QUIZ
Dec 26, 2015
Discussion
• Real-life examples from the news that differ in problem structure terms used from last class
• From NYT • two INTERNATIONAL problems that illustrate one of the
differences we have discussed
Key questions of problem structure
• Q1: Is it conflict, cooperation, or harmony?• Q2: Who are the actors?• Q3: Absolute capacities and relative power• Q4: Incentives/preferences• Q5: Information/knowledge• Q6: Norms• Q7: Violation tolerance• Q8: Inherent transparency• Q9: Response incentives
ROW’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate) R gets 2 yr R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect) R gets 0 yr R gets 5 yr
COLUMN’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr C gets 0 yr
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr C gets 5 yr
OVERALL GAMECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr
R gets 2 yr
C gets 0 yr
R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr
R gets 0 yr
C gets 5 yr
R gets 5 yr
ROW’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate) R gets 2 yr R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect) R gets 0 yr R gets 5 yr
What should Row do?
ROW’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate) R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect) R gets 5 yr
First, assume Column confessed. What should Row do?
ROW’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate) R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect) R gets 5 yr
If Column confessed, Row clearly prefers to Confess.
ROW’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate) R gets 2 yr
Confess(Defect) R gets 0 yr
Now, assume Column stayed silent. What should Row do?
ROW’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate) R gets 2 yr
Confess(Defect) R gets 0 yr
If Column stayed silent, Row still prefers to Confess.
ROW’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate) R gets 2 yr R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect) R gets 0 yr R gets 5 yr
So, no matter what Column does, Row prefers to Confess!
COLUMN’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr C gets 0 yr
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr C gets 5 yr
What should Column do?
COLUMN’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr C gets 5 yr
First, assume Row confessed. What should Column do?
COLUMN’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr C gets 5 yr
If Row confessed, Column clearly prefers to Confess.
COLUMN’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr C gets 0 yr
Confess(Defect)
Now, assume Row stayed silent. What should Column do?
COLUMN’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr C gets 0 yr
Confess(Defect)
If Row stayed silent, Column still prefers to Confess.
COLUMN’S PERSPECTIVECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr C gets 0 yr
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr C gets 5 yr
So, no matter what Row does, Column prefers to Confess!
OVERALL GAMECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr
R gets 2 yr
C gets 0 yr
R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr
R gets 0 yr
C gets 5 yr
R gets 5 yr
BUT, since both Column and Row confess, they end up bothgetting 5 years,
OVERALL GAMECOLUMN
Silence(Cooperate)
Confess(Defect)
ROW
Silence(Cooperate)
C gets 2 yr
R gets 2 yr
C gets 0 yr
R gets 10 yr
Confess(Defect)
C gets 10 yr
R gets 0 yr
C gets 5 yr
R gets 5 yr
BUT, since both Column and Row confess, they end up bothgetting 5 years, even though they both would prefer 2 years!
Question 1: Is it conflict?
• Is it conflict or would it be if no institution?• Is it harmony?• If conflict, is it Deadlock, i.e., unresolvable?• Potential for resolution REQUIRES absolute
gains frame
Deadlock
Stop engaging in conflict
Continue engaging in
conflict
Stop engaging in conflict
2
2
4
1
Continue engaging in
conflict
1
4
3
3
Harmony
Allow education of foreigners in your
universities
Do not allow education of
foreigners in your universities
Allow education of foreigners in your
universities
4
4
2
3
Do not allow education of
foreigners in your universities
3
2
1
1
Q2: Actors• Who is involved? What actors are causing or affected by the
problem? Who could help fix the problem?• What roles do actors have?
– Perpetrator (fishing countries, upstream polluting state)– Victim (other fishing countries, downstream states)– Vested interests (US in Middle East)– Could be interested (debt for nature swaps)– Uninterestable (landlocked African states and whaling)
• Types of actors– Many problems due to actions by governments– Others due to non-government actors– Differ in whose behavior must be controlled and relationship between
governments who create institutions and actors who must change behavior
Q3: Capacities and power
• Do “perpetrators” of problem have capacity to engage in “good” behavior?
• If not, it’s a “Positive Externality Plagued by Incapacity”. E.g.,– Protecting accidental detonation of nuclear weapons– Reducing AIDS in developing countries– Helping small countries defend selves from attack
• Behavior not a result of logic of consequences or logic of appropriateness
Positive ExternalityPlagued by Incapacity
Incapable state =>
Capable state –V
Contribute to AIDS prevention (but NOT
POSSIBLE)
Don't contribute to AIDS prevention
Contribute to AIDS prevention
4
3
3
2
Don't contribute to AIDS prevention
2
4
1
1
Q4: Incentives
• How do material consequences for perpetrators depend on other countries?
• Types of incentive problems– Upstream / downstream – Coordination – Collaboration
• All involve logic of consequences issues
Upstream/Downstream
Upstream ==>
Downstream -V
Contribute to pollution reduction
Don't contribute to pollution reduction
Contribute to pollution reduction
1
4
3
2
Don't contribute to pollution reduction
1
3
3
1
Coordination
Train pilots in Row Language
Train pilots inCol Language
Train pilots in Row Language
3
4
2
2
Train pilots inCol Language
1
1
4
3
Collaboration
Maintain Low Tariffs
Maintain High Tariffs
Maintain Low Tariffs
3
3
4
1
Maintain High Tariffs
1
4
2
2
Q5: Information/knowledge
• Any unknown effects that perpetrators would care about if they knew about them?
• Two types of info/knowledge problems– Epistemic/knowledge problems (unsure about
how the world works): e.g., acid rain in Europe, trade wars, health quarantine regulations
– Assurance problems (unsure about how other actors will behave): e.g., war games
• Largely still logic of consequences
Q6: Norms
• Problem is not material consequences but violations of values and notions of legitimacy
• Normative problems involve “conflicts over values”, e.g.,– Human rights abuses– Apartheid or treatment of women– Choice of government
• Involves logic of appropriateness
Q7: Violation Tolerance
• Consequences of violation and violation tolerance– What are consequences if institution rules
violated? • Problems vary in how much states will tolerate
violation• Compare non-proliferation to tariffs to human
rights to environmental protection
Q8: Inherent Transparency
• Inherent transparency and ability to act secretly– Before any institution at all, does each actor know
what other actor is doing?• Compare – Security: nuclear weapons vs. war games– Trade: tariffs/quotas vs. NTBs/subsidies– HR: civil/political vs. economic/social
Q9: Response Incentives
• If there is a violation, do those harmed have sufficient incentives to respond?
• Weak incentives to respond to HR and environmental violations but strong for trade and VERY strong for weaponry– Notice that in weapons agreements the
“response” is implicit ending of agreement• Cost of responding vs. cost of not responding