IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v71y2004i1p93-102.html

Can Prior Offers and Arbitration Outcomes Be Used to Predict the Winners of Subsequent Final‐Offer Arbitration Cases?

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel R. Marburger
  • Paul L. Burgess

Abstract

The purpose of interest arbitration is to encourage bargainers to negotiate their own mutually agreeable settlement. In final‐offer arbitration (FOA), the bargainers exchange final offers. If a settlement is not reached, an independent arbitrator selects one of the final offers as the award. At the beginning of each arbitration period, the only information available to bargainers relating to arbitrator preferences is past outcomes. Given its goal of driving negotiated settlements, an effective FOA process requires bargainers to infer useful information about arbitrator preferences from past outcomes. Using data from major league baseball, this article provides evidence that past FOA decisions are positively correlated with the outcomes of future FOA cases.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:71:y:2004:i:1:p:93-102
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2004.tb00625.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2004.tb00625.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2004.tb00625.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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    4. 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(4), pages 819-844, July.
    5. Paul L. Burgess & Daniel R. Marburger, 1993. "Do Negotiated and Arbitrated Salaries Differ under Final-Offer Arbitration?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 46(3), pages 548-559, April.
    6. Craig A. Olson & Paul Jarley, 1991. "Arbitrator Decisions in Wisconsin Teacher Wage Disputes," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 44(3), pages 536-547, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Phillip A. Miller, 2000. "A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison of Free Agent and Arbitration-Eligible Salaries Negotiated in Major League Baseball," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 67(1), pages 87-104, July.
    9. O. Homer Erekson & James W. Moser & Steven Schwartz, 1989. "Evenhandedness in Arbitration: The Case of Major League Baseball," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 117-127, Apr-Jun.
    10. Amy Farmer Curry & Paul Pecorino, 1993. "The Use of Final Offer Arbitration as a Screening Device," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(4), pages 655-669, December.
    11. 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.
    12. David J. Faurot, 2001. "Equilibrium Explanation of Bargaining and Arbitration in Major League Baseball," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 2(1), pages 22-34, February.
    13. Craig A. Olson & Gregory G. Dell'Omo & Paul Jarley, 1991. "A Comparison of Interest Arbitrator Decision-Making in Experimental and Field Settings," Working Papers 664, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    14. Ashenfelter, Orley, 1987. "Arbitrator Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 342-346, May.
    15. David J. Faurot & Stephen McAllister, 1992. "Salary Arbitration and Pre-Arbitration Negotiation in Major League Baseball," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 45(4), pages 697-710, July.
    16. Henry S. Farber, 1981. "Splitting-the-Difference in Interest Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 35(1), pages 70-77, October.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. María Mercedes Adamuz & Clara Ponsatí, 2009. "Arbitration systems and negotiations," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(3), pages 279-303, September.
    6. Lawrence Hadley & John Ruggiero, 2006. "Final-offer arbitration in major league baseball: A nonparametric analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 201-209, July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Gershoni, Naomi, 2021. "Individual vs. group decision-making: Evidence from a natural experiment in arbitration proceedings," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    10. repec:vuw:vuwscr:19179 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Klement, Alon & Neeman, Zvika, 2011. "Private Selection and Arbitration Neutrality," Working Paper Series 19179, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    12. Wojciech Olszewski, 2011. "A Welfare Analysis of Arbitration," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 174-213, February.
    13. Orley Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 399-423, September.
    14. Klement, Alon & Neeman, Zvika, 2011. "Private Selection and Arbitration Neutrality," Working Paper Series 4074, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    15. Janet Currie, 1989. "Wages and Arbitrator Behavior," UCLA Economics Working Papers 562, UCLA Department of Economics.
    16. James Lambrinos & Thomas D. Ashman, 2007. "Salary Determination in the National Hockey League Is Arbitration Efficient?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 8(2), pages 192-201, May.
    17. Mark Egan & Gregor Matvos & Amit Seru, 2025. "Arbitration with Uninformed Consumers," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(6), pages 3888-3923.
    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. David S. Kaplan & Joyce Sadka & Jorge Luis Silva‐Mendez, 2008. "Litigation and Settlement: New Evidence from Labor Courts in Mexico," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 309-350, June.

    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:wly:soecon:v:71:y:2004:i:1:p:93-102. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    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.