IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mgs/ijoied/v6y2020i5p28-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Win-Win-Win Papakonstantinidis Model: An Approach between Empathy and Conflict Strategy An Inquiry into the T. Schelling‘s ―The Strategy of Conflict‖ (1960)

Author

Listed:
  • Prof. L. A. Papakonstantinidis

    (Professor Emeritus in Political Economy worked at the Local Government Dept (exPresident) of the School of Management and Economics (ex Director), Technological Educational Institute, University of PELOPONNESUS, Visby, Sweden)

Abstract

The paper, based on the T. Schelling‘s (1960) strategy of conflict deals with the equilibrium conditions and strategy between empathy and conflict: we investigate if the win-win-win papakonstantinidis model[1], as a conflict strategy could co-exists with the empathy as a pure behavioural condition focusing on improving the bargaining power Analytical, We investigate the interaction, empathy- global bargain, in a subjective and objective way 1. Objectively as a conflict strategy that is an inherent element of every entity and 2 subjectively, through empathy and sensitivity We investigate the win-win-win papakonstantinidis from the empathy prism Especially, We investigate if empathy is included in conflict strategies Empathy definitions encompass a broad range of emotional states, including caring for other people and having a desire to help them; experiencing emotions that match another person’s emotions; discerning what another person is thinking or feeling; and making less distinct the differences between the self and the other. It can also be understood as having the separateness of defining oneself and another blur Intuitive Bargaining and Bounded Reality in the Jackpot of Life[2] The combined work of all 4 authors (Nash, Harsanyi, Selten, Gigerenzer) has definitely demonstrated the physical and psychological constraints in (cooperative/non-cooperative) bargaining and negotiation processes, with reference to economic gaming behavior, decision-making and legal interaction of players. As a result, we can safely assume that the ‗information gap‘ is the dominant key factor for humans to ‗make a living‘. The sensitization process of the Papakonstantinidis model of the 3 win can achieve the full ‗angel‘s point‘, concerning a bottom-up collective bargaining process by propelling meta-capitalist evolution forward,in terms of participatory capital formation. The intuitive 3 win approach calls for (capital- based) bargaining mutualism and has its analogy in the many living examples of biological mutualism.

Suggested Citation

  • Prof. L. A. Papakonstantinidis, 2020. "The Win-Win-Win Papakonstantinidis Model: An Approach between Empathy and Conflict Strategy An Inquiry into the T. Schelling‘s ―The Strategy of Conflict‖ (1960)," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 6(5), pages 28-70, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:mgs:ijoied:v:6:y:2020:i:5:p:28-70
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchleap.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/03.-The_Win_Win_Win_Papakonstantinidis_Model_An_Approach_between_Empathy.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://researchleap.com/the-win-win-win-papakonstantinidis-model-an-approach-between-empathy-and-conflict-strategy-an-inquiry-into-the-t-schellings-%e2%80%95the-strategy-of-conflict%e2%80%96-1960/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    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. Federico Di Pace & Matthias Hertweck, 2019. "Labor Market Frictions, Monetary Policy, and Durable Goods," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 32, pages 274-304, April.
    2. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2010. "Realizing fair outcomes in minimum cost spanning tree problems through non-cooperative mechanisms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(3), pages 811-820, March.
    3. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    4. Scharpf, Fritz W. & Mohr, Matthias, 1994. "Efficient self-coordination in policy networks: A simulation study," MPIfG Discussion Paper 94/1, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    5. Fandel, Günter & Giese, Anke & Mohn, Brigitte, 2012. "Measuring synergy effects of a Public Social Private Partnership (PSPP) project," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 815-824.
    6. António Brandão & Joana Pinho & Hélder Vasconcelos, 2014. "Asymmetric Collusion with Growing Demand," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 429-472, December.
    7. Dinar, Ariel, 1989. "Application of the Nash Bargaining Model to a Problem of Efficient Resources Use and Cost-Benefit Allocation," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270685, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Volodymyr Babich & Simone Marinesi & Gerry Tsoukalas, 2021. "Does Crowdfunding Benefit Entrepreneurs and Venture Capital Investors?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 508-524, March.
    9. Zhigang Cao, 2011. "Remarks on Bargaining and Cooperation in Strategic Form Games," Discussion Paper Series dp565, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    10. Ley, Eduardo, 2006. "Statistical inference as a bargaining game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 142-149, October.
    11. Anna Castañer & Jesús Marín-Solano & Carmen Ribas, 2021. "A time consistent dynamic bargaining procedure in differential games with hterogeneous discounting," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 93(3), pages 555-584, June.
    12. Graham Pyatt, 1986. "Inertia in Labor Markets," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 243-250, Jul-Sep.
    13. Laurence J. Kotlikoff & John B. Shoven & Avia Spivak, 1987. "Annuity Markets, Savings, and the Capital Stock," NBER Chapters, in: Issues in Pension Economics, pages 211-236, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Maria Montero & Alex Possajennikov, 2021. "An Adaptive Model of Demand Adjustment in Weighted Majority Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Daisuke Ikazaki, 2014. "A Human Capital Based Growth Model with Environment and Corruption," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 3(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Yu, Shasha & Lei, Ming & Deng, Honghui, 2023. "Evaluation to fixed-sum-outputs DMUs by non-oriented equilibrium efficient frontier DEA approach with Nash bargaining-based selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. van Damme, E.E.C., 1995. "Game theory : The next stage," Other publications TiSEM 7779b0f9-bef5-45c7-ae6b-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. repec:eee:labchp:v:2:y:1986:i:c:p:1039-1089 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Funk, Matt, 2008. "On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Theoretical Solution to this Prisoner's Dilemma," MPRA Paper 19025, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jun 2008.
    20. Yuni Xu & Xiang Fu & Xuefeng Chu, 2019. "Analyzing the Impacts of Climate Change on Hydro-Environmental Conflict-Resolution Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(4), pages 1591-1607, March.
    21. Herbst, Luisa & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2017. "Balance of power and the propensity of conflict," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 168-184.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Strategy; Conflict; Empathy; Social bargain; The win-win-win papakonstantinidis model;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M00 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mgs:ijoied:v:6:y:2020:i:5:p:28-70. 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: Bojan Obrenovic (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://researchleap.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.