Bruce Bueno De Mesquita Expected Utility Model

Deborah Stone begins her book, Policy Paradox, by stating, “a theory of policy politics must start with a simple model of political society, just as economics starts with a simple model of economic society.” Deborah Stone examines two policy-making models to describe the paradox’s of the process model for public policy. The two models include: the market (rational model) and the Polis (community) model. Stone states she contrasts these two models to “illuminate some ways the market model distorts political life.” As discussed in class, the market model follows five steps:

Collective action problems arise in politics because as individuals we are conflicted between our own interest and the interest of the group. Our choice is either to be selfish or cooperate with the group. “It involves building, combining, mixing, and amalgamating people’s individual goals” (Lowi, et al. 13). There are three main theories as to why collective action problems exist. First, according to Mancur Olson individuals are tempted to free-ride which is getting a benefit without contributing to it and that no individual is incentivized to work for the collective good. (Lowi, et al 571). Free-riding becomes a bigger issues as a group gets larger. Second, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a theory in which there are two individuals in a situation were neither has an incentive to cooperate although both would be better off if they did cooperate. Third, the tragedy of commons occurs when individuals’ use of a resource causes its depletion however it’s supposed to be shared by everyone. Collective action problems are difficult to solve because a group is formed to achieve common goals however as individuals we have different objectives and preferences. This is most evident in politics. My goal in this paper is to provide three different solutions to collective action problems in politics specifically in political parties, electoral process and interest groups.

This paper presents my reflections on the Negotiations: Strategy and practice coursework in the MBA program at Said Business School, University of Oxford. My paper will present various reflections on different themes of negotiation simulation undertaken by me during the course. This course has allowed investigating and reflecting on key drivers of negotiation techniques for me. I have learned that transparency and coalition are the core tenet of negotiation for me. For the purpose of this reflective exercise, I will conduct a comparative analysis of the process, dynamics and outcomes based on the themes such as negotiation styles, bargaining zones, power, emotion, coalitions, value claiming vs value creation etc. for the below-mentioned simulations:

Negotiation is a fundamental form of dispute resolution involving two or more parties (Michelle, M.2003). Negotiations can also take place in order to avoid any future disputes. It can be either an interpersonal or inter-group process. Negotiations can occur at international or corporate level and also at a personal level. Negotiations often involve give and take acknowledging that there is interdependence between the disputants to some extent to achieve the goal. This means that negotiations only arise when the goals cannot be achieved independently (Lewicki and Saunders et al., 1997). Interdependence means the both parties can influence the outcome for the other party and vice versa. The negotiations can be win-lose or win-win in nature.

The fundamental assumption is that learning and practicing negotiation skills can be learned. Others, however, assume that diplomacy and negotiation are things that can never be learned or taught. They believe that you are either born a negotiator or you are not. Unfortunately, this is a very shortsighted assumption. The approach to this will be to use all the information that was provided in the analysis to determine the best position of strategy to save the Opera on opening day, to find a fiscal solution that will benefit both the Opera and Sally using a BATNA strategy.

The Funnel of Causality model describes voting behaviour in terms of socio-demographics, party identification, issues, and candidates. In this essay I will focus on issues because they can be compared between countries. An issue is essentially a problem that is perceived to be important, and there is an actor with “ownership” of the issue, meaning that there is someone who is thought to be “the best man for the job” so to speak. The economy isn’t an issue because you can’t have “ownership” over the economy. Issues are important because they explain a lot about voting behaviour.

Deborah Stone compares the market and polis models of policy making with the intent to show that the original origin of the public policy discipline was to be grounded in a practical science, economics, but to also show how and why the economic approach to policy making has significant limitations. Stone is arguing against the view that policy decision making is rational decision making. Deborah Stone’s main reason for comparing the two models of policy making is to identify and critique the simplistic assumptions that have been used in the market and rationality project. Stone is attempting to point out the paradox that exists between the two because the two models are evidently contradictory, the market being ground in rationality and the polis being based on emotion. Stone compares the two policies in order to show that economics cannot be solely used to understand policy making because the two are fundamentally different. She also points out that policy is made in a political society and because of this the polis model seeks to explain public policy as it actually happens in reality since the field and study of public policy was created to allow government to make decisions that would best benefit their citizens.

“Liberal” and “conservative” are common short-hand ways to describe politicians and policies. Rational choice theory, which assumes people act out of self-interest as voters just as they do as consumers (Cochran & Malone, 2010, p. 62), suggests voters want such short-hand descriptions to help them make decisions. A key aspect of this

Throughout every career, military or civilian, is an inherent requirement to conduct effective negotiations. For example, as a civilian this is commonly how a career starts, with a negotiation over starting salary. However, in a military career, the opportunity to barter and negotiate is a privilege earned after proving that you have the ability to follow orders regardless of personal preference. The skill of highly effective negotiation could be described as an art, if that is so then there are variables that, to continue the metaphor, are the colors the artist would use to paint. The variables are trust, information, power, and options and are abbreviated as TIPO. I found the TIPO model the most important concept in module 8 because

Pluralist theory views politics and decision making as a competitive phenomenon where different groups and individuals have different views and that there is no single elite group that exercises influence (Davis & Go, 2009). The theory holds that power is relatively broadly distributed among different interest groups. These groups hold different views of the same aspect and compete with each other for

The strategic board game Diplomacy focuses on wars, but more importantly the act of negotiating. The players are responsible for forming strategies by both developing and breaking alliances with their competitors. The game is set in Europe during World War I with most teams beginning with similar resources. Each player competes as an either Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Italy, England, France, Russia, or Germany. With at least three home center game pieces on the board, there are strategic movements in order to control one of the eighteen supply centers. This involves phases of negotiation prior to movement of game piece. There is no factor of luck. The main variable in the game is each team’s ability to convince the others to do what they want. The core game strategy is negotiation.

Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution procedures. According to Christopher W (2012), negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before. Because negotiation is such a common problem-solving process, it is in everyone 's interest to become familiar with negotiating dynamics and skills. This section is designed to identify what worked well and not well in the negotiation. In addition, to present strategies that generally makes the negotiation more efficient and improvement in the next

Electoral Influence-“can be considered the primary prevention of policymaking because it is important activity that precedes policy work.”

According to Halpert et al.’s Path model, negotiation consists of different phases such as preparation, differentiation, exploration, and exchange. The preparation phase in our previous negotiation became an essential part that played a role of evaluation of both parties positions in our successful outcome.

Negotiating is something that has been around since the beginning of mankind. We all start off negotiating as little kids, even for little things such as candy and toys. When we grow up, negotiating becomes sort of the norm. We negotiate consciously and subconsciously every single day. When you think about it, negotiation takes up most of our lives. We are always trying to see what we can get as a benefit without giving up much. It always comes down to the pie, how big is the pie and who can get the biggest slice. As we become adults with careers, there are ever some that become flat our ‘Negotiators’. This means that all they do for a living is negotiate. They are master negotiators and are praised for being so. When it comes to negotiation, persuasion is also within that talent. You have to be able to get what you want from people without them feeling like they are being taken advantage of and that they are also getting just as big a piece of the pie as you are getting, although in reality they are not.