Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorArmstrong, Michael J.
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-01T16:47:38Z
dc.date.available2016-06-01T16:47:38Z
dc.date.issued2004
dc.identifier.citationArmstrong MJ, 2004, A comparison of arbitration procedures for risk averse disputants, Decision Sciences 35, 639-664en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10464/9373
dc.description.abstractWe 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNatural Sciences & Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Granten_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.subjectArbitrationen_US
dc.subjectGame theoryen_US
dc.subjectBargainingen_US
dc.subjectOperations researchen_US
dc.titleA comparison of arbitration procedures for risk averse disputantsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record