A comparison of arbitration procedures for risk averse disputants

We propose an arbitration model framework that generalizes many previous quantitative models of final offer arbitration, conventional arbitration, and some proposed alternatives to them. Our model allows the two disputants to be risk averse and assumes that the issue(s) in dispute can be summarized by a single quantifiable value. We compare the performance of the different arbitration procedures by analyzing the gap between the disputants' equilibrium offers and the width of the contract zone that these offers imply. Our results suggest that final offer arbitration should give results superior to those of conventional arbitration.Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Gran

Nonbinding Suggestions: The Relative Effects of Focal Points versus Uncertainty Reduction on Bargaining Outcomes

This paper focuses on the effects of nonbinding recommendations on bargaining outcomes. Recommendations are theorized to have two effects: they can create a focal point for final bargaining positions, and they can decrease outcome uncertainty should dispute persist. While the focal point effect may help lower dispute rates, the uncertainty reduction effect is predicted to do the opposite for risk-averse bargainers. Which of these effects dominates is of critical importance in the optimal design of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures, which are becoming increasingly utilized to help resolve disputes in a variety of settings. We theoretically examine the effects of recommendations on the bargaining contract zone. Our theoretical framework, which allows bargainers’ final positions to influence a binding outcome should negotiations fail, provides for a more stringent test of focal points than previously considered. We also present data from controlled laboratory bargaining experiments that are consistent with our model of recommendation effects. Recommendations are empirically shown to influence final bargaining positions and negotiated settlement values. Furthermore, dispute rates are significantly lower when one includes recommendations, even where the recommendation is completely ignored in final-stage arbitration. This highlights a potentially significant role for the use of nonbinding procedures, such as mediation, as a preliminary stage in developing more efficient ADR procedures.

Experimental studies of arbitration mechanisms and two-sided markets

This dissertation consists of three essays. The first essay is an experimental study that examines a relative new type of arbitration called α-Final Offer Arbitration. The second is a theoretical study that introduces inequality aversion as a new explanatory factor for low agreements rates during disputes under arbitration mechanism. The final essay analyzes the effects of different polices on the price stricter in a two-sided market monopoly. Promising results to improve arbitration used in the field are obtained from Amended Final Offer Arbitration (AFOA), which outperforms Final-Offer Arbitration (FOA) and weakly outperforms Conventional Arbitration (CA). The first essay presents an experiment to evaluate a more general case of AFOA, α-Final Offer Arbitration (α-FOA). This mechanism is similar to a second-price auction, which punishes the loser with a value proportional (α) to the difference between her final offer and the arbitrator\u27s fair settlement. The experiment furthermore divides the pool of subjects within a session into two groups according to their estimated risk preferences in order to assess how the contract zone depends on the relative risk preferences of the subjects involved in negotiation. Although agreement rates overall are low, the results show that α-FOA has a significantly higher agreement rate than both CA and FOA. Contrary to theoretical prediction the more risk-averse group of subjects does not have a higher agreement rate than the less risk-averse group of subjects. The second essay proposes an as yet unstudied factor to explain disagreements between disputants under α-Final Offer Arbitration and Conventional Arbitration. Using a utility function proposed by Fehr & Schmidt (1999) that includes inequality aversion, the model predicts that two risk-neutral disputants will not reach an agreement if one of them has positively biased beliefs about the size of the pie. The third essay investigates the effects of different policies on price structure and consumer surplus in a two-sided market monopoly. In a laboratory environment, most of the monopolists charge a price below cost even if there is no threat of new competitors. A policy that imposes that the monopolist must charge the same price for both sides of the market decreases the total consumer surplus, while a policy that imposes that prices must be above costs decreases the total consumer surplus even more. A tax that increases the cost on one side of the market leads to a decrease in the price that monopolist charges on the other side of the market. These results suggest that the policymakers should distinguish between a one-sided and a two-sided market before they impose different policies

A Comparison of Conventional, Final-Offer, and “Combined” Arbitration for Dispute Resolution

Two widely used forms of arbitration are conventional arbitration, in which the arbitrator makes an unconstrained settlement choice, and final-offer arbitration, in which the arbitrator must choose between disputants' final offers. Under an innovative, as yet unused approach called "combined arbitration," if the arbitrator's notion of a fair settlement lies between the disputants' final offers, final-offer arbitration rules are used; otherwise, conventional arbitration rules are used. Theoretically, by combining the risks that the two standard forms of arbitration pose for disputants who do not voluntarily settle, combined arbitration should generate convergent final offers. The results of this controlled laboratory study show, however, that dispute rates are highest in combined arbitration and lowest in conventional arbitration. These results challenge the theoretical predictions for combined arbitration as well as claims that final offer arbitration should reduce disputes compared to conventional arbitration. The results are, however, consistent with a simple theory of disputant optimism

Does Fact-Finding Promote Settlement? Theory and a Test

Nonbinding recommendations, such as provided by fact-finders, are shown to significantly increase voluntary settlements in bargaining. Theoretically, it is unclear whether recommendations will increase settlement rates. A recommendation may reduce outcome uncertainty, thereby "chilling" bargaining and increasing dispute rates. On the other hand, a recommendation may give the parties a focal point around which an agreement is made. Which of these effects dominates is a question that we consider using theory and data from controlled bargaining experiments. The data show the dominance of a focal point effect for suggestions, highlighting their potential role in improving dispute settlement procedures

Does Fact-Finding Promote Settlement? Theory and a Test

Some labor negotiations include a break in which a non-binding recommendation is made by a fact-finder as an intermediate dispute resolution procedure. There is some uncertainty, however, as to whether this fact-finding increases or reduces the likelihood of settlement. Inasmuch as fact-finding reduces uncertainty about the outcome, it may chill bargaining and increase the need for additional dispute resolution procedures. On the other hand, the fact-finder\u27s recommendation may give the parties a focal point around which they are able to craft an agreement, thus reducing the incidence of disputes. Which of these effects dominates is a question that we consider using both a theoretical model and data from a controlled experimental bargaining environment

Arbitration using the closest offer principle of arbitrator behaviour

In this paper we introduce a model of arbitration decision making which generalizes several previous models of both conventional arbitration and final offer arbitration. We derive the equilibrium offers that risk neutral disputants would propose, and show how these offers would vary under different arbitration procedures. In particular, we show that optimal offers made under conventional arbitration will always be more extreme than those made under final offer arbitration.Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Gran

Nonbinding Suggestions: The Relative Effects of Focal Points versus Uncertainty Reduction on Bargaining Outcomes

This paper focuses on the effects of nonbinding recommendations on bargaining outcomes. Recommendations are theorized to have two effects: they can create a focal point for final bargaining positions, and they can decrease outcome uncertainty should dispute persist. While the focal point effect may help lower dispute rates, the uncertainty reduction effect is predicted to do the opposite for risk-averse bargainers. Which of these effects dominates is of critical importance in the optimal design of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures, which are becoming increasingly utilized to help resolve disputes in a variety of settings. We theoretically examine the effects of recommendations on the bargaining contract zone. Our theoretical framework, which allows bargainers’ final positions to influence a binding outcome should negotiations fail, provides for a more stringent test of focal points than previously considered. We also present data from controlled laboratory bargaining experiments that are consistent with our model of recommendation effects. Recommendations are empirically shown to influence final bargaining positions and negotiated settlement values. Furthermore, dispute rates are significantly lower when one includes recommendations, even where the recommendation is completely ignored in final-stage arbitration. This highlights a potentially significant role for the use of nonbinding procedures, such as mediation, as a preliminary stage in developing more efficient ADR procedures