Author
Listed:
- Luciana Yeung
- Antonio Bruno de Carvalho Morales
Abstract
Employers in Brazilian labor courts are ordered to pay something in roughly nine of every ten adjudicated claims, and a composition is available at any time at a fraction of what a judgment costs them. Yet large employers decline to compose, claim after claim, for years. We show that this is the equilibrium of a repeated game in which a long-lived defendant faces a continuing flow of short-lived claimants who differ in the personal cost of carrying a claim. The defendant is not buying a cheaper resolution of the present claim; it is buying a public record of refusing to compose, which lengthens the expected duration of any claim brought against it and thins the flow of claims it will face in future. The mechanism requires neither divergent beliefs about the merits nor private information. Three results carry the argument. A reputation for toughness deters entry if and only if the ratio of the two values at stake is smaller than the ratio of the two delays, each measured as a discounted annuity, a condition that is automatic when compositions price at the claimant’s reservation value. Because claimants differ, deterrence is always partial and the filing rate is bounded away from zero at every reputation the defendant can attain, so the stationary outcome is persistent litigation rather than its disappearance. And permanent toughness requires the defendant’s patience to exceed a threshold that falls with the responsiveness of entry and with the speed at which the market’s record forms. We take the model to approximately 130,000 decisions of Brazil’s largest regional labor court (TRT-2, São Paulo) for 2001–2017, obtained by text mining. The corpus establishes the institutional configuration the model assumes: court-fee waivers granted essentially automatically and held by 84.7% of claimants, no exposure of the losing claimant to the employer’s attorney fees, and contingent representation, which together produce a lottery with no losing ticket and guarantee participation at any degree of risk aversion. It also establishes the constraint that forces our definition of reputation, since an employer that disputes everything still loses most of what it disputes and cannot build a record of victories. We do not report a calibration: composition rates are not observable in a corpus of decisions, and we set out what would be needed to measure the model’s remaining objects.
Suggested Citation
Luciana Yeung & Antonio Bruno de Carvalho Morales, 2026.
"Litigation as a "win-win" game: A Theoretical Perspective and Empirical Evidence from Brazilian Labor Courts,"
Economics and Politics Working Paper Series
124/2026, Economics and Politics Research Group (EPRG), University of Brasília.
Handle:
RePEc:gvn:eprgwp:1242026
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23484849
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
JEL classification:
- K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
- C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
- C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
- J52 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Dispute Resolution: Strikes, Arbitration, and Mediation
- K31 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Labor Law
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:gvn:eprgwp:1242026. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Daniel Gersten Reiss (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econpolrg.com/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.