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.
|Date of creation:||Aug 1990|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Econometrica, vol. 60, no. 6 (November 1992) pp. 1407-1433.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
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.:
- David E. Bloom & Christopher L. Cavanagh, 1986.
"An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators,"
NBER Working Papers
1938, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- McConnell, Sheena, 1989. "Strikes, Wages, and Private Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 801-15, 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Currie, J. & Mcconnell, S., 1989.
"Strikes And Arbitration In The Public Sector: Can Legislation Reduce Dispute Costs?,"
360, London School of Economics - Centre for Labour Economics.
- Currie, J. & Mcconnell, S., 1989. "Strikes And Arbitration In The Public Sector: Can Legislation Reduce Dispute Costs?," Papers 9, California Los Angeles - Applied Econometrics.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:3417. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.