IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i8p3367-d348283.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Weapon of the Weak: An Analysis of RDEU Game in the Conflict of Farmland Expropriation under the Influence of Emotion

Author

Listed:
  • Kairong Hong

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Yucheng Zou

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Yanwei Zhang

    (School of Tourism and Urban Management, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330032, China)

  • Kaifeng Duan

    (School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China)

Abstract

During land expropriation, it is difficult to form a real antagonistic relationship between farmers and the local Government due to disparities, which means the confrontations between them are difficult to administer. The confrontation between both parties could lead to the distortion of the farmers’ resisting logic, who are supposed to be in a vulnerable position. Hence, the farmers are not necessarily in a weak position; sometimes, they even have advantages compared with the local governments. Through the combination of Quiggin’s rank-based expected utility theory and evolutionary game theory, this paper constructs a conflict-induced game mechanism Rank-Dependent Expected Utility Theory (RDEU) evolutionary game model and discusses the evolution law of strategic behavior of land-expropriated farmers and local governments under the influence of emotion. The software simulation results show that when the farmers at the weak side think that the probability of the government adopting the strong strategy is higher than a certain cut-off point, the farmers will use the weapon of the weak to release the signal that endangers the order and force the government to adopt a compromise strategy by utilizing authoritative preference for stability. Through the interaction of heterogeneous beliefs between farmers and the government, the game of land expropriation will form an evolutionary stable equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Yanwei Zhang & Kaifeng Duan, 2020. "The Weapon of the Weak: An Analysis of RDEU Game in the Conflict of Farmland Expropriation under the Influence of Emotion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3367-:d:348283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3367/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3367/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-298, November.
    2. Hoang Linh Nguyen & Jin Duan & Guo Qin Zhang, 2018. "Land Politics under Market Socialism: The State, Land Policies, and Rural–Urban Land Conversion in China and Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Xie, Yong, 2019. "Land expropriation, shock to employment, and employment differentiation: Findings from land-lost farmers in Nanjing, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Xiuqing Zou & Arie J. Oskam, 2007. "New Compensation Standard for Land Expropriation in China," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 15(5), pages 107-120, September.
    5. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    6. Kalabamu, Faustin Tirwirukwa, 2019. "Land tenure reforms and persistence of land conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa – The case of Botswana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 337-345.
    7. Yanwei Zhang & Hualin Xie, 2019. "Welfare Effect Evaluation of Land-Lost Farmers’ Households under Different Livelihood Asset Allocation," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-41, November.
    8. Dhiaulhaq, Ahmad & McCarthy, John F. & Yasmi, Yurdi, 2018. "Resolving industrial plantation conflicts in Indonesia: Can mediation deliver?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 64-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kairong Hong & Yucheng Zou & Mingyuan Zhu & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "A Game Analysis of Farmland Expropriation Conflict in China under Multi-Dimensional Preference: Cooperation or Resistance?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-29, January.
    2. Hongbo Guo & Mengtong Lu & Lili Ding, 2022. "The Effect of Consumer Sentiment on Manufacturers’ Green Technology Innovation: A RDEU Evolutionary Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Susu Ni & Shuliang Zou & Jiahua Chen, 2022. "Evolutionary Game Model of Internal Threats to Nuclear Security in Spent Fuel Reprocessing Plants Based on RDEU Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Sayeh Kassaw Agegnehu & Reinfried Mansberger, 2020. "Community Involvement and Compensation Money Utilization in Ethiopia: Case Studies from Bahir Dar and Debre Markos Peri-Urban Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, June.
    5. Hu, Zhenhua & Song, Gaohui & Hu, Ziyue & Fang, Jiaqi, 2024. "An improved dynamic game analysis of farmers, enterprises and rural collective economic organizations based on idle land reuse policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    6. Zhaoyu Cao & Xu Zhao & Yucheng Zou & Kairong Hong & Yanwei Zhang, 2021. "Multidimensional Fair Fuzzy Equilibrium Evaluation of Housing Expropriation Compensation from the Perspective of Behavioral Preference: A Case Study from China," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chenxi Li & Zenglei Xi, 2019. "Social Stability Risk Assessment of Land Expropriation: Lessons from the Chinese Case," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    3. David Ahn & Syngjoo Choi & Douglas Gale & Shachar Kariv, 2014. "Estimating ambiguity aversion in a portfolio choice experiment," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 195-223, July.
    4. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Zpochybnění deskriptivnosti teorie očekávaného užitku [Doubts about the descriptive validity of the expected utility theory]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2007(1), pages 106-120.
    6. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    7. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    8. Thomas Astebro & Frank Fossen & Cédric Gutierrez, 2024. "Entrepreneurs: Clueless, Biased, Poor Heuristics, or Bayesian Machines?," Working Papers hal-04759301, HAL.
    9. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    10. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    11. Wang, Qian & Sundberg, Marcus & Karlström, Anders, 2013. "Scheduling choices under rank dependent utility maximization," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:16, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    12. Bahaji, Hamza & Casta, Jean-François, 2016. "Employee stock option-implied risk attitude under Rank-Dependent Expected Utility," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(PA), pages 144-154.
    13. Thomas Dohmen & Simone Quercia & Jana Willrodt, 2023. "On the psychology of the relation between optimism and risk taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 193-214, October.
    14. Rablen, Matthew D., 2019. "Foundations of the Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting Function," IZA Discussion Papers 12701, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Philippe Delquié & Alessandra Cillo, 2006. "Disappointment without prior expectation: a unifying perspective on decision under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 197-215, December.
    16. Navin Kartik & SangMok Lee & Daniel Rappoport, 2022. "Single-Crossing Differences in Convex Environments," Papers 2212.12009, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    17. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    18. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    19. John Payne, 2005. "It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 5-19, January.
    20. Larbi Alaoui, 2012. "The value of useless information," Working Papers 625, Barcelona School of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3367-:d:348283. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.