Why the “Haves” Do Not Necessarily Come Out Ahead in Informal Dispute Resolution
Why the “Haves” Do Not Necessarily
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6090002 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sharon Gilad (0000-0001-5350-506X, King's College London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 283-312 |
| Publication date | 2010-06-09 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0265-8240 • E-ISSN: 1467-9930 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2010.00320.x |
| OpenAlex | W2171642313 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 34 |
This article explores the implications of Galanter's distinction between repeat and one-off players to informal dispute resolution settings. Relying on quantitative and qualitative data regarding one British "private-Ombudsman" scheme, the article analyzes the extent to which complaint handlers' decision making advantaged more experienced and better resourced firms and/or high-status and more assertive complainants. The article's tentative theoretical proposition is that the typically indeterminate nature of informal dispute resolution settings renders them less susceptible to large organizations' and other repeat players' capacity to "play for rules." Yet, this indeterminacy makes such processes more vulnerable to decision makers' reliance on heuristics
Alternative dispute resolution · Assertiveness · Complaint · Dispute resolution · Economics · Epistemology · Heuristics · Indeterminacy (philosophy · Law and economics · Political science · Positive economics · Proposition · Public relations · Resolution (logic · Sociology · Computer Science · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal principles and applications · Ombudsman and Human Rights · Psychology · Social Psychology
Street-Level Bureaucracy
Albert and Whetten Revisited
Client Typologies
Changing Employment Relations
Institutional Racism in Bureaucratic Decision‐Making
Organizational Identity
People-Processing
Exchange Without Capture
The social construction of clients by service agents in reformed welfare administration
Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988
Repeat Players in the Supreme Court
Juggling Conflicting Demands
Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals
The Psychology of Routine Discretion
Accountability or Expectations Management? The Role of the Ombudsman in Financial Regulation
Holistic Effects in Social Control Decision-Making
Which "Haves" Come Out Ahead and Why? Cultural Capital and Legal Mobilization in Frontline Law Enforcement
The Newspaper Ombudsman and Consumer Complaints
A Classic at 25
Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead
Deciding WHO Gets in
Contesting Professionalism
Settling for Less? Organizational Determinants of Discrimination-Charge Outcomes
The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City's Housing Court
When the "Haves" Hold Court
DoestheLawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada
Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead
Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts
Do The "Haves" Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970
The Context of Discrimination
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,29 |
| Citation span | 2012 - 2022 (11) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |