IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/inrvec/v72y2025i2d10.1007_s12232-025-00494-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The need for governance in blockchain dispute resolution (BDR): institutional possibilities frontier (IPF) perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Cemre Çise Kadıoğlu Kumtepe

    (Ankara University)

Abstract

Blockchain, as a decentralized ledger technology, has been applied in various domains, including dispute resolution for issues arising from blockchain and smart contract transactions. Blockchain-based dispute resolution platforms claim to operate free from central authority, eschewing traditional procedural and substantive rules. However, these platforms have raised concerns among legal scholars regarding their potential to undermine fundamental rights, prompting calls for governance in blockchain-based dispute resolution (BDR). Allen et al. proposed the Dispute Resolution Possibilities Frontier (DRPF), inspired by the Institutional Possibilities Frontier (IPF) from new comparative economics. The DRPF highlights blockchain’s potential to reduce disorder and dictatorship costs in dispute resolution. This study analyzes BDR processes across the dispute resolution spectrum through normative and doctrinal legal research, further refining the DRPF framework. The analysis reveals that while BDR may increase efficiency, as suggested by Allen et al., by reducing dictatorship and disorder costs up to a certain point, it does not entirely transform the dispute resolution framework. To achieve the loss-minimizing point—where dictatorship and disorder costs are optimized—some form of governance or order is necessary. Consensual methods like negotiation and mediation pose minimal risks, while adjudicative mechanisms, such as self-enforcing crowd voting and on-chain arbitration that enforce outcomes via smart contracts, lack adequate safeguards. To address these challenges, we propose governance strategies that incorporate design elements safeguarding disputants’ rights. By balancing efficiency and fairness, such measures can optimize BDR processes, ensuring they remain effective and compliant with essential legal standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Cemre Çise Kadıoğlu Kumtepe, 2025. "The need for governance in blockchain dispute resolution (BDR): institutional possibilities frontier (IPF) perspective," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 72(2), pages 1-22, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:inrvec:v:72:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12232-025-00494-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s12232-025-00494-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12232-025-00494-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12232-025-00494-x?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
    ---><---

    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. Djankov, Simeon & Glaeser, Edward & La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei, 2003. "The new comparative economics," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 595-619, December.
    2. Steven Shavell, 2006. "On the Writing and the Interpretation of Contracts," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 289-314, October.
    3. David Yermack, 2017. "Corporate Governance and Blockchains," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 21(1), pages 7-31.
    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. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    2. Marianna Belloc & Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati, 2016. "Earthquakes, Religion, and Transition to Self-Government in ItalianCities," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1875-1926.
    3. Baltrunaite, Audinga & Bello, Piera & Casarico, Alessandra & Profeta, Paola, 2014. "Gender quotas and the quality of politicians," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 62-74.
    4. Alvar Kangur, 2016. "What Rules in the ‘Deep’ Determinants of Comparative Development?," Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe, Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, vol. 8(1).
    5. Philippe Aghion & Yann Algan & Pierre Cahuc & Andrei Shleifer, 2010. "Regulation and Distrust," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 1015-1049.
    6. Luis Alfonso Dau & Aya S. Chacar & Marjorie A. Lyles & Jiatao Li, 2022. "Informal institutions and international business: Toward an integrative research agenda," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(6), pages 985-1010, August.
    7. Elert, Niklas & Henrekson, Magnus, 2017. "Entrepreneurship and Institutions: A Bidirectional Relationship," Working Paper Series 1153, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 05 May 2017.
    8. Iwasaki, Ichiro & 岩﨑, 一郎 & イワサキ, イチロウ & Dolgopyatova, Tatiana & Yakovlev, Andrei & Bruno, Dallago, 2004. "Corporate Governance in Transition Economies. Part 1: The Case of Russia," Discussion Paper Series b29, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    9. Su, Dan & Zhang, Lijun & Peng, Hua & Saeidi, Parvaneh & Tirkolaee, Erfan Babaee, 2023. "Technical challenges of blockchain technology for sustainable manufacturing paradigm in Industry 4.0 era using a fuzzy decision support system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    10. Konstantin Yanovsky & Rinat Menyashev, 2013. "Freedom, Ratings and Economic Growth: In Search of Reliable Dependencies," Working Papers 0063, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, revised 2013.
    11. Nicola Gennaioli & Giacomo A. M. Ponzetto, 2015. "Optimally vague contracts and the law," Economics Working Papers 1410, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2017.
    12. Rougier, Eric, 2016. "“Fire in Cairo”: Authoritarian–Redistributive Social Contracts, Structural Change, and the Arab Spring," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 148-171.
    13. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio, 2020. "Birds of a feather flock together: trust in government, political selection and electoral punishment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 263-287, September.
    14. Lin William Cong & Zhiguo He & Jiasun Li & Wei Jiang, 2021. "Decentralized Mining in Centralized Pools [Concentrating on the fall of the labor share]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(3), pages 1191-1235.
    15. Maurizio Massaro & Francesca Dal Mas & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Carlo Bagnoli, 2020. "Crypto‐economy and new sustainable business models: Reflections and projections using a case study analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2150-2160, September.
    16. Benjamin Bental & Bruno Deffains & Dominique Demougin, 2020. "Interpreting contracts: the purposive approach and non-comprehensive incentive contracts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 241-265, October.
    17. David Tannenbaum & Alain Cohn & Christian Lukas Zünd & Michel André Maréchal, 2025. "What Do Cross-Country Surveys Tell Us about Social Capital?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 107(1), pages 142-151, January.
    18. Desbordes, Rodolphe & Vicard, Vincent, 2009. "Foreign direct investment and bilateral investment treaties: An international political perspective," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 372-386, September.
    19. Grajzl, Peter & Baniak, Andrzej, 2018. "Private enforcement, corruption, and antitrust design," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 284-307.

    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:spr:inrvec:v:72:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s12232-025-00494-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.