These largely failed for lack of support from both sides. Often the freed blacks wanted to appoint one of their own to the tribunals, and became disenchanted when this opportunity was invariably denied them. On the other hand, white planters were generally only interested in results that would maintain or strengthen their control over labor issues. This pattern has been repeated throughout this century. The common reasons why arbitration enforced from an outside source remains unpopular stem from the power imbalances that have arisen in American society.
Disputants see themselves as unfairly matched.
The stronger party most often has a keen interest in developing the guidelines and selecting the arbitrators, but if they go too far in exerting their control they risk losing the interest of the weaker parties. For example, at the hospital where I work, insurance companies will ask patients to sign a form agreeing to arbitration, instead of litigation, to resolve any challenges the patient may have to their course of treatment or billing for these services. I'd rather take my chances before an ignorant judge or jury. In Chapters Four and Five, Auerbach fleshes out the emerging duality. Non-legal forms of dispute settlement flourish only under certain conditions.