Should Gig Platforms Decentralize Dispute Resolution?

References

• Aloisi A (2016) Commoditized workers: Case study research on labor law issues arising from a set of on-demand/gig economy platforms. Comparitive Labor Law Policy J. 37(3):653–690.Google Scholar
• Bai J, So KC, Tang CS, Chen XM, Wang H (2019) Coordinating supply and demand on an on-demand service platform with impatient customers. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 21(3):556–570.Link, Google Scholar
• Baker G, Gibbons R, Murphy KJ (1994) Subjective performance measures in optimal incentive contracts. Quart. J. Econom. 109(4):1125–1156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Khosla I, Sinha KK (1998) Quality and competition. Management Sci. 44(9):1179–1192.Link, Google Scholar
• Baron DP (1994) Electoral competition with informed and uniformed voters. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 88(1):33–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battigalli P, Dufwenberg M (2007) Guilt in games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(2):170–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battigalli P, Dufwenberg M (2009) Dynamic psychological games. J. Econom. Theory 144(1):1–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belavina E, Marinesi S, Tsoukalas G (2020) Rethinking crowdfunding platform design: Mechanisms to deter misconduct and improve efficiency. Management Sci. 66(11):4980–4997.Link, Google Scholar
• Benjaafar S, Ding JY, Kong G, Taylor T (2022) Labor welfare in on-demand service platforms. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 24(1):110–124.Link, Google Scholar
• Benjaafar S, Kong G, Li X, Courcoubetis C (2019) Peer-to-peer product sharing: Implications for ownership, usage, and social welfare in the sharing economy. Management Sci. 65(2):477–493.Link, Google Scholar
• Bernstein F, DeCroix GA, Keskin NB (2021) Competition between two-sided platforms under demand and supply congestion effects. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(5):1043–1061.Link, Google Scholar
• Bidwell K, Casey K, Glennerster R (2020) Debates: Voting and expenditure responses to political communication. J. Political Econom. 128(8):2880–2924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cachon GP, Daniels KM, Lobel R (2017) The role of surge pricing on a service platform with self-scheduling capacity. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 19(3):368–384.Link, Google Scholar
• Carlsson H, van Damme E (1993) Global games and equilibrium selection. Econometrica 61(5):989–1018.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakraborty S, Swinney R (2021) Signaling to the crowd: Private quality information and rewards-based crowdfunding. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 23(1):155–169.Link, Google Scholar
• Chakraborty S, Ma A, Swinney R (2023) Designing rewards-based crowdfunding campaigns for strategic (but distracted) contributors. Naval Res. Logist. 70(1):3–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen FG (2017) Facts about disputes [discussion post]. Accessed October 8, 2020, https://community.upwork.com/t5/Content-Corner/Facts-about-Disputes/m-p/414508/highlight/true#M1777.Google Scholar
• Chen K (2022) Catching up to a new normal: The effects of shifting industry standards on contract interpretation. Fordham Law Rev. 90(6):2839–2868.Google Scholar
• Chen L, Cui Y, Liu J, Liu X (2022) Bonus competition in the gig economy. Working paper, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
• Chris (2021) Have any other freelancers been let down by PPHs dispute system? [Discussion post]. Accessed October 8, 2020, https://support.peopleperhour.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360030958114/comments/360004012858.Google Scholar
• Claussen J, Khashabi P, Kretschmer T, Seifried M (2018) Knowledge work in the sharing economy: What drives project success in online labor markets? Working paper, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich.Google Scholar
• CryptoTask (2022) Expanding the potential of the freelancing market through blockchain-related advantages. Retrieved December 18, https://www.cryptotask.org/en/info.Google Scholar
• Dawande M, Janakiraman G, Qi A, Wu Q (2019) Optimal incentive contracts in project management. Production Oper. Management 28(6):1431–1445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deb J, Li J, Mukherjee A (2016) Relational contracts with subjective peer evaluations. RAND J. Econom. 47(1):3–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeVault IA, Figueroa M, Kotler FB, Maffie M, Wu J (2019) On-demand platform workers in New York state: The challenges for public policy. Report, The Worker Institute, New York.Google Scholar
• Edmond C (2013) Information manipulation, coordination, and regime change. Rev. Econom. Stud. 80(4):1422–1458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elmaghraby WJ (2000) Supply contract competition and sourcing policies. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 2(4):350–371.Link, Google Scholar
• Ethearnal (2021) Ethearnal whitepaper version 1.0. Retrieved July 8, https://ethearnal.com/ethearnal-whitepaper.pdf.Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 54(2):293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feddersen T, Pesendorfer W (1998) Convicting the innocent: The inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 92(1):23–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman GM, Helpman E (1996) Electoral competition and special interest politics. Rev. Econom. Stud. 63(2):265–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guda H, Subramanian U (2019) Your uber is arriving: Managing on-demand workers through surge pricing, forecast communication, and worker incentives. Management Sci. 65(5):1995–2014.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Ha A, Long X, Nasiry J (2016) Quality in supply chain encroachment. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 18(2):280–298.Link, Google Scholar
• Herman J (2017) Platform companies are becoming more powerful—But what exactly do they want? Internat. New York Times (March 21), https://nyti.ms/3zSr2l7.Google Scholar
• Hu B, Hu M, Zhu H (2022) Surge pricing and two-sided temporal responses in ride-hailing. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 24(1):91–109.Link, Google Scholar
• Hu M, Zhou Y (2020) Price, wage and fixed commission in on-demand matching. Working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
• Hyve (2023) Hyve & Hyve protocol: A decentralized autonomous task marketplace. Retrieved January 8, https://www.cryptocompare.com/media/39501128/hyve-whitepaper.pdf.Google Scholar
• Jin C, Hosanagar K, Veeraraghavan SK (2022) Do ratings cut both ways? Impact of bilateral ratings on platforms. Working paper, National University of Singapore, Singapore.Google Scholar
• Katz LF, Krueger AB (2019) The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995–2015. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. 72(2):382–416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kojima F, Takagi Y (2010) A theory of hung juries and informative voting. Games Econom. Behav. 69(2):498–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kwan A, Yang SA, Zhang AH (2023) Crowd-judging on two-sided platforms: An analysis of in-group bias. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print June 7, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4818.Link, Google Scholar
• Levin J (2003) Relational incentive contract. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):835–857.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liang C, Hong Y, Gu B (2016) Effects of IT-enabled monitoring systems in online labor markets. 2016 Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems ICIS 2016 (Association for Information Systems, Altanta), 1382–1399.Google Scholar
• Marinesi S, Girotra K (2013) Information acquisition through customer voting systems. Working paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
• Morris S, Shin HS (1998) Unique equilibrium in a model of self-fulfilling currency attacks. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88(3):587–597.Google Scholar
• Ortolani P (2015) Self-enforcing online dispute resolution: Lessons from bitcoin. Oxford J. Legal Stud. 36(3):595–629.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Papanastasiou Y, Yang SA, Zhang AH (2023) Improving dispute resolution in two-sided platforms: The case of review blackmail. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print January 23, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4655.Link, Google Scholar
• Rasheed R (2021) AMA with cryptotask. Medium (July 20), https://decentralizedclub.medium.com/ama-with-cryptotask-e7a1c08afe4e.Google Scholar
• Roels G, Corbett CJ (2021) Too many meetings? Scheduling rules for team coordination. Working paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.Google Scholar
• Rowe G, Wright G (2001) Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Anal. 21(2):341–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rundlett A, Svolik MW (2016) Deliver the vote! Micromotives and macrobehavior in electoral fraud. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 110(1):180–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schaarschmidt T (2017) When power turns toxic. Scientific American (May 1), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-power-turns-toxic/.Google Scholar
• Shevchuk A, Strebkov D (2018) Safeguards against opportunism in freelance contracting on the Internet. British J. Indust. Relations 56(2):342–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor CR, Yildirim H (2011) Subjective performance and the value of blind evaluation. Rev. Econom. Stud. 78(2):762–794.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor TA (2018) On-demand service platforms. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 20(4):704–720.Link, Google Scholar
• Tsoukalas G, Falk HB (2020) Token weighted crowdsourcing. Management Sci. 66(9):3843–3859.Link, Google Scholar
• Tzezana R (2015) What happens when you go into a dispute with Fiverr? Or: The future of justice systems. Curating the Future (October 25), https://curatingthefuture.com/2015/10/25/fiverr_dispute_justice_systems/.Google Scholar
• Upwork (2020) Upwork’s fourth annual future workforce report reveals accelerated adoption of independent and remote work amid COVID-19 (June 11), https://www.cryptocompare.com/media/39501128/hyve-whitepaper.pdf.Google Scholar
• Van Huyck JB, Wildenthal JM, Battalio RC (2002) Tacit cooperation, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure: Evidence from repeated dominance solvable games. Games Econom. Behav. 38(1):156–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang X, Cho SH, Scheller-Wolf A (2021) Green technology development and adoption: Competition, regulation, and uncertainty—A global game approach. Management Sci. 67(1):201–219.Link, Google Scholar
• Xu F, Zhang F (2018) Crowdfunding under social learning and network externalities. Working paper, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar