Get Angry, Get Out: The Interpersonal Effects of Anger Communication in Multiparty Negotiation

Research on multiparty negotiation has investigated how parties form coalitions to secure payoffs but has not addressed how emotions may affect such coalition decisions. Extending research on bilateral negotiations which has generally argued that it is beneficial to communicate anger, we argue that it constitutes a considerable risk when there are more than two people present at the negotiation table. Using a computer-mediated coalition game we show that communicating anger is a risky strategy in multiparty bargaining. The main findings of three studies were that participants: (1) form negative impressions of players who communicate anger and therefore (2) exclude such players from coalitions and from obtaining a payoff share, but (3) make considerable concessions on those rare occasions that they choose to form a coalition with an angry player, or (4) when they had to form a coalition with an angry player. We discuss the implications of these results for theorizing on emotions, negotiations, and coalition formation

The role of electoral and party systems in the development of fiscal institutions in the Central and Eastern European countries

The literature on fiscal institutions has established a connection between the design of fiscal institutions and a country’s political fundamentals. The paper includes a review of the party and electoral systems in the Central and Eastern European countries (the CEECs) and then reaches conclusions on what modes of fiscal governance (“commitment”, “delegation”, “fiefdom”) these countries should have developed based on their political fundamentals. Two major conclusions stand out. First, all of the countries have multi-dimensional social cleavage space which, together with the dominance of proportional electoral systems, suggests diverse party systems. This is a recipe for multi-party governments. Indeed, coalition governments have been dominant in the CEECs suggesting in turn that the majority of these countries should be leaning towards commitment approach. Second, the collapse of communism and consequent social changes led rather unsurprisingly to a certain political turmoil. This was evident especially during the first half of the 1990s. Some countries were affected more than others. Party structures have been in a constant change and reforms in the electoral laws have not been uncommon resulting in some countries to frequent shifts between different government types. This suggests that these countries have not been able to develop a coherent way to tackle the common pool resource problem. The reality largely confirms these expectations. The results therefore indicate that no “onesize- fits-all” solutions exist in fiscal management. Consequently, the design of such institutions should pay due attention to the political factors, alongside with the economic ones. The results indicate further that a certain degree of political stability is a prerequisite for stable fiscal conditions. --

The Middle East Quartet of Mediators: Understanding Multiparty Mediation in the Middle East Peace Process

This dissertation seeks to answer the question: Under what conditions does multiparty mediation fail to move conflicting parties toward a comprehensive peace agreement? The object of study is the Middle East Quartet of Mediators from its formation in 2002 to the Annapolis Conference in November, 2007. Although some progress was made during this period, no formal peace agreement was reached and therefore, the ultimate objective of the Quartet was not attained. The study seeks both to deepen our theoretical understanding of multiparty mediation as well as identify specific leverage points that could lead toward resolution of the conflict in Palestine and Israel. The methodology employed is a qualitative investigation of the multiparty mediation efforts of the Quartet. It is based on an investigation of Quartet statements as well as a series of interviews of key Quartet participants and academic experts on the contemporary Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The ultimate aim is to make future mediation efforts more successful

EU Conditionality on Nationality-Sensitive Matters in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Promoting Democracy or Maintaining the Status Quo? EDAP 5/2013

This paper will analyse the impact of the EU conditionality in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and its efficacy in promoting democratic changes in this country. It will be argued that as BiH is a unique case, its constitutional constraints must be taken into account because every reform that affects the difficult balance between the three main ethno-religious groups of BiH is perceived as a nationality-sensitive issue and is therefore vulnerable to political pressure. With reference to two specific situations where EU has demanded the BiH political elites to adopt EU-compatible reforms, namely the police reform process and the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci ruling, it will be argued that the use of the conditionality tool has increased inter-ethnic polarization among the political parties, thus preventing Bosnia and Herzegovina from moving forward in the EU integration process

Constructing Conflict and Co-operation: The Rhetoric of Coalition Bargaining

The central contention of this article is that coalition bargaining is permeated by the competing imperatives of unity and distinctiveness, and that rhetoric is key to managing these. Drawing on Kenneth Burke’s ‘new rhetoric’, the article distinguishes three forms of identification and division – ideological, instrumental and interpersonal – at work within coalition bargaining. This framework is applied to the negotiations on electoral reform that preceded the formation of the UK coalition government in 2010. The analysis reveals that, through the rhetoric of identification, senior Conservatives and Liberal Democratsdiscovered ideological common ground on the equalization of constituency boundaries, together with a shared interest in promising to hold a referendum on AV, and thus succeeded in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on this contentious issue

Why won’t they join? An exploratory investigation of the Belgian government crisis of 2010

Belgium has recently undergone a 541-day period with no elected government following the 2010 general election. This has been called a government and cabinet crisis. This thesis aims to determine what is different about Belgium in 2010/11 compared to past years and what has contributed to Belgium’s difficulty forming coalitions recently. By using coalition formation theory and investigating institutional and sociological aspects of Belgian politics, this research project has found an initial explanation for why the Belgian government crisis of 2010 occurred. Several institutional and sociological aspects are now working against each other and hindering cooperative behaviour among the Belgian political parties. Belgium has become the victim of its own well-adapted and unique political system

Beyond Dyads: Decision support for online multiparty negotiation, coalition formation and negotiation outcomes

Ph.DDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH

Tommy Koh and the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement: A Multi-Front "Negotiation Campaign"

Complex, multiparty negotiations are often analyzed as principals negotiating through agents, as two-level games (Putnam 1988), or in coalitional terms. The relatively new concept of a "multi-front negotiation campaign" (Sebenius 2010, Lax and Sebenius, 2012) offers an analytic approach that may enjoy descriptive and prescriptive advantages over more traditional approaches that focus on a specific negotiation as the unit of analysis. The efforts of Singapore Ambassador-At-Large Tommy Koh to negotiate the United States-Singapore Free Trade agreement serve as an extended case study of a complex, multiparty negotiation that illustrates and further elaborates the concept of a negotiation campaign