IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mgs/ijmsba/v7y2021i3p12-29.html

Forming the Bargaining Win-Win-Win Papakonstantinidis Tripartite Focal Points Analysis of the Bibliography

Author

Listed:
  • Leonidas A. Papakonstantinidis

    (University of Peloponnese, GR, Academician (IMA Academy, RU) Honorary Professor UBL University, Indonesia, Visiting Professor IIIT University Bhagalpur, India)

Abstract

Focal points, in a period that people are reviewing their priorities, in a more social direction due to thepandemic, as a global threat and catastrophe, are examined in this work, under the prism of the win -win-winpapakonstantinidis perception, closer to the tripartite global concept. Identity, social justice, and the community spirit seem to be the new-day priorities in a “pandemic period†, under a win-win-win perception: the last one is analyzed through the sequence toward the limit ln2 =0,693 and the disagreement point in a bargain. Finally, its philosophical perspective is analyzed through the tripartite thesis. Research on pandemic “behavior†is provided at the end of this work.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonidas A. Papakonstantinidis, 2021. "Forming the Bargaining Win-Win-Win Papakonstantinidis Tripartite Focal Points Analysis of the Bibliography," International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 7(3), pages 12-29, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:mgs:ijmsba:v:7:y:2021:i:3:p:12-29
    DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.73.1002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://researchleap.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2Forming_the_Bargaining_Win_Win_Win_Papakonstantinidis_Tripartite.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://researchleap.com/forming-the-bargaining-win-win-win-papakonstantinidis-tripartite-focal-points-analysis-of-the-bibliography/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.73.1002?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. Leland, Jonathan W. & Schneider, Mark, 2018. "A theory of focal points in 2 × 2 games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 75-89.
    2. Mehta, Judith & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1994. "The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 658-673, June.
    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. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    2. James Bland & Nikos Nikiforakis, 2013. "Tacit Coordination in Games with Third-Party Externalities," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2013_19, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    3. Andrea Isoni & Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "The Pizza Night Game: Efficiency, Conflict and Inequality in Tacit Bargaining Games with Focal Points," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 18-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2004. "Fatal Attraction: Focality, Naivete, and Sophistication in Experimental Hide-and-Seek Games," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000316, UCLA Department of Economics.
    5. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Schultz, Bill, 2020. "Resource management and joint-planning in fragmented societies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    7. Benjamin J. Dyson, 2019. "Behavioural Isomorphism, Cognitive Economy and Recursive Thought in Non-Transitive Game Strategy," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, August.
    8. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    9. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Kuzmics, Christoph, 2013. "Hidden symmetries and focal points," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 226-258.
    10. Klaus Abbink & Ronald Bosman & Ronald Heijmans & Frans van Winden, 2017. "Disruptions in Large-Value Payment Systems: An Experimental Approach," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 13(4), pages 63-95, December.
    11. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    12. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2025. "Heuristic centred-belief players," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    13. Stefan Bechtold & Christoph Engel, 2017. "The Valuation of Moral Rights: A Field Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2017_04, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    14. Corazzini, Luca & Cotton, Christopher S. & Longo, Enrico & Reggiani, Tommaso, 2024. "Coordinated selection of collective action: Wealthy-interest bias and inequality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    15. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gächter, Simon & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike, 2011. "The framing of games and the psychology of play," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 459-478.
    16. Christoph Kuzmics & Daniel Rodenburger, 2020. "A case of evolutionarily stable attainable equilibrium in the laboratory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 685-721, October.
    17. Richard H. McAdams & Janice Nadler, 2005. "Testing the Focal Point Theory of Legal Compliance: The Effect of Third‐Party Expression in an Experimental Hawk/Dove Game," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 87-123, March.
    18. Anke Gerbery & Thorsten Hensz & Bodo Vogtx, 2010. "Rational Investor Sentimentina Repeated Stochastic Game with Imperfect Monitoring," Post-Print hal-00911824, HAL.
    19. Kevin J. Boudreau, 2021. "Promoting Platform Takeoff and Self-Fulfilling Expectations: Field Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5953-5967, September.
    20. Rojas, Christian & Cengiz, Ezgi, 2025. "Can nonprofit target-setting mechanisms drive for-profit compliance? Evidence from sodium content," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    More about this item

    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:ijmsba:v:7:y:2021:i:3:p:12-29. 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.