The Limits of Integrative Bargaining

Author(s):  
Gerald B. Wetlaufer

This article discusses integrative bargaining. Opportunities for integrative bargaining are often unrecognized and unexploited. As a result, both the parties to negotiations and society as a whole are worse off than would otherwise have been the case. The article offers three conclusions. First, opportunities for integrative bargaining are not nearly as pervasive as is sometimes authoritatively asserted. Second, the claim that opportunities for integrative bargaining make good behavior a simple matter of rational, pecuniary self-interest is not nearly as strong as is sometimes claimed, both because opportunities for integrative bargaining are less pervasive than has been asserted and because, even when such opportunities may exist, the case for good behavior is weaker than has been claimed. Third, and accordingly, the case for good behavior cannot rest entirely on pecuniary self-interest. The article then outlines the opportunities for integrative bargaining, which includes differences between the parties in terms of (1) their interests, (2) their projections concerning possible future events, (3) their willingness to accept risks, and (4) their time preferences regarding payment or performance.

Author(s):  
Jennifer Reynolds

Gerald Wetlaufer’s The Limits of Integrative Bargaining reads like game theory. He speaks in the language of limits and domains. He breaks down value creation into three forms labeled with Roman numerals. He uses simple bilateral transactions between nonrepeat players (e.g., buying a used car) as the foundation for analysis. He assumes that negotiators are rational actors who define their self-interest as immediate pecuniary gain. And then, given these parameters, he argues that the rhetoric of win-win too often overpromises when it comes to value creation. The equation of claims to benefits does not balance....


2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Manzini ◽  
Marco Mariotti

We propose a novel approach to modelling time preferences, based on a cognitive shortcoming of human decision makers: the perception of future events becomes increasingly `blurred' as the events are pushed further in time. Our model explains behavioural `anomalies' such as preference reversal and cyclical choice.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Bruce Kell ◽  
Rick Welch

This monograph considers the nature of Belief, based on evidence and rational thought, as well as various other kinds of Belief. Sometimes the evidence is not available. However, our main perspective is the widespread irrationality that can be manifest, despite the availability of what may be seen as contrary evidence that is simply ignored (‘unknown knowns’). We largely eschew matters of faith and spiritual aspects, and also semantics. A variety of Belief systems exist, including those based on genuine (‘philosophical’) logic, typically involving a perceived causality, those based on co-occurrences, on experience, on probability, and on the extent to which a belief increases our knowledge and vice versa. Beliefs can also be based on cultural inheritances or ‘received wisdom’, as well as institutional (authoritative) entrenchment, and may be held simply because it is easiest or convenient to do so. Beliefs may also be held, and/or promulgated, for reasons of self-interest; this is a cause of much trouble. Beliefs about future events (predictions) are another important subset of Belief. Part 1 covers these and takes a brief look at some historical aspects and some of the methods of evidence-based Belief as used by working scientists. Part 1 ends with a look at elements of modern psychology and the workings of the mind, often starting with perspectives taken from what we know of ‘artificial intelligence’. There is a focus on situations where Beliefs are clearly wrong or irrational (‘misbeliefs’), based in part on the fact that humans are highly suggestible (and also that natural evolution once selected for that).Part 2 of the book applies the above learnings to three main areas, in which we consider that mainstream thinking – partly fuelled by self-interests – has come to focus on areas that are not the most relevant to the solution of the problems typical of their respective domains. These topics include medicine (very brief and truncated in this preprint version), the nature of money in (macro)economics, and the relationship between individual voting activities and political outcomes in typical Western democracies, such as the UK and the USA. This part ends with a chapter on the roles and causes of Belief (and misbelief) following the UK’s 2016 ‘advisory referendum’ on whether to ‘leave’ the EU (commonly referred to as Brexit).Part 3 takes the form of an epilogue, in which we enquire, if one accepts that misbeliefs of the above kinds underpin many and various social ills, what might rationally be done to change the thinking on such things for the better.


Author(s):  
Alexander Blaszczynski

Abstract. Background: Tensions exist with various stakeholders facing competing interests in providing legal land-based and online regulated gambling products. Threats to revenue/taxation occur in response to harm minimisation and responsible gambling policies. Setting aside the concept of total prohibition, the objectives of responsible gambling are to encourage and/or restrict an individual’s gambling expenditure in terms of money and time to personally affordable limits. Stakeholder responsibilities: Governments craft the gambling environment through legislation, monitor compliance with regulatory requirements, and receive taxation revenue as a proportion of expenditure. Industry operators on the other hand, compete across market sectors through marketing and advertising, and through the development of commercially innovative products, reaping substantial financial rewards. Concurrently, governments are driven to respond to community pressures to minimize the range of negative gambling-related social, personal and economic harms and costs. Industry operators are exposed to the same pressures but additionally overlaid with the self-interest of avoiding the imposition of more stringent restrictive policies. Cooperation of stakeholders: The resulting tension between taxation revenue and profit making, harm minimization, and social impacts creates a climate of conflict between all involved parties. Data-driven policies become compromised by unsubstantiated claims of, and counter claims against, the nature and extent of gambling-related harms, effectiveness of policy strategies, with allegations of bias and influence associated with researchers supported by industry and government research funding sources. Conclusion: To effectively advance policies, it is argued that it is imperative that all parties collaborate in a cooperative manner to achieve the objectives of responsible gambling and harm minimization. This extends to and includes more transparent funding for researchers from both government and industry. Continued reliance on data collected from analogue populations or volunteers participating in simulated gambling tasks will not provide data capable of valid and reliable extrapolation to real gamblers in real venues risking their own funds. Failure to adhere to principles of corporate responsibility and consumer protection by both governments and industry will challenge the social licence to offer gambling products. Appropriate and transparent safeguards learnt from the tobacco and alcohol field, it is argued, can guide the conduct of gambling research.


1998 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 481-482
Author(s):  
Graham L. Staines
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document