Skip to main content

Amended final-offer arbitration over an uncertain value: A comparison with CA and FOA

Abstract

Arbitration is increasingly employed to resolve disputes. Two arbitration mechanisms, conventional arbitration (CA) and final-offer arbitration (FOA) are commonly utilized, but previous theoretical and empirical research has found that they are unsatisfactory. Several alternative mechanisms have been proposed, but ultimately laboratory research has found that they do not offer an improvement. An exception is amended final-offer arbitration (AFOA), which not only has desirable theoretical properties but also has been demonstrated to outperform FOA in the laboratory. This study provides a direct laboratory comparison of AFOA with CA. Also, by utilizing an environment with an uncertain payoff to one of the parties, this study tests the robustness of AFOA’s performance relative to FOA. The results indicate that AFOA does outperform FOA, but that AFOA is only weakly better than CA.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Ashenfelter, O., Currie, J., Farber, H. S., & Spiegel, M. (1992). An experimental comparison of dispute rates in alternative arbitration systems. Econometrica, 60, 1407–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(Winter), 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., & Wang, X. (1995). The relationship between uncertainty, the contract zone and efficiency in a bargaining experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 475–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, L. (1993). Understanding the limits of court-connected ADR: a critique of federal court-annexed arbitration programs. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141, 2169–2259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1998). Reinterpreting arbitration’s narcotic effect: An experimental study of learning in repeated bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 25, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., & Merrill, S. III. (1983). Equilibrium strategies for final-offer arbitration: There is no median convergence. Management Science, 29, 927–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., & Merrill, S. III. (1986). Binding versus final-offer arbitration: A combination is best. Management Science, 32, 1346–1355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deck, C., & Farmer, A. (2005). Bargaining with asymmetric uncertainty: Arbitration mechanisms compared. Working paper, University of Arkansas.

  • Deck, C., & Farmer, A. (2007). Bargaining over an uncertain value: Arbitration mechanisms compared. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 23, forthcoming.

  • Deck, C., Farmer, A., & Zeng, D.-Z. (2005). Amended final-offer arbitration outperforms final-offer arbitration. Working paper, University of Arkansas.

  • Dickinson, D. L. (2004). A comparison of conventional, final-offer, and ‘Combined’ arbitration for dispute resolution. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57, 288–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. L. (2005a). Bargaining outcomes with double-offer arbitration. Experimental Economics, 8, 145–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. L. (2005b). The effects of beliefs versus risk preferences on bargaining outcomes, working paper.

  • Farber, H. S. (1980). An analysis of final-offer arbitration. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, 683–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farber, H. S., & Bazerman, M.H. (1989). Divergent expectations as a cause of disagreement in bargaining: evidence from a comparison of arbitration schemes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, A., & Pecorino, P. (1996). Issues of informational asymmetry in legal bargaining. In Dispute Resolution: Bridging the Settlement Gap, JAI Press, Inc.

  • Farmer, A., Pecorino. P., & Stango V. (2004). The causes of bargaining failure: evidence from major league baseball. Journal of Law and Economics, 47, 543–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feuille, P. (1975). Final-offer arbitration and the chilling effect. Industrial Relations, 14, 302–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, James P. (1993) U.S. Tax review. Tax Notes International, 7, 1041–1042.

  • Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour, D. M. (1994). Game-theoretic properties of final-offer arbitration. Group Decision and Negotiation, 3, 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, G., & Feuille, P. (1974). Final-offer arbitration: sudden death in eugene. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 27, 186–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longford, N. T. (1993). Random coefficient models. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malouf, M., & A. Roth (1981). Disagreement in bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale M. A., & Bazerman, M.H. (1983). The role of perspective taking ability in negotiating under different forms of arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36, 378–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pecorino, P., & Van Boening, M. (2001). Bargaining and information: an empirical analysis of a multistage arbitration game. Journal of Labor Economics, 19, 922–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavell, S. (1982). Suit, settlement and trial: a theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs. Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, C. M. (1966). Is compulsory arbitration compatible with bargaining? Industrial Relations, 5, 38–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, H. N. (1975). An analysis of firefighter strikes. Labor Law Journal, 26, 17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, H. N. (1978). How compulsory arbitration affects compromise activity. Industrial Relations, 17, 80–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, D.-Z. (2003). An amendment to final-offer arbitration. Mathematical Social Sciences, 46, 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, D.-Z. (2006). How powerful is arbitration procedure AFOA? International Review of Law and Economics, 26, 227–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, D.-Z., Nakamura, S., & Ibaraki, T. (1996). Double-offer arbitration. Mathematical Social Sciences, 31, 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cary Deck.

Additional information

JEL Classification C7, C9, J5, K4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Deck, C., Farmer, A. & Zeng, DZ. Amended final-offer arbitration over an uncertain value: A comparison with CA and FOA. Exp Econ 10, 439–454 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9146-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9146-9

Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Bargaining
  • Dispute resolution
  • Experiments