. Henry S. Farber, 2001. "Notes on the Economics of Labor Unions," Working Papers 831, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Wojciech Olszewski, 2011. "A Welfare Analysis of Arbitration," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 174-213, February.
    15. repec:eee:labchp:v:2:y:1986:i:c:p:1039-1089 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Patricia A. Simpson & Joseph J. Martocchio, 1997. "The Influence of Work History Factors on Arbitration Outcomes," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 50(2), pages 252-267, January.
    17. Corgnet, Brice & Gächter, Simon & Hernán-González, Roberto, 2025. "The contractual dispute resolution game: Real-effort experiments on contract negotiation and arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    18. James Andreoni & Ray D Madoff, 2007. "Overconfdence and Judicial Discretion: Do Winner-take-all Rules Discourage Pre-trial Agreement?," Levine's Bibliography 843644000000000198, UCLA Department of Economics.
    19. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    20. Orley C. Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game: Evidence from Long Run Play," NBER Working Papers 18834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Gershoni, Naomi, 2021. "Individual vs. group decision-making: Evidence from a natural experiment in arbitration proceedings," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    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:prs:rfreco:rfeco_0769-0479_2001_num_15_4_1506. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/rfeco .

    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.