Search

If you must be selfish, then be wise and not narrow-minded in your selfishness. Dalai Lama, 2002 NEGOTIATION is often characterized as interdependent actions involving a set of two or more decision-making units which have different preferences over the possible outcomes. By considering a negotiation process as a strategic interaction, we can shed light on interactive decision-making among actors who have a set of actions to choose from. In an interactive process, the actual or likely decisions by one agent have an impact on the other's choice of actions. Viewing this decision-making process within the structure of a game helps us explore different possibilities for solutions to conflicting preferences. In fact, game-theoretic analysis assists in uncovering order in seemingly chaotic interactions among negotiators. This chapter introduces a game-theoretic perspective in building a foundation for understanding structural conditions embedded in many conflict settings. It starts with theoretical assumptions about interactive decision-making and moves on to basic concepts involving the Prisoner's Dilemma and minimax. By introducing these and other concepts such as a dominant strategy and an equilibrium, the chapter lays the groundwork for further discussion about the dynamics of cooperation and conflict that will come later. Strategic interaction in negotiation In strategic situations where the outcome for each participant relies on mutual decisions, an individual's success depends on the choices of others. For instance, when one country concedes part of a disputed territory, they would want to have measures taken to ensure the territory is prevented from being used to attack. Not only one's own choices but also those of other actors drive the allocation of values. In other words, an ability to realize one's own desires hinges on what the other does (Schelling 1960). Thus the outcome derives from mutual influence of each other's actions and strategies, reflecting the decisions of all the concerned parties who have different interests. In general, negotiation has long been defined such that “choices of the actors will determine the allocation of some values,” and “the outcome for each participant is a function of the behavior of the other” (O. Young 1975, 5). More specifically, bargaining takes place because each actor's welfare is affected by the other's decisions.

National reconciliation, while undoubtedly a means to reduce psychological distance and alienation, can be criticized for ignoring basic concerns with justice. Rather than downplayed or smoothed over with political rhetoric, deep structural divisions in post-conflict societies need to be considered in the search for new social identity, meaning, and values. We argue that there can be no “quick fixes” in post-conflict societies and that, to be truly salutary, reconciliation should contribute to the emergence of institutions capable of creatively processing the kind of social tensions that led to past violent conflict.

This article examines the role of grass-roots efforts in the promotion of alternative development strategies and the relationship between participatory development and social change. The main themes of this study are related to survival strategies that may be useful for the marginalized along the periphery of the global political economy. In the article, human development is understood in terms of ordinary people's control over everyday life, and this is viewed as an important means to regenerate people's power and provide social space for an indigenous problem-solving process. Human development is closely linked to efforts to challenge economic exploitation and marginalization.

In the aftermath of intense struggles, especially violent ones, there is a need to reverse the negative relationship dynamics involving factionalised identity groups who have to live in close proximity to each other (Lederach, 1997, pp. 13–15). Hearts and minds are ravaged by war and violence, and their healing is as critical a need as the reconstruction of burnt out towns or villages. True peacebuilding must include strategies to assist antagonists to get beyond their past violence and estrangement. In this context, the main focus of reconciliation is to create new perceptions and explore new shared experiences, thereby changing key relationship dynamics in the conflict system.

In the world which is an intrinsically dynamic and interconnected web, all organisms are constituted by those very holistic ecological relationships. The notion of an ecosystem is represented in the interactive relationships of different forms of animate and inanimate beings. It is essential for the planet’s future survival that nature and society have to be dialectically inter-linked and complementing each other. The root of the modern ecological crisis is attributed to disconnectedness of humans with the larger whole. The potential for the development and politicisation of ecocentric identities lies in the way the scale and scope of the contemporary environmental crisis demands a transformative project. The conception that the whole must take precedence over the parts is consistent with transformation in our mode of social and political life.