Skip to main content

Learning in Highly Polarized Conflicts

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Operations Research Proceedings 2013

Part of the book series: Operations Research Proceedings ((ORP))

Abstract

Negotiations are often conducted in highly polarized environments, which are also uncertain and dynamic. However, the intense rivalry involved in these conflicts does not always prevent an agreement from being reached. A recently proposed static model sets out the conditions under which either an agreement is achieved or negotiations break down in this environment [4]. Nevertheless, important aspects related to partial mutual knowledge of players in a dynamic context are not yet been studied. To fill this gap, we develop an extension of the static game to modelling highly polarized conflicts in an uncertain, asymmetric and dynamic environment. In this extension both parties bargain multiple negotiation rounds under uncertain threats that are materialised only if an agreement is not reached. If a negotiation breakdown occurs, each party learns about these threats from the outcome observed in the previous round. This paper presents the most important results, and a short discussion about possible applications. In particular, we provide the conditions that characterise different paths for negotiations held under polarized environments, which matches the observed evolution of many of these conflicts in the real world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We write \(x\) for \(\overline{x}\) and \(y\) for \(\overline{y}\) for simplifying the notation.

  2. 2.

    We eliminate the overline \(\overline{x}, \overline{y}_H\) and \(\overline{y}_L\) writing \(x,y_H,y_L\) for simplifying the notation.

  3. 3.

    The Markov process theory provides another form to obtain the stationary probability, by considering the row vector of probabilities \(q\) such that \(qp(v_t|v_{t-1})=q,\) which coincides with the results presented here.

References

  1. Chowdhury, P. R. (1998). Externalities and bargaining disagreement. Economics Letters, 61(1), 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jéhiel, P., & Moldovanu, B. (1995). Cyclical delay in bargaining with externalities. The Review of Economic Studies, 62(4), 619–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jéhiel, P., & Moldovanu, B. (1995). Negative externalities may cause delay in negotiation. Econometrica, 63(3), 1321–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Laengle, S., & Loyola, G. (2012). Bargaining and negative externalities. Optimization Letters, 6(3), 421–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica, 21(1), 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigifredo Laengle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Laengle, S., Loyola, G. (2014). Learning in Highly Polarized Conflicts. In: Huisman, D., Louwerse, I., Wagelmans, A. (eds) Operations Research Proceedings 2013. Operations Research Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07001-8_37

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics