The Limits of Integrative Bargaining

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 1996-01-01 DOI:10.1093/oso/9780197513248.003.0016
Gerald B. Wetlaufer
{"title":"The Limits of Integrative Bargaining","authors":"Gerald B. Wetlaufer","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197513248.003.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses integrative bargaining. Opportunities for integrative bargaining are often unrecognized and unexploited. As a result, both the parties to negotiations and society as a whole are worse off than would otherwise have been the case. The article offers three conclusions. First, opportunities for integrative bargaining are not nearly as pervasive as is sometimes authoritatively asserted. Second, the claim that opportunities for integrative bargaining make good behavior a simple matter of rational, pecuniary self-interest is not nearly as strong as is sometimes claimed, both because opportunities for integrative bargaining are less pervasive than has been asserted and because, even when such opportunities may exist, the case for good behavior is weaker than has been claimed. Third, and accordingly, the case for good behavior cannot rest entirely on pecuniary self-interest. The article then outlines the opportunities for integrative bargaining, which includes differences between the parties in terms of (1) their interests, (2) their projections concerning possible future events, (3) their willingness to accept risks, and (4) their time preferences regarding payment or performance.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"10 3 1","pages":"369"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"1996-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197513248.003.0016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

This article discusses integrative bargaining. Opportunities for integrative bargaining are often unrecognized and unexploited. As a result, both the parties to negotiations and society as a whole are worse off than would otherwise have been the case. The article offers three conclusions. First, opportunities for integrative bargaining are not nearly as pervasive as is sometimes authoritatively asserted. Second, the claim that opportunities for integrative bargaining make good behavior a simple matter of rational, pecuniary self-interest is not nearly as strong as is sometimes claimed, both because opportunities for integrative bargaining are less pervasive than has been asserted and because, even when such opportunities may exist, the case for good behavior is weaker than has been claimed. Third, and accordingly, the case for good behavior cannot rest entirely on pecuniary self-interest. The article then outlines the opportunities for integrative bargaining, which includes differences between the parties in terms of (1) their interests, (2) their projections concerning possible future events, (3) their willingness to accept risks, and (4) their time preferences regarding payment or performance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
综合议价的局限性
本文讨论了整合议价。综合议价的机会往往未被认识和利用。结果,谈判双方和整个社会的境况都比没有谈判的情况更糟。这篇文章给出了三个结论。首先,整合议价的机会并不像有时权威人士所断言的那样普遍。其次,整合议价的机会使良好行为成为一种简单的理性的、金钱上的自利行为的说法,并不像有时声称的那样有力,因为整合议价的机会不像声称的那样普遍,而且,即使存在这样的机会,良好行为的理由也比声称的要弱。第三,因此,良好行为的理由不能完全建立在金钱上的自利之上。然后,文章概述了整合议价的机会,其中包括各方在以下方面的差异:(1)他们的利益,(2)他们对未来可能事件的预测,(3)他们接受风险的意愿,以及(4)他们对支付或履行的时间偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Georgetown Law Journal is headquartered at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. and has since its inception published more than 500 issues, as well as the widely-used Annual Review of Criminal Procedure (ARCP). The Journal is currently, and always has been, run by law students.
期刊最新文献
Codifying Constitutional Norms Precedent, Three-Judge District Courts, and the Law of Democracy Privatizing Criminal Procedure The Decline of the Virginia (and American) Death Penalty Law in the Anthropocene Epoch
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1