IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/ejlwec/v12y2001i1p39-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Arbitration and Incentives: How to Preclude the Chilling Effect?

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie Chappe

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathalie Chappe, 2001. "Arbitration and Incentives: How to Preclude the Chilling Effect?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 39-45, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:ejlwec:v:12:y:2001:i:1:p:39-45
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1011292210789
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1011292210789
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1011292210789?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farber, Henry S & Bazerman, Max H, 1986. "The General Basis of Arbitrator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Conventional and Final-Offer Arbitration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(4), pages 819-844, July.
    2. Farber, Henry S & Bazerman, Max H, 1986. "The General Basis of Arbitrator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Conventional and Final-Offer Arbitration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1503-1528, November.
    3. Bruce L. Benson, 2001. "Law and economics," Chapters, in: William F. Shughart II & Laura Razzolini (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Public Choice, chapter 26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Andreoni & Ray D Madoff, 2007. "Overconfdence and Judicial Discretion: Do Winner-take-all Rules Discourage Pre-trial Agreement?," Levine's Bibliography 843644000000000198, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Alan Speight & Dennis Thomas, 1997. "Arbitrator Decision‐Making in the Transfer Market: an Empirical Analysis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 44(2), pages 198-215, May.
    3. Miguel Á. Malo & Ángel Martín-Román & Alfonso Moral, 2018. "“Peer effects” or “quasi-peer effects” in Spanish labour court rulings," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 497-525, June.
    4. Gabuthy, Yannick & Jacquemet, Nicolas & Marchand, Nadège, 2008. "Does resorting to online dispute resolution promote agreements? Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 259-282, February.
    5. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    6. 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.
    7. Orley C. Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game: Evidence from Long Run Play," NBER Working Papers 18834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. 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.
    9. David S. Kaplan & Joyce Sadka & Jorge Luis Silva‐Mendez, 2008. "Litigation and Settlement: New Evidence from Labor Courts in Mexico," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 309-350, June.
    10. Armstrong, Michael J. & Hurley, W. J., 2002. "Arbitration using the closest offer principle of arbitrator behavior," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 19-26, January.
    11. Ashenfelter, Orley, et al, 1992. "An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(6), pages 1407-1433, November.
    12. Karen Mumford, 1996. "Arbitration and ACAS in Britain: a Historical Perspective," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 34(2), pages 287-305, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Martín-Román, Ángel & Moral, Alfonso & Martínez-Matute, Marta, 2015. "Peer effects in judicial decisions: Evidence from Spanish labour courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-37.
    15. Juan-Pablo Montero, 2004. "A Model of Arbitration in Regulation," Documentos de Trabajo 267, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    16. Luke M. Froeb & Bernhard Ganglmair & Steven Tschantz, 2016. "Adversarial Decision Making: Choosing between Models Constructed by Interested Parties," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 527-548.
    17. Bloom, David E, 1986. "Empirical Models of Arbitrator Behavior under Conventional Arbitration," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 578-585, November.
    18. Gabuthy, Yannick & Jacquemet, Nicolas & Marchand, Nadège, 2008. "Does resorting to online dispute resolution promote agreements? Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 259-282, February.
    19. Ioana Marinescu, 2011. "Are Judges Sensitive to Economic Conditions? Evidence from Uk Employment Tribunals," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 64(4), pages 673-698, July.
    20. Gershoni, Naomi, 2021. "Individual vs. group decision-making: Evidence from a natural experiment in arbitration proceedings," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    arbitration; incentives;

    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:kap:ejlwec:v:12:y:2001:i:1:p:39-45. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.