The Difficulties Faced in Solving Collective Action Problems - Essay Example

? Outline and Evaluation of the Game Theory Explanation of the Difficulties Faced In Solving Collective Action Problems Outline and Evaluation of the Game Theory Explanation of the Difficulties Faced In Solving Collective Action Problems Introduction In the attempt to settle scores and differences between different parties or countries, a majority of countries have considered forming coalitions so as to help them negotiate themselves through surviving competitive investment environment. This kind of dominance seeking approach of diplomacy has been helpful to most of these countries in mitigating possible impacts of discriminations and disparities in as far as power bargaining is concerned. Most countries have therefore opted for bilateral approach based on standards which take care of their participation in equilibrium membership considerations to negotiate their way through. In an attempt to collectively arrive at sound solutions, political and economic approaches employed to promote mutual decision making and negotiations (Bromley et al 2004: 419). Alongside this they have been able to offer them with trade systems that are viable in terms of their development and their political and economic stabilization in as far as differences are concerned. This presentation attempts to outline and evaluate the game theory explanation game theory explanation of the difficulties faced in solving collective action problems amongst different players. Game Theory Explanation of the Difficulties Faced In Solving Collective Action Problems Politics and economics have a number of areas that associate them together especially those that are debatable and capable of significant considerations. The arising issue in this aspect is to call on political and economic systems which are favorable to trade rules so as to alleviate potential inequalities which are pertinent between different parties, in this case different states (Bromley et al 2004: 419). This is to imply on operations of the involved parties in ascertaining that they truly reveal their approaches to exercise power or strategies in a more satisfying way for all the parties. There have been instances whereby richer countries have taken advantage of the weaker ones thereby making developing nations hold that only the richer countries are mandated to sail in terms of economic development. This has been particularly the case with the World Trade Organization whereby the richer nations have always been accorded chances to be heard (World Bank 2000). Nevertheless, there have been incidences whereby some of the developing nations aggressively seek co-operation with regard to trade systems and rules. There have been issues underlying such occurrences which have further contributed to positions of developing countries being contrasted, hence identifying reflections on various understandings of international politics. These have mostly been pinned on economic concepts and the differences are deemed to lie with varied views and opinions based on nature of politics. Partially, this has contended views regarding economic and political differences that there are between the developing and developed nations (Bromley et al 2004: 417). There have been efforts especially from the developing countries to promote and set up multilateral forums from which international trade rules and regimes may be negotiated mutually. The main argument attached to this kind of view is the fact that all nations are sovereign in one way or the other; thereby, there is relevance in having all rules and principles formulated in a way that accommodates all the nations regardless of their economic and political positioning. For the case of the WTO, there is no imposition made on any nation to be part of it as a member. However, political approaches emphasize that international systems are indeed a global sovereignty (Bromley et al 2004: 469). This further implies that every member state possesses some aspect of monopolized political system as regards each country’s territory. There are incidences where these kinds of economic and political differences result into conflicts hence calling for interventions if not solutions. Conception of politics has its challenges in regard to political ability hold that politics is cooperative element which is in fact an aspect of dominion. This implies that processes which involve conflicts have capability of fascinating or controlling different parties or players politically. This calls for political rivalry, hence resulting into conflicts if not contained in good time. This has been identified to be the reason to whey a number of countries fail to understand one another thereby engaging one another in conflicts (Bromley et al 2004: 469). However, dominion involves a single entity and can never be practiced by more than one entity unless if they come together. Minority groups are usually oppressed in situations that they end up being subordinated by others. This is same with countries and have been evidenced in quite a number of situations whereby the subordinating countries, mostly foreign donors, tend to take control of others by way of imposing rules on them thus domination (Barzel 2002). This kind of domination is more or less a form of slavery since the minority nations are normally on pressure and strict rules which are necessarily constitutional. There is need of mutual negotiations especially when there are incidences of action problems between or amongst countries. In order to handle these, there are a number of matrices which are effectively applicable. There are a number of theories which attempt to derive resolutions alongside defining approaches towards ascertaining solutions to action problems that are associated with such differences. Bromley et al (2004: 427) point out that several state governments have opted to always speak on behalf of their citizens, a thing in the past was not common especially with the developing countries. However, they have come to realize that it is their duty, responsibility and mandate to represent their people. Following this, there have been the need for mutual negations in as far as international relations and trade systems are concerned. Therefore, every sovereign state is legitimately independent when it comes to addressing and airing issues of its people. States are equally treated by international laws but then, they have to share similar rights when it comes to initiatives that bring them together such as trade and development programmes. Despite this, determining approaches to particular country’s international affairs as associated to international affairs cannot be integrated into international policies and laws (Bromley et al 2004: 421). This has therefore, called for one on one negotiation processes between different countries with pertinent issues for instance use of shared resources resources for instance rivers and lakes. It gets to a point when every country wants its views and opinions, as well as expectations to be considered yet there are never any binding principles that draw them close to any remarkable agreement (Bromley et al 2004: 469). This brings aspects of game theory of explaining issues and trends faced in efforts to resolve problems and differences that there are between them. However, one party may have expanded views and opinions on the basis of exercising traditional sovereignty along with legislative rights. This means that in the same process of defining their differences, the involved states upon consenting to final solutions, need to be faithful in promoting liberalization amongst them. Consent is often associated to politics based on domestic issues which are always different from nation to nation. People do abide by their respective state laws but it is usually difficult for countries to embrace the same in terms of international laws. They so obey their national laws in that the laws are formulated to serve their common interests apart from being put in place through their mandate on their elected leaders (Bromley et al 2004: 473). This is quite different from international realms in that it there normally arguments which are implying relationship between international regime rules and respective different states. One of the game theory matrices identified herein in which all the pertinent outcomes are known to all the players even those who do no take direct part is payoff matrix. This takes the approach of equilibrium and entails reliance on information availability. Countries do make choices that are mutually exclusive in terms of alternatives (World Bank 2000). This is true with people and firms too whereby there are instances of people machining choices between studying, working, or even holidaying. They also make choices on whether to make savings or consume whatever they have at hand. Firms on the other hand are known to be focused mostly on making choices that are aligned to profit making especially with regard to exportation (Bromley et al 2004: 451). The same is also seen in the way they pout focus on constricted investment budgets as they provide services and goods to their consumers. National governments decide on where to procure arsenal while at the same time they decide on where to acquire supplies for their hospitals. These demonstrate an aspect of private choices and is to imply that such decisions as the ones made regarding different choices are theoretically avoidable or worth emulating (Bromley et al 2004: 479). They can be individually made or be made in a manner that is independent though incorporating a number of individuals. This is to say that there are entities which are mutually dependent on other people’s choices. It has been established that as time goes by, a single decision is embraced by many people and is fed into approaches that are intended to benefit all. However, problems may and do arise especially when not everyone is contented with the process of making the decisions, as well as their unexpected outcomes (Charnovitz 2002: 208). This calls for a strong negotiation which is not easy to achieve in a situation whereby several people are a party. Governments find themselves in such situations especially in areas to do with investment and trade systems. It has been found out that governments handle such situations by changing supplies into their markets for instance through creation of welfare approaches which other countries may either adopt or choose to avoid all together. It follows the fact that each government operates as a single entity or as individual yet comprises several needs, interest and expectations of an entire country (Bromley et al 2004: 483). This is actually a state of being in private making of choices which can never be influenced in any way impeccable in that the choices are a view and opinion of a people which is the whole citizenry. But then, there are some choices which can be made by an individual or a certain government though not as a single entity. For instance, Bromley et al (2004: 319) note that if a government has interest in clean and uncontaminated environment, then there have to be cooperation and participation not as an entity which takes much interest in it. Rather, other players in the same environment have to be part and parcel of eliminating causal agents of environmental pollution and contamination. But then, there are some choices which can only be made communally and not by an individual. They call for cooperation amongst different people involved or affected directly following a situation being focused on. Apart from this, the persons therein have to work mutually with one another and collectively arrive at decisions which are favorable to all (Lomborg 2001). The same is with governments which have been demonstrated as having focus put on working collectively with the people subjected to them, and not privately. There are features which distinguish elements of collective choices from goods which are privatized. A good example of this that is helpful and of great essence is about ozone depletion. Depletion of this atmospheric gas layer has potential of causing several risks of cancer and interference with immune system, as well as extinction of a number of species among many other negative impacts (Bromley et al 2004: 468). Following these reasons, political temperatures get intense especially when it gets to determining effective solutions to problems so as to impact all members of a given community, in this case a state. This has the implication that collective choices pose questions as to who is supposed to make decisions, as well as in whose interests and how. They are determined to enhance lives of not only individuals but general communities to which people have belonging to. There are uncertainties attached to difficulties faced following global warming apart from attempted efforts to contain it. Moreover, there are costs and benefits which cannot be determined in reflection of relevant scientific processes. These lead to consequences which are relatively different in terms of actions employed to management of costs and benefits accruing from the entire process. Controversies have been raised regarding this with regard to its necessity in addressing global warming and issues behind it (Bromley et al 2004: 489). However, claims that global temperatures have been on a rise have not received much opposition. With the global warming taking its reigns all over the world, there are identified three alternatives basic to countries. One is the option of actually doing nothing as regards the situation also referred to as business as usual option. This mainly takes place when there are no view or choices settled upon mutually by countries as to which action to be adopted by all. This strategy is quite deliberate and is justifiable as being a rational approach to guarantee expectations of other countries (Barzel 2002). It can also take the form of being a threat accruing from climate change therefore not of any significance to merit any useful action. In both cases, adaptation process remains normal and societal changes naturally cope with any occurring threats. The other depicted option is to alleviate causal emissions such as greenhouse gases. Through this approach, controlling or minimizing such emissions is recognized. Nonetheless, measures taken are made sure are capable of reducing the emissions instead of merely being specific on particular emission targets. As technological change and economic outputs vary, it has been discovered that it is not possible to predict actual amounts released into the atmosphere. It is, however, depicted that dragging economy especially in developing countries has been encouraging an increase the level of generating minimal emissions though with high economic growth they are not in the same order of multiplying. An example of this is in technological changes which enable reduction of energy usage. The third one is adoption of policies which aim at preventing environmental threshold (Bromley et al 2004: 463). There is always a need of collective action in times of differences following the fact that not only one party or player is engaged in aspects contributing to action problems. Through payoff approach, collective actions have been seen to help in seeking identification of particular nations in the international realms (Bromley et al 2004: 437). This enables cooperation in socially pursuing significant and relevant decisions between different players involved collectively. In several circumstances, it has been seen that many countries seem to be determined to achieve whatever is in line with their particular interests. This is depicted in the way they tend to be independent. This is true with the case of global warming whereby almost every country wants to blame others for causing the global menace (World Bank 2000). Even though global warming is a collective action problem, a number of states have been seen to sideline themselves from initiatives intended to contain it by avoiding negotiations that would otherwise be of help to them. This approach mainly focuses on some assumptions regarding different states and their behavior in terms of complying to general rules formulated (Charnovitz 2002: 208). Others have been in the forefront advocating for development of independent decisions on the basis of rational reasoning of self interest. Another aspect that is evident in this approach is that with environmental issues which have become so common presently, prominence has been placed on international political and economical agendas so as to help in balancing humanity participation in development. This has been ascertained by engendering every idea which humanity shares aspects and efforts for realizing common and mutual destiny (Bromley et al 2004: 419). This has been attributed to the fact that global warming is a worldwide problem and confronts every nation despite the fact that they are different and not equal in a number of ways. This has therefore contributed to having countries who are not contributors to global warming suffering equally with the ones which have contributed to the same. However, there is a concern as regards global warming posing as a common danger and threat to all states. In spite of this, many countries have decided to stick to their behaviours amid resolutions to help curb the global vice (Bromley et al 2004: 489). This has been the highest order of lack of cooperation amongst these countries in as far as their assumptions in terms of non co-operative game theory is concerned in relation to pursuing collective actions, as well as collective decision making processes. This prompts implications on efforts towards bringing transformation in countries alongside their systems. Besides, it has a potential to challenge fundamental assumptions on both political and economic theory. Conclusions There are features which distinguish elements of collective choices from goods which are privatized. Following these reasons, political temperatures get intense especially when it gets to determining effective solutions to problems so as to impact all members of a given community, in this case a state. This has the implication that collective choices pose questions as to who is supposed to make decisions, as well as in whose interests and how. They are determined to enhance lives of not only individuals but general communities to which people have belonging to. There are uncertainties attached to difficulties faced following differences apart from attempted efforts to contain them other than negotiations. Moreover, there are costs and benefits which cannot be determined in reflection of relevant scientific processes. These lead to consequences which are relatively different in terms of actions employed to management of costs and benefits accruing from the entire process. Controversies have been raised regarding this with regard to its necessity in addressing problems affecting different communities and issues behind it. References Barzel, Y. (2002). A Theory of the State: Economic Rights, Legal Rights, and the Scope of the State, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Bromley, S., Mackintosh, M., Brown, W. and Wuyts, M. (2004). A World of Whose Making? Making the International Economic Interdependence and Political Order, UK: The Open University –Pluto Press Charnovitz, S. (2002). The legal status of the Doha declarations, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol.5, No.1, p. 207–211 Lomborg, B. (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press World Bank. (2000). Can Africa Claim the 21st Century? Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publishing. Read More