Give one original example of when strategic view and nonstrategic view of bargaining is best?

Give one original example of when strategic view and nonstrategic view of bargaining is best?

 

Answer:

Strategic view of bargaining postulates that bargaining should be taken as a strategic game of simultaneous or sequential moves. In this form of bargaining, players can derive advantage either by taking a first mover advantage or by sticking to a committed strategy. One important pre-requisite of a strategic view of bargaining is that the rules of the game should be clearly pronounced. Therefore, this form of bargaining works best when the players can be significantly sure that the rules of the game would be respected and the parties are bound to follow the rules through factors, such as external regulations (Federal laws, may be). The strategic view focuses more on timing and commitment of the bargaining and the rules of the game. A bargaining between a trade union and an organization can be done best with the strategic bargaining.

Strategic bargaining is dependent on the ‘rules of the game’. However, in many real-life situations, the rule of the game is not clearly pronounced. Or, in situations, these rules may not be reinforced for various reasons. In such situations, it is best to follow the non-strategic bargaining. In non-strategic bargaining, the alternatives to bargaining are explored and gains from these alternatives are compared with the gains from a strategic bargaining. Bargaining for a hike when you already have a high-pay job offer can be done best by non-strategic bargaining.

Asked on February 13, 2018 in economics.
Add Comment
0 Answer(s)
  • Votes
  • Oldest

Your Answer

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.