Advertisement

European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 485–512 | Cite as

Settlement probability asymmetries in the Swedish Labour Court

  • Morgan Westéus
Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on settlement probabilities for different types of representation within the Swedish Labour Court. Empirical estimates on a set of cases concerned with unjust dismissals show that private representatives are generally less likely to reach a settlement than their union counterparts. The settlement probabilities converge following court-mandated information disclosure, which suggests that information asymmetry is an important factor in explaining differences in settlement behaviour and that private negotiations are not sufficient in general.

Keywords

Unjust dismissals Negotiations Settlements Trade unions 

JEL Classification

D81 D82 J52 K31 K41 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Thomas Aronsson, Karl-Gustaf Löfgren, Kurt Brännäs, Daniel Halvarsson and the staff at the Swedish Labour Court. The paper has also benefitted greatly from the comments given by an anonymous referee and the participants at the EALE Conference 2012 and the Swedish National Conference in Economics 2012.

References

  1. Aalen, O. (1978). Nonparametric inference for a family of counting processes. Annals of Statistics, 6, 701–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbring, J., & van den Berg, G. J. (2005). The unobserved heterogeneity distribution in duration analysis. Working Paper, Free University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, P., & Henderson, R. (2005). Small sample bias in the gamma frailty model for univariate survival. Lifetime Data Analysis, 11, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bebchuck, L. A. (1984). Litigation and settlement under imperfect information. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15, 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Zorn, C. (2001). Duration models and proportional hazards in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 972–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd, C. L., & Hoffman, D. A. (2010). Litigating Toward Settlement. Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011–8 (October).Google Scholar
  7. Clermont, K. M. (2008). Litigation realities redux. Notre Dame Legal Review, 84, 1919 (2008–2009).Google Scholar
  8. Cleves, M. A., Gould, W. W., & Gutierrez, R. G. (2010). An introduction to survival analysis using STATA, 3rd revised edition. College Station, USA: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cooter, R. D., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1994). An economic model of legal discovery. Journal of Legal Studies, 23, 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1968). A general definition of residuals. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 30(2), 248–275.Google Scholar
  11. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 34(2), 187–220.Google Scholar
  12. Efron, B. (1977). The efficiency of Cox’s likelihood function for censored data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72(359), 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenberg, T., & Lanvers, C. (2009). What is the settlement rate and why should we care? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1), 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fenn, P., & Rickman, N. (1999). Delay and settlement in litigation. The RAND Economic Journal, 109(457), 476–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenn, P., & Rickman, N. (2001). Asymmetric information and the settlement of insurance claims. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 68(4), 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fournier, G. M., & Zuehlke, T. W. (1998). The timing of out-of-court settlements. The RAND Journal of Economics, 27, 310–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godfrey, L. G., & Pesaran, M. H. (1983). Tests of non-nested regression models: Small sample adjustments and Monte Carlo evidence. Journal of Econometrics, 21, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hay, B. L. (1994). Civil discovery: Its effects and optimal scope. Journal of Legal Studies, 23, 481–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang, K.-C. (2009). Does discovery promote settlement? An empirical answer. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(2), 241–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang, K.-C., Chen, K.-P. & Lin, C.-C. (2010). An empirical investigation of settlement and litigation—the case of Taiwanese labor disputes. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(4), 786–810, 1,740–1,453.Google Scholar
  21. Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Prentice, R. L. (2002). The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kessler, D. (1996). Institutional causes of delay in the settlement of legal disputes. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 12, 432–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knutson, T. (2011). Svea hovrätt ändrade hälften av domarna. Advokaten, Notiser, 2(77), The article is unsigned, Tom Knutson is the chief editor, Anne Ramberg is the publisher in charge.Google Scholar
  24. Korobkin, R., & Doherty, J. (2009). Who wins in settlement negotiations? American Law and Economics Review, 11(1), 162–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (1998). Correcting for Heteroscedasticity with Heteroscedasticity Consistent Standard Errors in the Linear Regression Model: Small Sample Considerations. Working Paper, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  26. Long, J. S., & Ervin, L. H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. The American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224.Google Scholar
  27. Lundh, C. (2006). Medlings- och skiljeförfarande i Sverige före 1906. In A. M. Egerö & B. Nyström (Eds.), Hundra år av medling i Sverige: Historik, analys och framtidsvisioner. Medlingsinstitutet (National Mediation Office), 2006, Elanders Berlings, Linköping.Google Scholar
  28. MacKinnon, J. G., & White, H. (1985). Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 29, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nalebuff, B. (1987). Credible pretrial negotiation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson, C. R. (1972). The prediction performance of the FRB-MIT-Penn model of the U.S. economy. American Economic Review, 62, 902–917.Google Scholar
  31. O’Quigley, J., & Pessione. F. (1991). The problem of a covariate-time qualitative interaction in a survival study. Biometrics, 47, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Qiao, Y. (2011). Settlement in the Presence of Insurance. Working paper (January 2011).Google Scholar
  33. Schemper, M. (1992). Cox analysis of survival data with non-proportional hazard functions. The Statistician, 41, 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schoenfeldt, D. (1982). Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika, 69(1), 239–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SFS 1974:371, The Labour Disputes (Judicial Procedure) Act, Lag om rättegången i arbetstvister, issued: 31-05-1974, updated: SFS 2010:1,448.Google Scholar
  36. SFS 1976:580, Employment (Co-Determination in the Workplace) Act, Lag om medbestämmande i arbetslivet, issued: 10-06-1976, updated: SFS 2010:537.Google Scholar
  37. SFS 1982:80, Employment Protection Act, Lag om anställningsskydd, issued: 24-02-1982, updated: SFS 2010:1,230.Google Scholar
  38. SFS 2008:567, Discrimination Act, Diskrimineringslag, issued: 05-06-2008, updated: SFS 2011:742.Google Scholar
  39. Shavell, S. (1989). Sharing of information prior to settlement or litigation. The RAND Journal of Economics, 20, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shavell, S. (1999). The level of litigation: Private versus social optimality of suit and of settlement. International Review of Law and Economics, 19, 99–115.Google Scholar
  41. Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London and New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  42. SOU 2006:022, En sammanhållen diskrimineringslagstiftning. Del 2—Slutbetänkande av diskrimineringskommittèn, Published: 24 February 2006, Type: Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU), Authors: The Ministry of Employment and Diskrimineringskommittèn—a committee under The Ministry of Justice (N 2002:06).Google Scholar
  43. Spier, K. E. (1992). The dynamics of pretrial negotiation. Review of Economic Studies, 59, 93–108.Google Scholar
  44. Therneau, T., & Grambsch, P. (1994). Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika, 81(3), 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trubek, D. M., Grossman, J. B., Felstiner, W. L. F., Kritzer, H. M., & Sarat, A. (1986). Civil Litigation Project: Final Report. Part A, at I-58, I-72 (1983), reproduced in Eisenberg, T. & Lanvers, C., (2009). What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care?. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1), 111–146.Google Scholar
  46. Tures, E., (1999). Sju av tio hovrättsdomar får bakläxa. Svenska Dagbladet.Google Scholar
  47. Vaupel, J. W., Manton, K. G., & Stallard, E. (1979). The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography, 16, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhou, J. (2008). Determinants of Delay in Litigation: Evidence and Theory. Working paper for The American Law & Economics Association, European Meeting of the Econometric Society (August).Google Scholar
  49. Zhou, J. (2010). The Timing of Out-of-Court Settlements Revisited—Theory and Cross-Sectional Evidence from Texas since 1988. Discussion Paper No. 347, Wirtschaftspolitische Abteilung, Bonn University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUmeå School of Business and EconomicsUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations