Abstract
A common approach in modeling negotiations is to apply game theory to single issues. Recent work has suggested that the complexity of international negotiations can be better modeled by linking independent games. Successful linking is possible when the linked issues have compensating asymmetry of similar magnitude. An important result of linked games is that such games produce a greater feasible set of choices relative to the aggregated isolated games. In this paper, we demonstrate that achieving strict dominance of the linked game is not trivial and that results and implications depend on the structures of the isolated games.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
