Non-monetary Motives, Voice, and Accountability in Democratic Dispute Resolution

Democratic governance requires states to be responsive to citizens, to implement the rule of law, and to keep conflict under control. Courts and adjacent dispute-resolution institutions are essential to all three, yet developing countries feature dysfunctional dispute-resolution institutions. This proposal focuses on Mexico City’s Labor Conciliation Center and asks why costly disputes persist even when a negotiated agreement would appear to benefit both sides. Standard accounts emphasize asymmetric information, optimism, and agency problems. We examine whether non-monetary motives obstruct agreement. Using original survey data linked to administrative case records and pilots, we test whether psychological motivations (e.g. moral outrage) drive delays and whether low-cost institutional alternatives, such as active listening and third-party punishment, increase settlement rates and can unclog courts, causing them to give better service and speed up justice.