Ad
related to: interest based bargaining vs positional bargaining model of intelligence
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The book begins with a chapter "Don't Bargain Over Positions" that explains the undesirable characteristics of positional bargaining, in which the negotiating parties argue over a sequence of positions. Such an argument "produces unwise outcomes", "is inefficient", and "endangers an ongoing relationship". [3]: 4–7
Third, the bargaining model assumes that war ends when a settlement is reached, yet the Iraq War demonstrates that it is hard to impose one's will on a defeated opponent. Fourth, both the Bush administration and the Saddam regime demonstrated cognitive and decision-making biases (the bargaining model assumes that actors behave rationally). [15]
A negative bargaining zone shown graphically. A negative bargaining zone may be overcome by "enlarging the pie". In integrative negotiations when dealing with a variety of issues and interests, parties that combine interests to create value reach a far more rewarding agreement. Behind every position there are usually more common interests than ...
Rather than the self-interest that realists see as a motivating factor, functionalists focus on common interests shared by states. Integration develops its own internal dynamic: as states integrate in limited functional or technical areas, they increasingly find that momentum for further rounds of integration in related areas.
Blau (1964), [6] and Emerson (1976) [7] were the key theorists who developed the original theories of social exchange. Social exchange theory approaches bargaining power from a sociological perspective, suggesting that power dynamics in negotiations are influenced by the value of the resources each party brings to the exchange (a cost-benefit analysis), as well as the level of dependency ...
[52] [53] These five strategies have been frequently described in the literature and are based on the dual-concern model. [54] The dual-concern model of conflict resolution is a perspective that assumes individuals' preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two themes or dimensions: [55] A concern for self (i.e., assertiveness), and
Domestic politics: leaders' aims in war are reflected by personal or domestic political interests rather than what is strictly in the state's interest [36] [37] Constructivism: the identities of actors are realized through conflict [38] Multi-player bargaining: war can be an equilibrium solution to bargaining between more than two actors [39]
It is the most widely studied model of one's opponent. [13] A state is presumed to be implacably hostile, and contra-indicators of this are ignored. They are dismissed as propaganda ploys or signs of weakness. Examples are John Foster Dulles’ position regarding the Soviet Union, or Israel's initial position on the Palestine Liberation ...