Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01h128nd70z
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBloom, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.authorAshenfelter, Orleyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T01:55:54Z-
dc.date.available2011-10-26T01:55:54Z-
dc.date.issued1990-09-01T00:00:00Zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01h128nd70z-
dc.description.abstractThe goal of this paper is to explore the possibility that the costs and benefits of legal representation are structured so that each individual party seeks legal representation in the hope of exploiting the other party, while knowing full well that failing to do so will open up the possibility of being exploited. The first part of the paper shows how the structure of the incentives faced by the parties may be estimated, and the second describes the results of empirical tests in several different settings. The empirical results strongly suggest that the parties do face "prisoner's dilemma" incentives, although no attempt is made to determine whether the parties respond to these incentives.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWorking Papers (Princeton University. Industrial Relations Section) ; 270en_US
dc.subjectlawyersen_US
dc.subjectarbitration systemen_US
dc.subjectprisoner's dilemmaen_US
dc.titleLawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Gameen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
pu.projectgrantnumber360-2050en_US
Appears in Collections:IRS Working Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
270.pdf1.8 MBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in Dataspace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.