WTO谈判的政治经济学:一个博弈论解释

IF 0.9 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Siddhartha K. Rastogi, A. Sengupta
{"title":"WTO谈判的政治经济学:一个博弈论解释","authors":"Siddhartha K. Rastogi, A. Sengupta","doi":"10.1163/15718069-bja10066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 2013 WTO Bali package was to be discussed for adoption during the 2014 Geneva meeting. Members were particularly keen on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), which was supposed to boost world trade and benefit developing countries. However, India surprised all members by withholding its support for TFA and demanding further dialogue on the unrelated issue of food security, which was supposedly settled in Bali with a time-bound peace clause. This action posed an existential challenge to WTO. This article explores India’s position through a game-theoretic negotiation framework with rational and indicative payoffs. We assert that India adopted a ‘suicide-bomber’ strategy and succeeded in ‘hostage-taking’ to extract the desired ‘ransom.’ Since India exploited the first-mover advantage, the rest of the world had no better choice than to pay the ransom. This is a Nash equilibrium of dominant strategies but with unequal bargaining power between the two players.","PeriodicalId":45224,"journal":{"name":"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Political Economy of the WTO Negotiations: A Game-Theoretic Explanation\",\"authors\":\"Siddhartha K. Rastogi, A. Sengupta\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718069-bja10066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 2013 WTO Bali package was to be discussed for adoption during the 2014 Geneva meeting. Members were particularly keen on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), which was supposed to boost world trade and benefit developing countries. However, India surprised all members by withholding its support for TFA and demanding further dialogue on the unrelated issue of food security, which was supposedly settled in Bali with a time-bound peace clause. This action posed an existential challenge to WTO. This article explores India’s position through a game-theoretic negotiation framework with rational and indicative payoffs. We assert that India adopted a ‘suicide-bomber’ strategy and succeeded in ‘hostage-taking’ to extract the desired ‘ransom.’ Since India exploited the first-mover advantage, the rest of the world had no better choice than to pay the ransom. This is a Nash equilibrium of dominant strategies but with unequal bargaining power between the two players.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-bja10066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Negotiation-A Journal of Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-bja10066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2013年世贸组织巴厘岛一揽子计划将在2014年日内瓦会议上讨论通过。成员们特别热衷于《贸易便利化协定》,该协定本应促进世界贸易并使发展中国家受益。然而,印度拒绝支持过渡联邦政府,并要求就粮食安全这一无关问题进行进一步对话,这让所有成员感到惊讶。据称,这一问题是在巴厘岛通过有时限的和平条款解决的。这一行动对世贸组织的生存构成了挑战。本文通过一个具有理性和指示性回报的博弈论谈判框架来探讨印度的立场。我们断言,印度采取了“自杀式炸弹袭击者”策略,并成功地“劫持人质”以获取所需的“赎金”由于印度利用了先发优势,世界其他国家别无选择,只能支付赎金。这是主导策略的纳什均衡,但两个参与者之间的议价能力不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Political Economy of the WTO Negotiations: A Game-Theoretic Explanation
The 2013 WTO Bali package was to be discussed for adoption during the 2014 Geneva meeting. Members were particularly keen on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), which was supposed to boost world trade and benefit developing countries. However, India surprised all members by withholding its support for TFA and demanding further dialogue on the unrelated issue of food security, which was supposedly settled in Bali with a time-bound peace clause. This action posed an existential challenge to WTO. This article explores India’s position through a game-theoretic negotiation framework with rational and indicative payoffs. We assert that India adopted a ‘suicide-bomber’ strategy and succeeded in ‘hostage-taking’ to extract the desired ‘ransom.’ Since India exploited the first-mover advantage, the rest of the world had no better choice than to pay the ransom. This is a Nash equilibrium of dominant strategies but with unequal bargaining power between the two players.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice examines negotiation from many perspectives, to explore its theoretical foundations and to promote its practical application. It addresses the processes of negotiation relating to political, security, environmental, ethnic, economic, business, legal, scientific and cultural issues and conflicts among nations, international and regional organisations, multinational corporations and other non-state parties. Conceptually, the Journal confronts the difficult task of developing interdisciplinary theories and models of the negotiation process and its desired outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信