Data indicate that arbitration is fulfilling these functions efficiently. Fewer strikes occur where arbitration is mandated, and arbitration has been shown to promote more genuine negotiating behavior by management. In addition, data suggest that most of the time arbitration is constitutionally acceptable, and hence, its awards are legally enforceable. Evidence also indicates that union and management compliance with the process is widespread. Opponents of arbitration argue that arbitration may inhibit genuine bargaining; research does not support this conclusion. First, the availability of arbitration has not destroyed bargaining, for in practically all arbitration jurisdictions a majority of agreements are negotiated. Second, in many cases the parties use the arbitration process as a forum for additional negotiations. Arbitration has increased union and management dependence upon third parties to resolve their disputes; thus, the bargaining process may have lost some of its vitality, but it has not been inhibited. Critics of arbitration also contend that it is an inhibitor of representative government; such a view is difficult to demonstrate without first formulating an explicit and normative definition of democracy. Because arbitration has multiple impacts, both negative and positive, it should be evaluated along several dimensions rather than simply on how well it prevents strikes. Numerous references are included.