IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v77y1987i2p342-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Arbitrator Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Ashenfelter, Orley

Abstract

Arbitration systems are often used to resolve labor disputes because on-going employment relationships are likely to contain specific (human capital) investments. Recent research indicates that the ex ante acceptability of arbitration to the parties must depend, in part, on the unpredictability of the arbitrator's award. It is shown that the usual selection process for arbitrators does imply that arbitrator decisions should be statistically exchangeable (in the limit), and the evidence available to date supports this hypothesis.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Ashenfelter, Orley, 1987. "Arbitrator Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 342-346, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:77:y:1987:i:2:p:342-46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Orley Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 399-423, September.
    2. Bruce L. Benson, 1999. "Polycentric Law Versus Monopolized Law : Implications from International Trade for the Potential Success of Emerging Markets," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 15(Fall 1999), pages 36-66.
    3. Janet Currie, 1991. "Rules, Coordination and Manipulability Among Arbitrators," NBER Working Papers 3821, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. David Dickinson, 2003. "Mediation, Walrasian Tâtonnement, and Negotiations as an Exchange Economy," Working Papers 2003-11, Utah State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Gershoni, Naomi, 2021. "Individual vs. group decision-making: Evidence from a natural experiment in arbitration proceedings," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    6. Egan, Mark & Matvos, Gregor & Seru, Amit, 2018. "Arbitration with Uninformed Consumers," Research Papers 3768, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Benson Bruce L., 2000. "Jurisdictional Choice in International Trade: Implications for Lex Cybernatoria," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 3-32, March.
    8. Mark D. Gough & Alexander J. S. Colvin, 2020. "Decision-Maker and Context Effects in Employment Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(2), pages 479-497, March.
    9. Orley Ashenfelter & Gordon B. Dahl, 2003. "Strategic Bargaining Behavior, Self-Serving Biases, and the Role of Expert Agents An Empirical Study of Final-Offer Arbitration," Working Papers 857, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    10. Farmer, Amy & Pecorino, Paul, 2022. "Discovery in a screening model of final offer arbitration," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    11. Nejat Anbarci & Kang Rong & Jaideep Roy, 2019. "Random-settlement arbitration and the generalized Nash solution: one-shot and infinite-horizon cases," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(1), pages 21-52, July.
    12. Julian Donaubauer & Eric Neumayer & Peter Nunnenkamp, 2018. "Winning or losing in investor‐to‐state dispute resolution: The role of arbitrator bias and experience," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 892-916, September.
    13. Alexandre Mas, 2006. "Pay, Reference Points, and Police Performance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(3), pages 783-821.
    14. Kevin F. Hallock & Craig Olson, 2006. "The Value of Stock Options to Non-Executive Employees," NBER Working Papers 11950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. David J. Faurot, 2001. "Equilibrium Explanation of Bargaining and Arbitration in Major League Baseball," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 2(1), pages 22-34, February.
    16. James Lambrinos & Thomas D. Ashman, 2007. "Salary Determination in the National Hockey League Is Arbitration Efficient?," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 8(2), pages 192-201, May.
    17. Yannick Gabuthy & Eve-Angéline Lambert, 2013. "Freedom to bargain and disputes’ resolution," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 373-388, October.
    18. Dickinson, David L., 2006. "The chilling effect of optimism: The case of final-offer arbitration," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 17-30, February.
    19. Freyens, Benoit Pierre & Gong, Xiaodong, 2020. "Judicial arbitration of unfair dismissal cases: The role of peer effects," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    20. Bolton, Gary E. & Katok, Elena, 1998. "Reinterpreting Arbitration's Narcotic Effect: An Experimental Study of Learning in Repeated Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-33, October.
    21. María Mercedes Adamuz & Clara Ponsatí, 2009. "Arbitration systems and negotiations," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(3), pages 279-303, September.
    22. Wojciech Olszewski, 2011. "A Welfare Analysis of Arbitration," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 174-213, February.
    23. Daniel R. Marburger & Paul L. Burgess, 2004. "Can Prior Offers and Arbitration Outcomes Be Used to Predict the Winners of Subsequent Final‐Offer Arbitration Cases?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(1), pages 93-102, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D59 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Other

    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:aea:aecrev:v:77:y:1987:i:2:p:342-46. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.