Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters

An Organizational Analysis of Dispute Resolution Structures and Consumer Lemon Laws

Bibliographic Data

ID4085014
AuthorsShauhin Talesh (0000-0002-5839-241X, University of California, Irvine, corresponding author), Shauhin A Talesh
Year2012
Volume46
Issue3
Pages463-496
Publication date2012-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLaw & Society Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00503.x
OpenAlexW1928907568
LanguageDE
Citations received16
References cited52

This study demonstrates how the structure of dispute resolution shapes the extent to which managerial and business values influence the meaning and implementation of consumer protection law, and consequently, the extent to which repeat players are advantaged. My analysis draws from, links, and contributes to two literatures that examine the relationship between organizational governance structures and law: neo-institutional studies of law and organizations and socio-legal studies of repeat players' advantages in disputing. Specifically, I compare an instance where powerful state consumer protection laws are resolved in private dispute resolution forums funded by automobile manufacturers but operated by independent third-party organizations (California) with one where consumer disputes are resolved in public alternative dispute resolution processes run and administered by the state (Vermont). Through in-depth interviews and participant observation in the training programs that dispute resolution arbitrators undergo in each state, I show how different dispute resolution structures operating in California and Vermont give different meanings to substantially similar lemon laws. Although my data do not allow me to establish a causal relationship, they strongly suggest that theformof the dispute resolution structure, and how business and state actors construct the meaning of lemon laws through these structures, have critical implications for the effectiveness of consumer protection laws for consumers

Alternative dispute resolution · Business · Corporate governance · Dispute mechanism · Dispute resolution · Economics · Law and economics · Management · Online dispute resolution · Political science · Sociology · State (computer science · Computer Science · Global trade, sustainability, and social impact · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Regulation and Compliance Studies

  • Constructing Intercultural Selves

    Open Access•Diana Marginean, Sarah Lambert Derian et al.•Psychological Studies•2019

  • The compliance game

    Open Access•Branislav Hock, Elizabeth David-Barrett•International journal of law,…•2022

  • The Dispute Tree and the Legal Forest

    Catherine R Albiston, Lauren B Edelman et al.•Annual Review of Law and Social…•2014

  • Institutional and Political Sources of Legislative Change

    Open Access•Shauhin Talesh, Shauhin A Talesh•Law & Social Inquiry•2014

  • Symbolic ambivalence

    Open Access•Yan Fang•Law & Society Review•2026

  • Constructing Compliance, Institutionalizing Creative Solutions

    Open Access•Carolina Valdivia, Isabel Patten•Law & Society Review•2026

  • Metacontexts and Cross-Contextual Communication

    Open Access•Alex Davies•The Philosophical Quarterly•2024

  • Risky climate

    Open Access•Jingyi Huang, Janna Z Huang•Social Forces•2026

  • The devil is in the details

    Open Access•Shauhin Talesh, Peter C Alter•Law & Policy•2020

  • Rule‐Intermediaries in Action

    Open Access•Shauhin Talesh•Law & Policy•2015

  • Beyond Endogeneity

    Open Access•Sharon Gilad•Law & Policy•2014

  • Legal Intermediaries

    Open Access•Shauhin Talesh•Law & Policy•2015

  • The Law-Before

    Open Access•Anjuli Verma•Law & Society Review•2015

  • The Differential Management of Financial Illegalisms

    Open Access•Thomas Angeletti•Law & Society Review•2019

  • Citizenship in the shadow of law

    Open Access•Lillian Frost, Steven D Schaaf•Law & Society Review•2024

  • Tort tales and total justice

    Open Access•Jeb Barnes, Parker Hevron et al.•Law & Society Review•2023

  • The Language of Law School

    Elizabeth Mertz•The Language of Law School•2007

  • Responsive Regulation

    Ian Ayres, John Braithwaite•Responsive regulation•1992

  • Enforced Self-Regulation

    John Braithwaite•Michigan Law Review•1982

  • The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields

    P Dimaggio, Paul J Dimaggio et al.•Economics meets sociology in…•2004

  • Analytic Ethnography

    Open Access•John Lofland•Journal of Contemporary Ethnography•1995

  • Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes

    Robert M Emerson, Rachel I Fretz et al.•Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes•1995

  • War and Peace

    James N Baron, Frank Dobbins et al.•American Journal of Sociology•1986

  • Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988

    Open Access•Donald R Songer, Reginald S Sheehan et al.•Law & Society Review•1999

  • Repeat Players in the Supreme Court

    Kevin T Mcguire•The Journal of Politics•1995

  • Who Wins on Appeal? Upperdogs and Underdogs in the United States Courts of Appeals

    Donald R Songer, Reginald S Sheehan•American Journal of Political…•1992

  • Why the “Haves” Do Not Necessarily Come Out Ahead in Informal Dispute Resolution

    Open Access•Sharon Gilad•Law & Policy•2010

  • Non-Contractual Relations in Business

    Stewart Macaulay•American Sociological Review•1963

  • Why Not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900-1911, and the United States, 1880s-1920

    Ann Shola Orloff, T Skocpol•American Sociological Review•1984

  • The Iron Cage Revisited

    P Dimaggio, Paul J Dimaggio et al.•American Sociological Review•1983

  • Professional Construction of Law

    Open Access•Lauren B Edelman, Steven E Abraham et al.•Law & Society Review•1992

  • The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes

    Open Access•William L F Felstiner, Richard L Abel et al.•Law & Society Review•1981

  • The Privatization of Public Legal Rights

    Open Access•Shauhin Talesh, Shauhin A Talesh•Law & Society Review•2009

  • Competing Institutions

    Open Access•Carol A Heimer•Law & Society Review•1999

  • Which "Haves" Come Out Ahead and Why? Cultural Capital and Legal Mobilization in Frontline Law Enforcement

    Open Access•Karyl A Kinsey, Loretta J Stalans•Law & Society Review•1999

  • Social movements, field frames and industry emergence

    M Lounsbury, M Ventresca et al.•Socio-Economic Review•2003

  • The Newspaper Ombudsman and Consumer Complaints

    Open Access•John A Hannigan, John Hannigan•Law & Society Review•1977

  • A Classic at 25

    Open Access•Richard Lempert•Law & Society Review•1999

  • The Rule of Law and the Litigation Process

    Open Access•Catherine R Albiston, Catherine Albiston•Law & Society Review•1999

  • Settling for Less? Organizational Determinants of Discrimination-Charge Outcomes

    Open Access•C Elizabeth Hirsh•Law & Society Review•2008

  • The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City's Housing Court

    Open Access•Carroll Seron, Gregg Van Ryzin et al.•Law & Society Review•2001

  • When the "Haves" Hold Court

    Open Access•Lauren B Edelman, Mark C Suchman•Law & Society Review•1999

  • Idle Rights

    Open Access•Anna-Maria Marshall, Anna‐maria Marshall•Law & Society Review•2005

  • DoestheLawyer Matter? Influencing Outcomes on the Supreme Court of Canada

    Open Access•John Szmer, Susan W Johnson et al.•Law & Society Review•2007

  • Why the "Haves" Come Out Ahead

    Open Access•M Galanter•Law & Society Review•1974

  • Do the "Haves" Still Come Out Ahead? Resource Inequalities in Ideological Courts

    Open Access•Yoav Dotan•Law & Society Review•1999

  • Internal Dispute Resolution

    Open Access•Lauren B Edelman, Howard S Erlanger et al.•Law & Society Review•1993

  • Do The "Haves" Come Out Ahead? Winning and Losing in State Supreme Courts, 1870-1970

    Open Access•Stanton Wheeler, Bliss Cartwright et al.•Law & Society Review•1987

  • Employing Bureaucracy

    Open Access•Christopher Wright, Sanford M Jacoby•Labour History•2004

  • Shadow Justice

    Christin Harrington•Shadow Justice•1985

  • Attacking Sex Discrimination in the Labor Market

    Paul Burstein•Social Forces•1989

  • Access to Civil Justice and Race, Class, and Gender Inequality

    Rebecca L Sandefur•Annual Review of Sociology•2008

  • When Organizations Rule

    Lauren B Edelman, Linda H Krieger et al.•American Journal of Sociology•2011

  • Diversity Rhetoric and the Managerialization of Law

    Lauren B Edelman, Sally Riggs Fuller et al.•American Journal of Sociology•2001

  • The Legalization of the Workplace

    John R Sutton, Frank Dobbins et al.•American Journal of Sociology•1994

  • Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures

    Lauren B Edelman•American Journal of Sociology•1992

  • Legal Environments and Organizational Governance

    Lauren B Edelman•American Journal of Sociology•1990

  • Institutionalized Organizations

    J W Meyer, Brian Rowan•American Journal of Sociology•1977

  • The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation

    Lauren B Edelman, Christopher Uggen et al.•American Journal of Sociology•1999

Unique citing works16
Citations per year1,33
Citation span2014 - 2026 (13)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 16

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae