An Experimental Comparison Of Dispute Rates In Alternative Arbitration Systems
This paper reports the results of a systematic experimental comparison of the effect of alternative arbitration systems on dispute rates. The key to our experimental design is the use of a common underlying distribution of arbitrator "fair" awards in the different arbitration systems. This allows us to compare dispute rates across different arbitration procedures where we hold fixed the amount of objective underlying uncertainty about the arbitration awards. There are three main findings. First, dispute rates are inversely related to the monetary costs of disputes. Dispute rates were much lower in cases where arbitration was not available so that the entire pie was lost in the event of dispute. Second, contrary to conventional wisdom, the dispute rate in a final-offer arbitration system is at least as high as the dispute rate in comparable conventional arbitration system. Third, dispute rates are inversely related to the uncertainty costs of disputes. Dispute rates were lower in conventional arbitration treatments where the variance of the arbitration award was higher and imposed greater costs on risk-averse negotiators. Our results can also be interpreted as providing tentative evidence that the negotiators were risk-averse on average.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||1990|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (609) 258-4800
Web page: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McConnell, Sheena, 1989. "Strikes, Wages, and Private Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 801-15, September.
- Bloom, David E & Cavanagh, Christopher L, 1986.
"An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 408-22, June.
- Henry S. Farber & Max H. Bazerman, 1989. "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.
- Tracy, Joseph S, 1986. "An Investigation into the Determinants of U.S. Strike Activity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 423-36, June.
- Currie, J. & Mcconnell, S., 1989.
"Strikes And Arbitration In The Public Sector: Can Legislation Reduce Dispute Costs?,"
9, California Los Angeles - Applied Econometrics.
- Currie, J. & Mcconnell, S., 1989. "Strikes And Arbitration In The Public Sector: Can Legislation Reduce Dispute Costs?," Papers 360, London School of Economics - Centre for Labour Economics.
- Max H. Bazerman & Henry S. Farber, 1985. "Arbitrator decision making: When are final offers important?," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 39(1), pages 76-89, October.
- Harrison, Glenn W, 1989. "Theory and Misbehavior of First-Price Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 749-62, September.
- Farber, Henry S & Bazerman, Max H, 1989. "Divergent Expectations as a Cause of Disagreement in Bargaining: Evidence from a Comparison of Arbitration Schemes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 104(1), pages 99-120, February.
- Henry S. Farber & Harry C. Katz, 1979. "Interest arbitration, outcomes, and the incentive to bargain," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 33(1), pages 55-63, October.
- Orley Ashenfelter & David Bloom, 1981.
"Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence,"
526, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
- Orley Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom, 1983. "Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence," NBER Working Papers 1149, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fth:priwdp:55. 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: (Thomas Krichel)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.