IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence

Listed author(s):
  • Orley Ashenfelter

    (Princeton University)

  • David Bloom

    (School of Urban and Public Affairs Carnegie-Mellon University)

Our purpose in this paper is to open up the empirical analysis of some simple models of arbitrator behavior under alternative mechanisms and in different economic environments. We do this by studying the outcomes of the first two years of operation of a New Jersey statute that mandates the arbitration of unsettled pay disputes by New Jersey police officers and the municipalities that employ them. This remarkable statute provides for conventional arbitration of pay disputes if the two parties can agree to this, but requires the use of final-offer arbitration if they cannot. Con- sequently, the results of both mechanisms may be analyzed and compared. Although further evidence from the New Jersey experience with an arbitration statute is necessary before firm conclusions should be drawn, several preliminary results of the empirical analysis are worth empha- sizing. First, the New Jersey system does seem to confront the parties with considerable uncertainty about the arbitration decisions they can expect. The mean of arbitrator's preferred awards is apparently closely related to alternative local wage settlements, but these decisions still contain considerable variability around this mean. Second, the union final offers have thus far been very conservative relative to the distribution of arbitrator's preferred settlements. This is demonstrated both by (a) the low values of union and employer final offers relative to the mean of con- ventionally arbitrated settlements, and by (b) the high correlation between the incidence of employer victories and the mean of union and employer final offers. The result is that a high proportion of union offers are being accepted by arbitrators and this proportion is predictable from the data on conventionally arbitrated outcomes alone. Whether this state of affairs simply reflects the risk aversion of the parties or a mistaken view by the parties of what arbitrators will allow is an important subject for further research. If the latter is the case the central tendency of future arbi- trated settlements may be considerably greater than has heretofore been seen, but employer victories are also likely to become considerably more numerous. In either case, our empirical results suggest that the form of the arbitration system adopted may have a considerable impact on the size of arbitration awards.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section. in its series Working Papers with number 526.

in new window

Date of creation: Nov 1981
Handle: RePEc:pri:indrel:146
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Firestone Library, Princeton, New Jersey 08544-2098

Phone: 609 258-4041
Fax: 609 258-2907
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

in new window

  1. repec:fth:prinin:163 is not listed on IDEAS
  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. William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, 1978. "Adjudication as a Private Good," NBER Working Papers 0263, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. repec:fth:prinin:172 is not listed on IDEAS
  5. Orley Ashenfelter & David Bloom, 1983. "The Pitfalls in Judging Arbitrator Impartiality by Win-Loss Tallies Under Final-Offer Arbitration," Working Papers 543, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
  6. David E. Card, 1983. "Arbitrators as Lie Detectors," Working Papers 172, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
  7. Orley Ashenfelter & David Bloom, 1983. "The Pitfalls in Judging Arbitrator Impartiality by Win-Loss Tallies Under Final-Offer Arbitration," Working Papers 543, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
  8. 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)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pri:indrel:146. 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: (Bobray Bordelon)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.