IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mgs/jibrme/v4y2018i1p30-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Win-Win-Win Papakonstantinidis Model: Sensitization, Towards the Absolute Cooperation-The Marginal “Angels Moment”

Author

Listed:
  • Leonidas Papakonstantinidis

    (Professor Emeritus in Political Economy worked at the Local Government Department of the School of Management and Economics, Athens, Greece)

Abstract

The article deals with the ideal marginal (the Angels moment) situation during and “ending” the sensitization process in a 3-pole bargain A-B and the Community, the “C” factor, that means a better and more sensitized bargaining behavior, towards the absolute human and nature cooperation. The limit of the Sensitization Process is focused on social welfare based on the incompatibilities of other theorems, especially the Impossibility Theorem (Kenneth Arrow, 1951) “Non-Cooperative Game” Theory and the bargaining problem, thus synthesizing, the suggested harmony-equilibrium in a new proposal of bargaining behavior. A new approach to “social bargain behavior” with more grades of ‘action-reaction’ freedom is examined. The same competitive market rules could provide humanity by a quite different behavior choice, toward the absolute cooperation, the upper limit of the sensitization process-sequence, for producing “social welfare results” especially in LDC, by the peer-pressure operation.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonidas Papakonstantinidis, 2018. "The Win-Win-Win Papakonstantinidis Model: Sensitization, Towards the Absolute Cooperation-The Marginal “Angels Moment”," Journal of International Business Research and Marketing, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 4(1), pages 30-40, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:mgs:jibrme:v:4:y:2018:i:1:p:30-40
    DOI: 10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.41.3004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchleap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/04.The-Win-Win-Win-Papakonstantinidis-Model.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://researchleap.com/win-win-win-papakonstantinidis-model-sensitization-towards-absolute-cooperation/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.41.3004?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. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    3. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    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. Haris Aziz & Alexander Lam & Barton E. Lee & Toby Walsh, 2021. "Strategyproof and Proportionally Fair Facility Location," Papers 2111.01566, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    2. Etro, Federico, 2017. "Research in economics and game theory. A 70th anniversary," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 1-7.
    3. McCain , Roger, 2013. "Bargaining Power and Majoritarian Allocations," School of Economics Working Paper Series 2013-9, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Ley, Eduardo, 2006. "Statistical inference as a bargaining game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 142-149, October.
    8. 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).
    9. repec:eee:labchp:v:2:y:1986:i:c:p:1039-1089 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Yashiv, Eran, 2007. "Labor search and matching in macroeconomics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(8), pages 1859-1895, November.
    11. Güth, Werner, 1998. "Sequential versus independent commitment: An indirect evolutionary analysis of bargaining rules," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,5, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    12. de Clippel, Geoffroy & Pérez-Castrillo, David & Wettstein, David, 2012. "Egalitarian equivalence under asymmetric information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 413-423.
    13. Iraklis Kollias & John Leventides & Vassilios G. Papavassiliou, 2022. "On the solution of games with arbitrary payoffs: An application to an over-the-counter financial market," Working Papers 202302, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    14. van Damme, E.E.C., 2000. "John Nash and the analysis of rational behavior," Other publications TiSEM cf34a879-fd1c-4588-9646-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. 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.
    16. Lili Liu & Guochun Tang & Baoqiang Fan & Xingpeng Wang, 2015. "Two-person cooperative games on scheduling problems in outpatient pharmacy dispensing process," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 938-948, November.
    17. Naeve-Steinweg, Elisabeth, 2002. "Mechanisms supporting the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 25-36, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Vesa Kanniainen & Juha-Matti Lehtonen, 2019. "Offset Contracts as an Insurance Device in Building the National Security," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 85-97, January.
    20. Eric van Damme & Xu Lang, 2022. "Two-Person Bargaining when the Disagreement Point is Private Information," Papers 2211.06830, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    21. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    “Win-win-win”; welfare economics; the Impossibility Theorem (Arrow); the Incompleteness Theorem (Gödel); Pareto Efficiency; Nash Equilibrium;
    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:jibrme:v:4:y:2018:i:1:p:30-40. 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.