IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Pitfalls in Judging Arbitrator Impartiality by Win-Loss Tallies Under Final-Offer Arbitration


  • Orley Ashenfelter

    (Princeton University)

  • David Bloom

    (Harvard University)


This paper contains some early results of a longer term empirical study of a New Jersey arbitration statute that covers police officers and firefighters. The purpose of this larger study is twofold. First, we hope to shed some light on how differences in the structure of arbitration mechanisms affect the size and frequency of negotiated settlements as well as arbitration outcomes. This is possible in New Jersey because the same panel of arbitrators administers both final-offer and conventional arbitra- tion systems simultaneously. Second, it is our view that arbitration systems share much in common with other judicial and quasi-judicial dispute settlement mechanisms. It is our hope to shed some light on the more general issues surrounding the design and evaluation of these systems through the much needed empirical study of the operation of one such system. In this paper we report some important results for the interpreta- tion and evaluation of arbitrator impartiality under the New Jersey sta- tute. We suspect these results are equally relevant for the interpretation of other arbitration experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • 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..
  • Handle: RePEc:pri:indrel:163

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Alon Klement & Zvika Neeman, 2013. "Does Information about Arbitrators' Win/Loss Ratios Improve Their Accuracy?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 369-397.
    2. Bloom, David E & Cavanagh, Christopher L, 1986. "An Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 408-422, June.
    3. Orley Ashenfelter & David Bloom, 1981. "Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers 526, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    4. 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.
    5. Klement, Alon & Neeman, Zvika, 2012. "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.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • M54 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Labor Management


    Access and download statistics


    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:pri:indrel:163. 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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.