An Analysis of Final-Offer Arbitration

Henry S. Farber

Journal of Conflict Resolution · 1980 · 220 citations · 12 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The authors develop a model of final‑offer arbitration. They derive the Nash equilibrium pair of final offers. The analysis shows that the risk‑averse party submits a more reasonable offer and is more likely to win, that the contract zone size increases with uncertainty, that higher uncertainty causes offers to diverge creating a trade‑off between zone size and award extremity, and that negotiated settlements are biased against the risk‑averse party.

Abstract

A model of the final-offer arbitration (FOA) process is developed, and the Nash equilibrium pair of final offers is derived. It is shown that the more risk-averse party submits a more reasonable offer so that it has a higher probability of being chosen by the arbitrator. The contract zone of potential negotiated settlements is derived, and its size is shown to be directly related to the uncertainty of the parties concerning the arbitrators' preferences. However, the final offers of the parties diverge where there is increased uncertainty, so that there is a trade-off between the size of the contract zone and the extremity of arbitrated awards when negotiations do fail. Finally, it is shown that negotiated settlements under FOA are skewed against the more risk-averse party.

References

12