IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v15y2003i1p85-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict Measures in Cooperative Exchange Models of Collective Decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Marcel van Assen

    (Department of Methodology and Statistics (MTO), Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands m.a.l.m.vanassen@uvt.nl)

  • Frans Stokman

    (ICS, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG Groningen, The Netherlands f.n.stokman@ppsw.rug.nl)

  • Reinier van Oosten

    (Decide bv, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG Groningen, The Netherlands r.c.h.van.oosten@decide.nl)

Abstract

This study focuses on externalities of exchanges of voting positions in collective decision-making. Exchanges are represented by non-constant two-person cooperative games. It is assumed that the rate of exchange is specified by the Raiffa-Kalai-Smorodinsky solution, and a model is specified to identify the exchanges. Externality effects of these exchanges are assessed with two conflict measures we develop here. The measures assess within-group and between-group conflict, respectively, and are applied to collective decision-making in the European Union regarding support for fishery infrastructure. The application shows that the measures provide indispensable insights into the decision-making setting and that these can be used for strategic intervention in the setting. It also shows that both actors' power and the outcomes in exchange with externalities are very different from those in exchange without externalities as studied by theories of network exchange.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcel van Assen & Frans Stokman & Reinier van Oosten, 2003. "Conflict Measures in Cooperative Exchange Models of Collective Decision-making," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(1), pages 85-112, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:15:y:2003:i:1:p:85-112
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463103015001072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463103015001072
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463103015001072?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    3. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce & Lalman, David, 1986. "Reason and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1113-1129, December.
    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. Giovanni Rossi, 2009. "Measuring conflict and power in strategic settings," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 19(2), pages 75-104.
    2. Javier Arregui & Frans Stokman & Robert Thomson, 2004. "Bargaining in the European Union and Shifts in Actors’ Policy Positions," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 47-72, March.
    3. Detlef F. Sprinz & Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Steffen Kallbekken & Frans Stokman & Håkon Sælen & Robert Thomson, 2016. "Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 172-187.
    4. Jacob Dijkstra & Marcel A.L.M. Van Assen & Frans N. Stokman, 2008. "Outcomes of Collective Decisions With Externalities Predicted," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(4), pages 415-441, October.
    5. Jacob Dijkstra & Marcel A. L. M. van Assen, 2008. "The Comparison of Four Types of Everyday Interdependencies," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(1), pages 115-143, February.

    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. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    2. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    3. Anbarci, Nejat & Skaperdas, Stergios & Syropoulos, Constantinos, 2002. "Comparing Bargaining Solutions in the Shadow of Conflict: How Norms against Threats Can Have Real Effects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, September.
    4. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2007. "Bargaining in committees as an extension of Nash's bargaining theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 291-305, January.
    5. Kapeller, Jakob & Steinerberger, Stefan, 2017. "Stability, fairness and random walks in the bargaining problem," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 488(C), pages 60-71.
    6. Nicola Acocella & Giovanni Bartolomeo & Wilfried Pauwels, 2010. "Is there any scope for corporatism in macroeconomic policies?," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 37(4), pages 403-424, November.
    7. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip & Newton, Jonathan, 2018. "Conventional contracts, intentional behavior and logit choice: Equality without symmetry," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 273-294.
    8. Jiang, Wenjun & Ren, Jiandong & Yang, Chen & Hong, Hanping, 2019. "On optimal reinsurance treaties in cooperative game under heterogeneous beliefs," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 173-184.
    9. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    10. Kang Rong, 2018. "Fair Allocation When Players' Preferences Are Unknown," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 497-509, January.
    11. Dufwenberg, Martin & Servátka, Maroš & Vadovič, Radovan, 2017. "Honesty and informal agreements," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 269-285.
    12. Xu, Zeyu, 2007. "A survey on intra-household models and evidence," MPRA Paper 3763, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Johannes Spinnewijn & Frans Spinnewyn, 2015. "Revising claims and resisting ultimatums in bargaining problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(2), pages 91-116, June.
    14. Gomez, Juan Camilo, 2006. "Achieving efficiency with manipulative bargainers," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 254-263, November.
    15. Binmore, Ken & Samuelson, Larry & Young, Peyton, 2003. "Equilibrium selection in bargaining models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 296-328, November.
    16. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    17. Anbarci, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick, 2018. "How fully do people exploit their bargaining position? The effects of bargaining institution and the 50–50 norm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 320-334.
    18. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Bargaining," Working Papers 2007-06, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    19. Bouët, Antoine & Laborde Debucquet, David, 2017. "Why is the Doha Development agenda failing? And what can be done? A computable general equilibrium-game theoretical approach :," IFPRI book chapters, in: Bouët, Antoine & Laborde Debucquet, David (ed.), Agriculture, development, and the global trading system: 2000– 2015, chapter 3, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:15:y:2003:i:1:p:85-112. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.