File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Lessons for the US System of Financial Arbitration: A Responsive Empirical Exploration of Arbitration and Ombudsman Services

TitleLessons for the US System of Financial Arbitration: A Responsive Empirical Exploration of Arbitration and Ombudsman Services
Authors
KeywordsEmpirical legal studies
Arbitration
Ombudsman
Financial dispute resolution
Comparative law
Issue Date2013
PublisherHigh Education Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://journal.hep.com.cn/webpub/cipub/journaldetail?journalid=4&locale=
Citation
Frontiers of Law in China, 2013, v. 8 n. 4, p. 651-688 How to Cite?
AbstractThe United States largely relies on a system of arbitration to handle retail consumer financial disputes. This approach has undergone significant challenges in recent years particularly in light of recent abuses of consumer credit arbitration mechanisms. This paper reports on the result of a non-randomized small-n survey which we label the “Financial Dispute Study” aiming at evaluating the relative effectiveness of two major approaches to financial dispute resolution — arbitration and ombudsman services. Nearly a hundred survey questionnaires were distributed to financial dispute resolution practitioners throughout the world. A total of forty-eight arbitrators and ombudsmen from East Asia, North America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa responded. In the Study the participants were asked how practitioners viewed the level of satisfaction, settlement rate and perceived increase or decrease in the use of the given method of financial dispute resolution — whether arbitration or ombudsman service. This paper analyzes the method-effect, meaning we focus on the effect of the selected method of financial dispute resolution (whether ombudsman or arbitration) on settlement, satisfaction and increase or decrease in use. In doing so, the study evaluates the relative effectiveness of two major approaches that a financial dispute resolution mechanism might adopt. We find no statistically significant evidence that a given method, arbitration or the use of ombudsman process has a large (or any) effect on the settlement rate, level of satisfaction or usage. To the contrary, arbitration and ombudsman group point estimates are generally close to one another. Nevertheless, the data indicate slightly higher levels of settlement and overall increase in use in ombudsman processes worldwide. These findings, combined with feedback from open ended interviews along with structural safeguards against repeat-player advantage integrated into the ombudsman process ensuring that awards are rendered without prejudice to the claimant, suggest that merit may be found in exploring the potential applications and use of ombudsman processes for the resolution of consumer financial disputes. The paper concludes with some limited interpretation of the results.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/184533
ISSN
2014 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.101
SSRN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAli, Sen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-07-15T09:53:23Z-
dc.date.available2013-07-15T09:53:23Z-
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers of Law in China, 2013, v. 8 n. 4, p. 651-688en_US
dc.identifier.issn1673-3428-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/184533-
dc.description.abstractThe United States largely relies on a system of arbitration to handle retail consumer financial disputes. This approach has undergone significant challenges in recent years particularly in light of recent abuses of consumer credit arbitration mechanisms. This paper reports on the result of a non-randomized small-n survey which we label the “Financial Dispute Study” aiming at evaluating the relative effectiveness of two major approaches to financial dispute resolution — arbitration and ombudsman services. Nearly a hundred survey questionnaires were distributed to financial dispute resolution practitioners throughout the world. A total of forty-eight arbitrators and ombudsmen from East Asia, North America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa responded. In the Study the participants were asked how practitioners viewed the level of satisfaction, settlement rate and perceived increase or decrease in the use of the given method of financial dispute resolution — whether arbitration or ombudsman service. This paper analyzes the method-effect, meaning we focus on the effect of the selected method of financial dispute resolution (whether ombudsman or arbitration) on settlement, satisfaction and increase or decrease in use. In doing so, the study evaluates the relative effectiveness of two major approaches that a financial dispute resolution mechanism might adopt. We find no statistically significant evidence that a given method, arbitration or the use of ombudsman process has a large (or any) effect on the settlement rate, level of satisfaction or usage. To the contrary, arbitration and ombudsman group point estimates are generally close to one another. Nevertheless, the data indicate slightly higher levels of settlement and overall increase in use in ombudsman processes worldwide. These findings, combined with feedback from open ended interviews along with structural safeguards against repeat-player advantage integrated into the ombudsman process ensuring that awards are rendered without prejudice to the claimant, suggest that merit may be found in exploring the potential applications and use of ombudsman processes for the resolution of consumer financial disputes. The paper concludes with some limited interpretation of the results.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherHigh Education Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://journal.hep.com.cn/webpub/cipub/journaldetail?journalid=4&locale=-
dc.relation.ispartofFrontiers of Law in Chinaen_US
dc.subjectEmpirical legal studies-
dc.subjectArbitration-
dc.subjectOmbudsman-
dc.subjectFinancial dispute resolution-
dc.subjectComparative law-
dc.titleLessons for the US System of Financial Arbitration: A Responsive Empirical Exploration of Arbitration and Ombudsman Servicesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailAli, S: sali@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityAli, S=rp01236en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.3868/s050-002-013-0024-1-
dc.identifier.hkuros215989en_US
dc.identifier.volume8-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage651-
dc.identifier.epage688-
dc.publisher.placeChina-
dc.identifier.ssrn2373025-
dc.identifier.hkulrp2014/017-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats