IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v32y2023i5d10.1007_s10726-023-09836-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Extension of Higher-Order Sequential Stabilities for Multilateral Conflicts and for Coalitional Analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Leandro Chaves Rêgo

    (Universidade Federal do Ceara
    Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

  • France E. G. Oliveira

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco)

Abstract

The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) is a model for analyzing and describing conflicts which is based on concepts of Conflict Resolution Analysis and Game Theory. The GMCR can be used to find possible conflict solutions through a stability analysis. In a conflict situation, decision makers (DMs) can behave differently. Thus, in the literature, there are several solution concepts to accommodate these different behaviors. Among the best-known solutions concepts are: Nash, General Metarationality (GMR) and Sequential Stability (SEQ). A state is considered Nash stable for a DM if it cannot in a single step move to a preferred state. In the case of SEQ and GMR stabilities, a DM anticipates if his/her opponents may react to his/her initial move leading the conflict to a state that is not preferable to the initial one. The difference between these two concepts is that, in SEQ, only reactions which are also beneficial to the opponents are taken into account. However, the definition of SEQ may require a sanction in which an opponent moves away from a state that is SEQ stable for the opponent, a move that seems implausible. Recently, in order to avoid these implausible reactions, Higher-Order Sequential Stabilities have been proposed for bilateral conflicts. In this paper, we extend these concepts for multilateral conflicts and also for coalitional stability analysis. We present results about these concepts and illustrate their importance in the analysis of a Private Brownfield Renovation conflict.

Suggested Citation

  • Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2023. "An Extension of Higher-Order Sequential Stabilities for Multilateral Conflicts and for Coalitional Analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1117-1141, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09836-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-023-09836-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-023-09836-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-023-09836-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fang, Liping & Hipel, Keith W. & Kilgour, D. Marc, 1989. "Conflict models in graph form: Solution concepts and their interrelationships," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 86-100, July.
    2. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2005. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 441-460, November.
    3. Takehiro Inohara & Keith W. Hipel, 2008. "Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 343-359, December.
    4. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & Xiaoyong (John) Peng, 2001. "Coalition Analysis in Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 159-175, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Giannini Italino Alves Vieira & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2020. "Berge Solution Concepts in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 103-125, February.
    2. Inohara, Takehiro, 2016. "State transition time analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 372-382.
    3. Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour & Rami A. Kinsara, 2014. "Strategic Investigations of Water Conflicts in the Middle East," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 355-376, May.
    4. Meraj Sohrabi & Zeynab Banoo Ahani Amineh & Mohammad Hossein Niksokhan & Hossein Zanjanian, 2023. "A framework for optimal water allocation considering water value, strategic management and conflict resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1582-1613, February.
    5. Felipe Costa Araujo & Alexandre Bevilacqua Leoneti, 2020. "Evaluating the Stability of the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulatory Framework in Brazil," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 143-156, February.
    6. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2017. "Symmetric Sequential Stability in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Multiple Decision Makers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 775-792, July.
    7. Takehiro Inohara & Keith W. Hipel, 2008. "Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 343-359, December.
    8. Inohara, Takehiro, 2023. "Similarities, differences, and preservation of efficiencies, with application to attitude analysis, within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1330-1348.
    9. Keith W. Hipel & Liping Fang & D. Marc Kilgour, 2020. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Reflections on Three Decades of Development," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 11-60, February.
    10. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    11. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2020. "Higher-order Sequential Stabilities in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution for Bilateral Conflicts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 601-626, August.
    12. Shawei He, 2019. "Coalition Analysis in Basic Hierarchical Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with Application to Climate Change Governance Disputes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 879-906, October.
    13. Xu, Haiyan & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W. & Kemkes, Graeme, 2010. "Using matrices to link conflict evolution and resolution in a graph model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 318-329, November.
    14. Augusto Getirana & Valéria de Fátima Malta, 2010. "Investigating Strategies of an Irrigation Conflict," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 2893-2916, September.
    15. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2019. "Probabilistic Option Prioritizing in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1149-1165, December.
    16. K W Li & D M Kilgour & K W Hipel, 2005. "Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(6), pages 699-707, June.
    17. Sean B. Walker & Keith W. Hipel, 2017. "Strategy, Complexity and Cooperation: The Sino-American Climate Regime," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 997-1027, September.
    18. Fritz W. Scharpf, 1991. "Games Real Actors Could Play: The Challenge of Complexity," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 277-304, July.
    19. Yasir M. Aljefri & Liping Fang & Keith W. Hipel & Kaveh Madani, 2019. "Strategic Analyses of the Hydropolitical Conflicts Surrounding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 305-340, April.
    20. Marina Sandomirskaia, 2019. "Nash-2 Equilibrium: Selective Farsightedness Under Uncertain Response," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 275-304, April.

    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:spr:grdene:v:32:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-023-09836-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.