Strategy-Proof Multi-Issue Mediation: An Application to Online Dispute Resolution

References

• Ali SF (2018) Court Mediation Reform: Efficiency, Confidence and Perceptions of Justice (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ausubel LM, Cramton P, Deneckere RJ (2002) Bargaining with Incomplete Information. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, vol. 3 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 1897–1945.Google Scholar
• Backus M, Blake T, Tadelis S (2019) On the empirical content of cheap-talk signaling: An application to bargaining. J. Political Econom. 127(4):1599–1628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Backus M, Blake T, Larsen B, Tadelis S (2020) Sequential bargaining in the field: Evidence from millions of online bargaining interactions. Quart. J. Econom. 135(3):1319–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bester H, Warneryd K (2006) Conflict and the social contract. Scand. J. Econom. 108(2):231–249.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bogomolnaia A, Moulin H (2004) Random matching under dichotomous preferences. Econometrica 72(1):257–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton G, Greiner B, Ockenfels A (2018) Dispute resolution or escalation? The strategic gaming of feedback withdrawal options in online markets. Management Sci. 64(9):4009–4031.Link, Google Scholar
• Bolton G, Breuer K, Greiner B, Ockenfels A (2023) Fixing feedback revision rules in online markets. J. Econom. Management Strategy 32(2):247–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brams SJ, Taylor AD (1996) Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carroll G (2019) Robustness in mechanism design and contracting. Annual Rev. Econom. 11(1):139–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clarke EH (1971) Multipart pricing of public goods. Public Choice 11(1):17–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Compte O, Jehiel P (2009) Veto constraint in mechanism design: Inefficiency with correlated types. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconom. 1(1):182–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daughety AF, Reinganum JF (2017) Settlement and Trial. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics, vol. 3 (Oxford University Press, New York), 229–246.Google Scholar
• Ehlers L, Klaus B (2003) Coalitional strategy-proof and resource-monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems. Soc. Choice Welf. 21(2):265–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Monthly 69(1):9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groves T (1973) Incentives in teams. Econometrica 41:617–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Habuka H, Rule C (2017) The promise and potential of online dispute resolution in Japan. Internat. J. Online Dispute Resolution 4:74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hadfield GK (2000) The price of law: How the market for lawyers distorts the justice system. Mich. Law Rev. 98(4):953–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hörner J, Morelli M, Squintani F (2015) Mediation and peace. Rev. Econom. Stud. 82(4):1483–1501.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jackson MO, Sonnenschein H, Xing Y, Tombazos C, Al-Ubaydli O (2023) The efficiency of negotiations with uncertainty and multi-dimensional deals. Working Paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Kagel JH, Roth AE (2016) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, vol. 2 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Klaus B, Miyagawa E (2002) Strategy-proofness, solidarity, and consistency for multiple assignment problems. Internat. J. Game Theory 30(3):421–435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishna A, Ünver MU (2008) Research note—Improving the efficiency of course bidding at business schools: Field and laboratory studies. Marketing Sci. 27(2):262–282.Link, Google Scholar
• Li S (2017) Obviously strategy-proof mechanisms. Amer. Econom. Rev. 107(11):3257–3287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lodder A, Thiessen E (2004) The role of artificial intelligence in online dispute resolution. Choi D, Katsh E, eds. Proc. UN Forum ODR, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
• Malhotra D, Bazerman MH (2008) Negotiation Genius: How to Overcome Obstacles and Achieve Brilliant Results at the Bargaining Table and Beyond (Bantam, New York).Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Ok EA (2014) A canonical model of choice with initial endowments. Rev. Econom. Stud. 81(2):851–883.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moulin H (1980) On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice 35(4):437–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myerson RB, Satterthwaite MA (1983) Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. J. Econom. Theory 29(2):265–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nash J (1953) Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21:128–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pápai S (2001) Strategyproof and nonbossy multiple assignments. J. Public Econom. Theory 3(3):257–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pycia M, Troyan P (2023) A theory of simplicity in games and mechanism design. Econometrica 91(4):1495–1526.Google Scholar
• Pycia M, Ünver MU (2023) Arrovian efficiency and auditability in the allocation of discrete resources. CEPR Discussion Paper Series No. DP15377.Google Scholar
• Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50:97–109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rule C (2014) Technology and the future of dispute resolution. Dispute Resolution Magazine 21:4.Google Scholar
• Satterthwaite MA, Williams SR, Zachariadis KE (2014) Optimality vs. practicality in market design: A comparison of two double auctions. Games Econom. Behav. 86:248–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapley L, Scarf H (1974) On cores and indivisibility. J. Math. Econom. 1(1):23–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2010) Course bidding at business schools. Internat. Econom. Rev. 51(1):99–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sprumont Y (1991) The division problem with single-peaked preferences: A characterization of the uniform allocation rule. Econometrica 59:509–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thiessen EM, Loucks DP (1992) Computer assisted negotiation of multi-objective water resources conflicts. J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc. 28(1):163–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thiessen EM, Loucks DP, Stedinger JR (1998) Computer-assisted negotiations of water resources conflicts. Group Decis. Negot. 7(2):109–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thiessen EM, Miniato P, Hiebert B (2012) ODR and eNegotiation. Wahab MSA, Katsh ME, Rainey D, eds. Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on Technology and Dispute Resolution (Eleven International Publishing, Portland, Netherlands), 341–368.Google Scholar
• Thomson W (2016) Fair allocation. Adler MD, Fleurbaey M, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy (Oxford University Press, New York), 193–226.Google Scholar
• Vickrey W (1961) Counterspeculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J. Finance 16(1):8–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wickelgren AL (2013) Law and economics of settlement. Arlen J, ed. Research Handbook on the Economics of Torts (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, MA), 330–359.Google Scholar
• Wilson R (1987) Game-theoretic analyses of trading processes, advances in economic theory. Bewley T, ed. Fifth World Congress.Google Scholar