Negotiation Outcomes Research Articles

Spatial Tools for Inclusive Landscape Governance: Negotiating Land Use, Land-Cover Change, and Future Landscape Scenarios in Two Multistakeholder Platforms in Zambia

Landscape approaches are being promoted as a form of negotiated governance to help reconcile competing land uses and identify common concerns for planning envisioned future landscapes. Multistakeholder platforms play a key role in these efforts. This paper aims to contribute to an emerging scholarship that explores how spatial tools can be used in such platforms as boundary objects and if and how they can contribute to inclusive landscape negotiations and governance. We used spatial mapping to observe and document stakeholder perceptions about drivers of land-use and land-cover change and desired future scenarios that accommodate competing land uses. We found that land-cover maps derived from satellite images helped participants identify land-use change dynamics and drivers. The ensuing community mapping of desired landscape scenarios in both multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) triggered a process of identifying common concerns and defining actionable priorities. However, in one MSP, stakeholders ultimately reached a compromise on a draft land-use map that was widely regarded as an entry point for further negotiations in Local Area Plans, while the other lacked consensus due to deep-seated social-cultural issues, such as social-class-based disagreements. This paper illustrates, first, that instead of focusing on the end product (participatory maps), understanding negotiation processes helps uncover why spatial tools may fail to achieve the intended purpose of reconciling land uses. Second, spatial tools only work for landscape approaches if MSPs are inclusive and foster a collaborative process that considers the views of all participants. The authors recommend that those steering MSPs stimulate them to evolve from “mere consultation forums” to “innovative, participatory platforms”, encouraging stakeholders to engage in genuine negotiation processes that allow negotiated and alternative outcomes. We contend that such an approach, supported by spatial tools, is likely to contribute to the implementation of landscape approaches. Policymakers and land users can use these spatial tools as boundary objects in user-focused strategies that engender inclusive stakeholder participation and ensure legitimate, acceptable, and sustainable outcomes.

Moving outside the board room: A proof-of-concept study on the impact of walking while negotiating.

Negotiation is a consequential activity that can exacerbate power differentials, especially for women. While traditional contexts can prime stereotypical gender roles and promote conditions that lead to performance differences, these can be mitigated by context shifts. This proof-of-concept study explores whether an easy-to-apply context shift, moving from seated indoors to walking outside, can help improve the quality of negotiated interactions. Here we examine walking's effects on negotiation and relational outcomes as well as experienced emotions, moderated by gender. Same-gender pairs were randomly assigned to either sitting or walking as either candidate or recruiter negotiating a job offer. Eighty-one pairs of graduate students or community members participated: sitting pairs: 27 women, 14 men; walking pairs: 23 women, 17 men. Participants negotiated either while seated (across from each other) or walking (side by side along a path). We measured: negotiation performance (total points) and outcome equity (difference between negotiating party points); subjective outcomes of positive emotions, negative emotions, mutual liking, and mutual trust. With mixed effects models, we tested main effects of condition, gender, and interaction of condition x gender. Relative to sitting, walking was associated with: increased outcome equality for women, but decreased for men (B = 3799.1, SE = 1679.9, p = .027); decreased negative emotions, more for women than men (IRR = .83, 95% CI:[.69,1.00], p = .046); and greater mutual liking for both genders (W = 591.5, p-value = 0.027). No significant effects were found for negotiation point totals, positive emotions, or mutual trust. This study provides a foundation for investigating easy-to-implement changes that can mitigate stereotyped performance differences in negotiation.

Anchoring on the listing round-number focal points: evidence from China’s housing market

ABSTRACT Round-number focal points are important to determine the outcome of negotiations, and the anchoring effect may matter disproportionately whether a listing price reached a round-number threshold. By applying regression discontinuity design method, we find that listing prices under a round-number focal point sell less than the houses list above the threshold. The effect is more pronounced in houses with greater uncertainty.

IMF lending in sovereign default

Abstract This paper proposes that an International Monetary Fund (IMF) policy shift was the reason behind major changes in sovereign debt negotiation outcomes observed in 1989. The new policy, in marked departure from past policy, allowed the IMF to lend to nations in default. The paper highlights the stark improvements in debt forgiveness and post-negotiation debt servicing ability coincident with the IMF policy shift. A theoretical framework is proposed in which the IMF policy shift causes the observed changes in negotiation outcomes. The model highlights the policy’s potential to improve a country’s outside option during negotiations of defaulted debt. In the model, this improvement leads to increased debt forgiveness which in turn leads to less post-negotiation debt servicing difficulties. The model is then used to address an important question regarding the nature of post-negotiation default risk. The case is made that countries face persistent, rather than temporary, default risk after such negotiations. To avert such risk, they moderate their borrowing.

Beyond the First Offer: Decoding Negotiation Openings and Their Impact on Economic and Subjective Outcomes

First offers play a significant role in negotiations as they anchor negotiators’ perceptions and influence negotiation outcomes in favor of the first-offer proposer. However, negotiation is a joint decision-making process in which a first offer is typically succeeded by a counteroffer. The impact of a counteroffer has not yet been systematically researched. We propose that a counteroffer influences negotiation outcomes like a first offer. In addition, we conceptualize the “anchor zone” as the distance between the first offer and the counteroffer. We theorize that the anchor zone influences negotiation outcomes because it captures additional information compared to a single offer. To test our hypotheses, we conducted two studies: Study 1 was a vignette study (n = 190) in which participants reacted to a counteroffer that they received based on their first offer as part of a simulated negotiation. Study 2 was an online experiment (n = 212) in which participants negotiated by exchanging offers with no further communication. Our analysis suggests that the counteroffer is a significant predictor of economic outcomes. Thus, it works like a first offer, but with a lower impact. In addition, the anchor zone predicted how far the final agreement was from the first offer. Furthermore, we found that the third offer, the average concessions, and the number of offers mediated the effects of the counteroffer and anchor zone on economic outcomes. Finally, we discovered that a more aggressive counteroffer reduced the subjective value of both negotiators.

Delayed cooperation: political systems, elections, and the outcomes of trade negotiations

Why do some trade negotiations conclude with preferential trade agreements, while others drag on indefinitely? Departing from prior focuses on established cooperation, this study emphasizes the trade negotiation process and accounts for the unconcluded talks. I argue that domestic uncertainties induced by political systems and elections will influence negotiation lengths and outcomes. On the one hand, political systems’ cohesion and efficiency in decision-making may affect the progress of trade negotiations. On the other hand, the unpredictability of electoral outcomes and calendars may prolong trade negotiations. To have a complete picture of trade negotiations, I collected an original Trade Bargaining Dataset, which contains information on both concluded and unconcluded talks. To test the hypotheses, I use a sample of 157 negotiations from 1980 to 2016, in which at least one negotiating country is from the Indo-Pacific region. The results from the Cox proportional hazard models show that parliamentary systems make negotiations smoother than presidential systems. Additionally, negotiating governments are not likely to sign agreements in election years, particularly in the elections of parliamentary and democratic countries. This study contributes to the trade cooperation literature by highlighting the variations in negotiation outcomes and offering a novel approach to investigating the negotiation process.

Emotions in Negotiation and Mediation: Strategies for Managing Emotional Dynamics

Emotions are significant considerations in the negotiating and mediation processes that need to be undertaken in ways that offer effectiveness, through the regulation of emotional dynamics. The objective of the study was to examine the effectiveness of strategies for managing emotional dynamics and the impact on mediation and negotiation outcomes. The theories that guided the study included the affective events theory, the appraisal theory and the social identity theory. A web-based survey was used to compile the information with the use of purposive sampling technique in selecting respondents. The findings of the study revealed that feelings have a considerable impact on the process of negotiating or mediating as well as the outcome. Being able to effectively control emotional dynamics is essential to achieving success in negotiation and mediation. In conclusion, the role of empathy and emotional intelligence in productive negotiation and mediation was necessitated. As an implication, the study assists practitioners improve on negotiation and mediation and enhance success in resolving conflicts by providing an overview of the emotional dynamics that are present during the negotiation and mediation processes and presenting practical solutions for controlling those dynamics.

Dynamics in International Contract Business Negotiations: A Comparison of Brazil, Russia, Indian and China (BRIC)

Globalization has increased countries interaction and trade exchange. Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) became more important economies at the global level during the 21st century. As the success of international negotiations depends on reaching satisfactory agreements for all parts involved, many people have found difficulties in conducting international negotiations involving BRIC negotiators. Several factors may impact the result of the negotiation process. Understanding how these relevant factors may impact on the outcomes of international negotiations among BRIC countries may help to mitigate the adverse effect of different perspectives in an international agreement and allow companies to become more competitive globally. Based on theories of negotiation, this study focuses on the dimensions of negotiating outcomes and process as perceived by BRIC negotiators in international business transactions. As misunderstandings occur during a domestic agreement negotiation within the same culture, one can affirm that the same happens when BRIC negotiators are negotiating an international business agreement. What kind of misunderstandings can prevent successful cross-cultural negotiations among BRIC negotiators? How are BRIC negotiators able to overcome the challenges of the international environment while negotiating an international agreement? Is it possible to settle a common path among BRIC negotiators based on an international business agreement negotiation? The purpose of this research is to answer to these and other questions. From a review of international negotiation practices, a questionnaire focusing on retrospective international contracts negotiation experiences was developed and sent to negotiators from BRIC countries. The results indicate some important outcomes that may be taken into consideration for a successful international negotiation involving negotiators from BRIC countries.

Confidence in bargaining processes and outcomes: Empirical tests of a conceptual model

The relationship between negotiation processes and outcomes is a challenging problem for theoretical and empirical analyses. In this paper, we study whether a dynamic bargaining model that incorporates a notion of negotiator confidence in the process and that predicts the asymmetric Nash bargaining solution as the outcome is compatible with observations in negotiation experiments. This requires establishing how the compatibility between the model and the actual bargaining process can be assessed, without knowing a key parameter in the model. We find that the model is largely compatible with the observed bargaining process, but that actual agreements tend to be more balanced than the solution predicted by the model. We also find a close relationship between the parameter representing negotiator confidence in the model and the negotiator’s (independently ascertained) aspiration levels, thus providing additional evidence for the model’s external validity.

Anchoring: The Underestimated Manipulation of Decisions

“Anchoring” is a tactic used to manipulate negotiation outcomes. It exploits the fact that people base their estimates of unknown quantities on initial values. If they are given these initial values, their estimations are influened by them. We will address whether there is a rational justification for people to be manipulated by anchoring. We will also look at how to recognize in a negotiation situation whether the anchor effect is being used against you, how to use the anchor effect to your benefit, or at least how to defuse it if it is being used against you.

Fairness is based on quality, not just quantity

Abstract According to decades of research, whether negotiations succeed depends on how much of the stake each person will get. Yet, real-world stakes often consist of resources that vary on quality, not just quantity. While it may appear obvious that people should reject qualitatively inferior offers, just as they reject quantitatively unequal offers, it is less clear why. Across three incentive-compatible studies (N = 1,303) using the ultimatum game, we evaluate three possible reasons for why people reject qualitatively unequal negotiation offers (that are 50% of the stake): fairness, mere inequality, or badness. Data across the three studies are consistent with the fairness account. Casting doubt on the possibility that people reject qualitatively unequal offers merely because they are ‘bad’, Studies 1 and 2 found that participants were more likely to reject the same coins when these were inferior (e.g., 200 × 5¢ coins) to the negotiation partner’s coins (e.g., 5 × $2 coins) than when both parties received the same undesirable coins (e.g., both received 200 × 5¢ coins). Supporting a fairness explanation, rejection rates of the qualitatively inferior offer were higher when the proposal came from a human (vs. a computer), suggesting that rejection stemmed in part from a desire to punish the negotiation partner for unfair treatment (Study 3). Nevertheless, some participants still rejected the unequal offer from a computer, suggesting that mere inequality matters as well. In sum, the findings highlight that quality, not just quantity, is important for attaining fair negotiation outcomes.

무역협상 배경요인 및 협상전략이 한국 중소무역기업의 비대면 협상성과에 미치는 영향

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between background factors of business negotiation and negotiation outcome for Korean small and medium sized trading companies. Design/Methodology/Approach - By analyzing business negotiation factors such as culture, organization, knowledge on trade practice, individual characteristics, and negotiation process, a research model was derived, and research hypotheses were verified. Findings - The results of this study are as follows. Cross-cultural awareness, organizational support, trade practice knowledge, and individual characteristics had positive direct effects on negotiation outcomes, and negotiation outcomes also had a positive effect on negotiation profit, while cooperative negotiation strategy did not have a significant effect on negotiation outcomes. Research Implication - International trading companies increasingly rely on international trade negotiations for survival and growth. It was found that factors such as cultural difference, organizational support, individual characteristics, and cooperative strategy are important factors affecting positive negotiation outcomes. Therefore, it is essential that negotiators in small and medium trading companies need to understand the cultural differences of their counterparts, and the organization needs to provide direct support to negotiators. Based on the results of this study, strategic alternatives were suggested for trade negotiators to conduct efficient trade negotiations.

HTA188 Does Size Matter? Impact of Population Size on Evidence Quality and Negotiation Outcome for Orphan Drugs in Germany

Providing high quality evidence is considered extremely challenging in rare diseases, inter alia due to substantially low patient numbers and high disease burden. However, high-quality comparative evidence is essential for the benefit assessment and price negotiations in Germany. This analysis aims to identify whether there is an evident correlation of population size and evidence quality and to subsequently analyze the potential impact for orphan drugs on price negotiation outcomes in Germany – despite the currently existing privileges.

HTA200 Do Pharmacoeconomic Analyses Impact Price Negotiation Outcomes in Canada? Comparison of Rare Disease and Oncology Drugs

HTA200 Do Pharmacoeconomic Analyses Impact Price Negotiation Outcomes in Canada? Comparison of Rare Disease and Oncology Drugs

PP15 The National Pricing And Reimbursement Process In China, A 2021 Update

IntroductionThe Chinese National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) was established in the early 2000’s and includes the drugs both fully and partially covered by National Basic Medicine Insurance. As China’s health system has been reformed over the past decade, it is important for manufacturers to understand the ever-changing reimbursement process and its implications on newly launched drugs. This study provides an updated overview of the process based on research conducted in 2021.MethodsTargeted secondary research was undertaken to evaluate the pricing and reimbursement landscape in China. Primary research was conducted to assess the perspectives of three payers and one policy expert.ResultsNational listing remains the most viable and exclusive pathway to get a product reimbursed by public health insurance in China. Since 2017, the NRDL has been updated annually, and revisions are managed by the National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA). Insights from 2021 suggests that the process of listing a new product on the NRDL lasts five months (July to November). Manufacturers should ensure that submissions are made when the annual NRDL process formally begins, and clinical and health economic evidence is compulsory. If a successful opinion is made by the assessment board, the manufacturer will be invited to negotiate a price with the NHSA. Data from the NHSA indicated that a total of 704 applications were made in 2020. In addition, 138 exclusive drugs were eligible for price negotiation, of which 96 drugs were successful and added to the NRDL. Findings also suggested that the average discount rate increased from 44.0 percent in 2017 to 50.6 percent in 2020.ConclusionsThe national reimbursement process in China has become more transparent overtime. Even so, NRDL listing remains a challenge, with decisions driven by clinical and pharmacoeconomic evidence, and price. Significant price cuts should be considered and anticipated to ensure successful negotiation outcomes.

Role of Economic Evaluations on Pricing of Medicines Reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service.

The main objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), alongside other factors, predicts the final outcome of medicine price negotiation in Italy. The second objective was to depict the mean ICER of medicines obtained after negotiation. Data were extracted from company dossiers submitted to the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) from October 2016 to January 2021 and AIFA's internal database. Beta-based regression analyses were used to test the effect of ICER and other variables on the outcome of price negotiation (ΔP), defined as the percentage difference between the list price requested by manufacturers and the final price paid by the Italian National Health Service (INHS). In our dataset of 48 pricing and reimbursement procedures, the ICER before negotiation was one of the variables with a major impact on the outcome of negotiation when ≥ 40,000€/QALY. As resulting from multiple regression analyses, the effect of the ICER on ΔP seemed driven by medicines for non-onco-immunological and non-rare diseases. Overall, the negotiation process granted mean incremental costs of €64,688 and mean incremental QALYs of 1.96, yielding an average ICER of €33,004/QALY. This study provides support on the influence of cost-effectiveness analysis on price negotiation in the Italian context, providing an estimate of the mean ICER of reimbursed medicines, calculated using net confidential prices charged by the INHS. The role and use of economic evaluations in medicines pricing should be further improved to get the best value for money.

Bargaining Power in Cooperative Resource Allocations Games

Cooperative game theory provides an appropriate framework to assess the likelihood of conflict resolution, encourage cooperation among parties, and determine each party’s share in resource sharing conflicts. In calculating the fair and efficient allocation of the incremental benefits of cooperation, cooperative game theory methods often do not consider the exogenous bargaining powers of the players based on factors, that are external to the game, such as their political, economic, and military powers. This study reformulates three well-known cooperative game theory methods, namely, Nash-Harsanyi, Shapley, and Nucleolus, to account for the exogenous bargaining powers of the players in cooperative games. Using the Caspian Sea international conflict as an example, this paper shows how the negotiators’ exogenous bargaining power can change the outcome of resource sharing games. The proposed weighted cooperative game theory approach can help determine practical resolutions for real-world conflicts in which the exogenous powers of players can have a significant influence on the outcome of negotiations.

Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task

Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task

Social interaction and negotiation outcomes: An experimental approach

We study experimentally the impact of pre-play social interactions on negotiations. We isolate the impact of several common components of interactions: conversations, food, and alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverages. Participants perform a standardized (complex or simple) negotiation under six conditions: without interaction; interaction only; and interactions with water, wine, water and food, and wine and food. We find that none of the treatments improves the outcomes over the treatment without interactions. We also study trust and reciprocity, where we find the same lack of superiority of interaction. JEL numbers: C91, M11, I18

Bridging psychological distance of negotiation failure in construction dispute negotiation

Negotiators are not always rational. Prior studies have found that negotiators tend to be overconfident about their ability to win and underestimate the possibility of negotiation failure. This biased judgment may lead to irrational evaluation and miss the chance to settle. It is argued that negotiators handle a negotiation respective to their perception of the risk of failing. The perception of failure therefore has a pivotal influence on the negotiation outcome and warrant deeper conceptual treatments. In this regard, this study aims to conceptualize construction dispute negotiators’ perception of negotiation failure. Applying the construal-level theory (CLT) and the concept of psychological distance (PD), a psychological distance of negotiation failure (PDNF) framework was developed. With data collected from construction negotiators, the PDNF framework was statistically supported. Four types of psychological distance of negotiation failure were identified, which are uncertainty, temporal distance, social distance, and frequency. The empirical findings provide a psychological perspective of how negotiators perceive the potential failure. Management can adopt the PDNF framework to gauge negotiators’ perceptions of failure. Timely interventions, such as conducting internal reviews with detailed information, taking periodic negotiation training, as well as assistance by third-party neutrals, are suggested to offset negotiators’ biased judgment.