Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Economics, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2008. / Principal faculty advisor: Charles Robert Link, Dept. of Economics. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [178]-182). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 1998. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [178]-182). Also available on the Internet.

This article explains how it was formed and shaped the Facultative Labour Arbitration optional by the judgments of the Constitutional Court, in order to that the workers or the employer may resort and request the initiation of arbitration which their counterpart must be submitted obligatorily, without previous arbitration clause or agreement. the constitutional system requires that the labor arbitration has to be an alternative mechanism to the negative response of the previous negotiations. / El presente artículo explica cómo se ha formado y perfilado el arbitraje potestativo laboral mediante las sentencias del tribunal Constitucional, con el fin de que los trabajadores o el empleador pueden recurrir y solicitar el inicio de un arbitraje al que su contraparte deberá someterse obligatoriamente, sin necesidad de cláusula arbitral o acuerdo previo. El sistema constitucional exige que el arbitraje laboral sea un mecanismo subsidiario ante la respuesta negativa de las negociacionesprevias.

從個體決策制定（decision-making）的角度觀之，參與談判、創造合約，是一種既可學習處世又可瞭解「人性」的雙贏作為。個體在歷經集體談判的互動（interaction）過程後，所獲得的償值（payoffs），也許會超越前述的期望效益；然而，對於「急需達成協議卻失敗者」或「被迫達成協議者」而言，因為無法如願以償，付出與耗損的心力，往住令人無法說服自己──這樣的結果符合吾人之期望（expectancy）──於是，個體理性（individual rationality）與集體理性（collective rationality）間的弔詭（paradox）又乍然若現。 仲裁人以中立第三者的角色，受理談判參與者的爭議，裁決爭議各造的償值，是聯結個體與集體理性的制度設計之一。然而，不同的仲裁制度所依循的特定仲裁程序，及其所隱含的偏差（bias），對交付仲裁的爭議各造及仲裁人決策模式所產生的影響，著實不容忽略。 本文的旨趣在於對仲裁制度及程序所隱含的偏差進行實驗比較，以博奕理論（game theory）為分析工具，來檢視下列三個變項所形成的二種關係： 一、在最終報價仲裁（final-offer arbitration）制度之下，仲裁人的特定偏好（preferences）對爭議兩造的影響，觀察的指標為爭議率及各造的報價策略； 二、不同仲裁制度及程序對仲裁人從事仲裁判斷之影響，觀察的指標為仲裁判斷分布（distribution of arbitration awards）。 本文的結論將藉由前述二種關係的檢證結果，來觀察「爭議兩造」、「仲裁人」及「仲裁制度」三個變項的交集點──仲裁判斷（arbitration awards）──對爭議兩造在重複競局(repeated game)中報價策略的影響，並試圖探究如何縮短個體理性與集體理性之間的落差，冀能透過制度設計來提供爭議各造誠實報價的誘因，並進一步促使仲裁人在從事判斷時能秉公處理，藉以回歸仲裁公平與專業的本質。 Ashenfelter, Orley, Currie, Janet, Farber, Henry S., and Matthew Spiegel. 1992. An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems. Econometrica 60(6):1407-1433. Ashenfelter, Orley. 1987. Arbitrator Behavior. American Economic Review 77(2):342-346. Ashenfelter, Orley, and David E.Bloom. 1984. Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence. American Economic Review 74(1):111-124. Ashenfelter, Orley, and George E. Johnson. 1969. Bargaining Theory, Trade Unions, and Industrial Strike Activity. American Economic Review 59:35-49. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Berk, Jonathan B., Hughson, Eric, and Kirk Vandezande. 1996. The Price Is Right, But Are the Bids? An Investigation of Rational Decision Theory. American Economic Review 86(4):954-970. Bloom, David E., and Christopher L. Cavanagh. 1987. Negotiator Behavior under Arbitraion. American Economic Review 77(2):353-358. Bloom, David E., and Christopher L. Cavanagh. 1986. A Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators. American Economic Review 76(3):408-422. Bogdanor, Vernon. (Ed.). 1987. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions. London: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Bolton, Gary E., and Elena Katok. 1998. Reinterpreting Arbitration’s Nacotic Effect: An Experimental Study of Learning in Repeated Bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior 25:1-33. Brams, Steven J. 1990. Negotiation Games: Applying Game Theory to Bargaining and Arbitration. New York: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. Brams, Steven J., and Alan D.Taylor. 1996. Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brams, Steven J., Kilgour, D. Marc, and Samuel Merrill III. 1991. Arbitration Procedures. In Negotiation Analysis, ed. H. Peyton Young. Michigan: Michigan University Press. Bruce, Christopher J., and Jo Carby-Hall. 1991. Rethinking Labour-Management Relations: the Case for Arbitration. New York: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Newman, David, and Alvin Rabushka. 1985. Forecasting Political Events: The future of Hong Kong. New Haven: Yale University Press. Campa, Jose Manuel, and P. H. Kevin Chang. 1996. Arbitrage-Based Tests of Target-Zone Credibility: Evidence from ERM Cross-Rate Options. American Economic Review 86(4):726-740. Coase, Ronald H. 1988. The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coleman, James S. 1990. The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Dunlop, John T. 1984. Dispute Resolution: Negotiation and Consensus Building. New York: Auburn House. Erev, Ido, and Alvin E. Roth. 1998. Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria. American Economic Review 88(4):849-881. Farber, Henry S. 1980b. Does Final-Offer Arbitration Encourage Bargaining? Proceeding of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 219-226. Farber, Henry S., and Max H. Bazerman. 1986.The General Basis of Arbitrator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Conventional and Final-Offer Arbitration. Econometrica 54(6): 1503-1528. Farber, Henry S., and Max H. Bazerman. 1987. Why is there Disagreement in Bargaining? American Economic Review 77(2):347-352. Farber, Henry S., and Max H. Bazerman. 1989. Divergent Expectations as a Cause of Disagreement in Bargaining: Evidence from a Comparison of Arbitration Schemes. Quartely Journal of Economics 104:99-120. Feuille, Peter, Delaney, John Thomas, and Wallace Hendricks. 1985. The Impact of Interest Arbitration on Police Contracts. Industrial Relations 24(2):161-181. Fizel, John. 1996. Bias in Salary Arbitration: The Case of Major League Baseball. Applied Economics 28(2):255-265. Flanagan, Robert J. 1991. Socrates Confronts Final-Offer Selection. Industrial Relations 30(1):163-167. Frederick, David M., Kaempfer, William H., Ross, Martin T., and Richard L. Wobbekind. 1998. Arbitration versus Negotiation: The Risk Aversion of Players. Applied Economics Letters 5(3):187-190. Friedman, Clara H. 1995. Between Management and Labour: Oral Histories of Arbitration. New York: Twayne Publishers. Gallagher, Daniel G., and M. D. Chaubey. 1982. Impasse Behavior and Tri-Offer Arbitration in Iowa. Industrial Relations 21(2): 129-148. Gardner, Roy. 1995. Games for Business and Economics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gibbons, Robert. 1988. Learning in Equilibrium Models of Arbitration. American Economic Review 78(5):896-912. Goodin, Robert E. 1996. The Theory of Institutional Design. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hall, Lavinia.Ed. 1993. Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain. California: Sage Publications. Hebdon, Robert P., and Robert N. Stern. 1998. Tradeoffs among Expressions of Industrial Conflict: Public Sector Strike Bans and Grievance Arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 51(2):204-221. Hammond III, John S, Keeney, Ralph L., and Howard Raiffa. 1998. Smart Choices: a practical guide to making better decision. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Kanowitz, Leo. 1986. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Cases and Materials. Minnesota: West Publishing Co. Kellor, Frances. 1972. American Arbitration: It’s History, Functions and Achievements. New York: Kennikat. Kressel, Kenneth, Pruitt, Dean G., and Associations. 1989. Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kichan, Thomas A., Mironi, Mordehai, Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Baderschneider, Jean, and Todd Jick. 1979. Dispute Resolution under Fact-finding and Arbitration: An Empirical Evaluation. New York: American Arbitration Association. Kremenyuk, Victor A. Ed. International Negotiation: Analysis, Approach, Issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lester, Richard. 1984. Labor Arbitration in State and Local Government. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Long, Gary, and Peter Feuille. 1974. Final-Offer Arbitration: “Sudden Death”in Eugene. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 27(2):186-203. McCall, Brian P. 1990. Interest Arbitration and the Incentive to Bargain. Journal of Conflict Resolution 34(1):151-167. Morrow, James D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientist. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nicholson, Micheal. 1991. Negotiation, Agreement and Conflict Resolution: The Role of Rational Approaches and their Criticism. In New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation, ed. Raimo Vayrynen. London: Sage. Olson, Carig A. 1980. The Impact of Arbitration on the Wages of Firefighters. Industrial Relations 19(3):325-337. Olson, Carig A., and Barbara L. Rau. 1997. Learning from Interest Arbitraion: the Next Round. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50(2):237-215. Olson, Carig A., Dell’omo, Gregory G., and Paul Jarley. 1992. A Comparison of Interest Arbitrator Decision-Making in Experimental and Field Setting. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45(4):711-723. Olson, Mancur Jr. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osborne Martin J., and Ariel Rubinstein. 1998. Games with procedurally Rational Players. American Economic Review 88(4):835-847. Ostrom, Vincent., Feeny, David., and Hartmut Picht 1988. Rethinking Institutional Analysis and Development: Issues, Alternatives, and Choices. San Francisco: International Center for Economics Growth. Powell, W. W., and P. J. DiMaggio. (Ed.). 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Raiffa, Howard. 1996. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge: Havard University Press. Raiffa, Howard. 1995. Analytical Barriers. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Kenneth J. Arrow et al. California: The Stanford Center on Conflict & Negotiation. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press. Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Schellenberg, James A. 1996. Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: State University of New York Press. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1976(1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Simpson, Patricia A., and Joseph J Martocchio. 1997. The Influence of Work History Factors on Arbitraion Outcomes. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50(2):252-267. Speight, Alan E. H., and Dennis A. Thomas. 1997a. Conventional Arbitration in the Professional Footballer’s Labour Market: an Assessment of the FLAC Experience. Industrial Relations Journal 28(3):221-235. Speight, Alan E. H., and Dennis A. Thomas. 1997b. Football League Transfers: A Comparison of Negotiated Fees with Arbitration Settlements. Applied Economics Letters 4:41-44. Stone, I. F. 1988. The Trial of Socrates. Boston: Brown & Co. Thornton, Robert J., and Perry A. Zirkel. 1990. The Consistency and Predictability of Grievance Arbitration Awards. Industrial and Labor Relation Review 43(2):294-307. Vickerey, William. 1960. Utility, Strategy, and Social Decision Rules. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 74(4):507-511. Weimer, David L. 1995. Institutional Design. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Zigarelli, Michael A. 1996. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Teacher Bargaining Outcomes. Journal of Labor Research 17(1):135-148. 毛慶生等合著 民88年 《經濟學》，二版，台北：華泰文化事業公司。 王躍生 民86年 《新制度主義》，台北：揚智文化。 吳秀光 民86年b 〈理性抉擇途徑與兩岸關係研究〉，中國大陸研究，第38卷，第3期，頁58-65。 吳秀光 民87年 《政府談判之博奕理論分析》，台北：時英出版社。 沈清松 民79年 《人我交融：自我成熟與人際關係》，台北：時英出版社。 林添貴譯；Alfred D. Wilhelm, Jr.著 民84年 《談判桌上的中國人》，台北：新新聞文化事業股份有限公司。 胡國才譯；Henry A. Kissinger著 民71年 《核子武器與外交政策》，台北：黎明文化事業股份有限公司。 徐仁輝 民88年 《當代預算改革的制度性研究》，台北：智勝文化。 陳坤銘、李華夏譯；Coase, Ronald. H. 著 民84年 《廠商、市場與法律》，台北：遠流出版公司。 陳煥文 民88年 《仲裁法逐條釋義》，台北：自刊。 陳煥文 民83年 《國際仲裁法專論》，台北：五南圖書出版公司。 陳順發譯；Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff著 民85年 《大謀略：遊戲理論的全方位運用》，台北：牛頓出版股份有限公司。 陳欽春 民87年 國土規劃期未報告，台北：國立台北大學。 黃宏義譯；Roger Fisher and William Ury著 民75年 《哈佛談判術》，台北：長河出版社。 詹中原 民86年 《危機管理上課講義》。 孫本初譯；Brody, Richard A., and Adand C. N. Brownstein著 民72年 《實驗方法與模擬》，台北：幼獅文化事業公司。 新新聞編輯小組譯；Nancy B. Tucker著 民84年 《不確定的友情：台灣、香港與美國，1945至1992》，台北：新新聞文化事業股份有限公司。 楊崇森等合著 民88年 《仲裁法新論》，台北：中華民國仲裁協會。 賓靜蓀譯；Max H. Bazerman and Margart A. Neale著 民82年 《樂在談判》（Negotiation Rationally, 1992），台北：天下遠見出版股份有限公司。 謝復生 民79年 《民意、制衡與效率──論民主的價值》，台北：敦煌書局。 謝瑤玲譯；Herb Cohen著 民80年 《談判的技巧》，台北：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。 劉瑞華譯；North, Douglass C. 著 民83年 《制度、制度變遷與經濟成就》，台北：時報文化。 鄧方譯；Kreps, D. M. 著 民85年 《賽局理論與經濟模型》，台北：五南圖書出版公司。 鄧東濱等編著 民80年 《個體經濟學理論》，台北：三民書局。 董安琪譯；Olson, Mancur著 民78年 《集體行動的邏輯》，台北：遠流出版公司。 薛密譯；Simon Singh著 民87年 《費瑪的最後定理》，台北：臺灣商務。 蕭全政 民86年 〈組織與制度的政治經濟分析〉，《暨大學報》，第一卷，第一期，頁1-16。 藍瀛芳 民87年 〈從德國新仲裁法看我國新仲裁法〉，《商務仲裁》，第51期，頁1-23。

Cette étude aborde le sujet de l’arbitrage de l’offre-finale. L’étude vise tout d’abord à présenter la particularité de ce mécanisme arbitral au travers du prisme de l’arbitrage salarial pratiqué au baseball. Elle vise ensuite à promouvoir l’utilité de ce processus au sein de ce cadre sportif en proposant son emploi pour régler les litiges relatifs à la détermination du montant des indemnités de transferts des footballeurs professionnels européens. / The following is a case-study about final-offer arbitration. The first objective is to describe the uniqueness of this mechanism in the context of baseball salary-arbitration. The second is to promote the utility of this process, in the context of baseball salary-arbitration. For instance, it advocates for its use to determine appropriate fees to be paid for professional european soccer players transfers.

Cette étude aborde le sujet de l’arbitrage de l’offre-finale. L’étude vise tout d’abord à présenter la particularité de ce mécanisme arbitral au travers du prisme de l’arbitrage salarial pratiqué au baseball. Elle vise ensuite à promouvoir l’utilité de ce processus au sein de ce cadre sportif en proposant son emploi pour régler les litiges relatifs à la détermination du montant des indemnités de transferts des footballeurs professionnels européens. / The following is a case-study about final-offer arbitration. The first objective is to describe the uniqueness of this mechanism in the context of baseball salary-arbitration. The second is to promote the utility of this process, in the context of baseball salary-arbitration. For instance, it advocates for its use to determine appropriate fees to be paid for professional european soccer players transfers.