TELANGANA CONUNDRUM

The Predictioneer’s Game using Bruce Bueno de Mesquita Model

Problem Description
The separate statehood demand for Telangana erupted at regular intervals since its merger with Andhra region to form United
Andhra Pradesh state in 1956. This issue has been brought into the state and national political scene by Mr. K Chandra Shekhar
Rao in 2004. After the death of the Congress chief minister to Andhra Pradesh state, Mr. Y S Raja Shekhar Reddy, in Sept’2009
this issue gained new life resulting in a total administrative and political standstill in Andhra Pradesh.

In this exercise we to use Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s Perdictioneer’s Game to predict the possible outcome for this problem.
About Predictioneer’s Game
It is based loosely on Black’s voter theory, and it works like this: To predict how leaders will behave in a conflict, Bueno de Mesquita starts
with a specific prediction he wants to make, then interviews four or five experts who know the situation well. He identifies the stakeholders
who will exert pressure on the outcome (typically 20 or 30 players) and gets the experts to assign values to the stakeholders in four
categories: What outcome do the players want? How hard will they work to get it? How much clout can they exert on others? How firm is
their resolve? Each value is expressed as a number on its own arbitrary scale, like 0 to 200.

Then the math begins, some of which is surprisingly simple. If you merely sort the players according to how badly they want a bomb and
how much support they have among others, you will end up with a reasonably good prediction. But the other variables enable the computer
model to perform much more complicated assessments. In essence, it looks for possible groupings of players who would be willing to shift
their positions toward one another if they thought that doing so would be to their advantage. The model begins by working out the average
position of all the players — the ―middle ground‖ that exerts a gravitational force on the whole negotiation. Then it compares each player
with every other player, estimating whether one will be able to persuade or coerce the others to move toward its position, based on the
power, resolve and positioning of everyone else. (Power isn’t everything. If the most powerful player is on the fringe of an issue, and a
cluster of less-powerful players are closer to the middle, they might exert greater influence.) After estimating how much or how little each
player might budge, the software recalculates the middle ground, which shifts as the players move. A ―round‖ is over; the software repeats
the process, round after round. The game ends when players no longer move very much from round to round — this indicates they have
compromised as much as they ever will. At that point, assuming no player with veto power had refused to compromise, the final average
middle-ground position of all the players is the result — the official prediction of how the issue will resolve itself. (Bueno de Mesquita does
not express his forecasts in probabilistic terms; he says an event will transpire or it won’t.)

The computer model, in short, predicts coalitions.

Solution Space
0 - No separate Telangana. KCR bought into United Andhra movement.
5 - 1969 Redux. Telangana movement in cold storage for atleast 20 years
10 - Telangana state without Hyderabad. Parts of Medak, Rangareddy become part of AP.
15 - Special Package for Telangana with significant timeline (15-20 years)
30 - Special Package for Telangana with short-timeline (5 yrs) for review
35 - Telangana state without Hyderabad. Parts of Medak, Rangareddy become part of AP.
38 - Three states - Telangana, SeemaAndhra, Hyderabad
45 - Telangana state. Hyderabad will be common capital for both Telangana & SeemaAndhra
47 - Telangana state with Hyderabad (after 10 years)
55 - Telangana state with Hyderabad (after 5 years).
80 - Telangana State with Hyderabad in 2014
95 - Telangana State with Hyderabad within 1 year
100 - Three states - Telangana (with Hyderabad), Rayalaseema, CostaAndhra
 Game Inputs
 Position - The position preferred by each stakeholder on the issue, taking constraints into account. This position is not likely to be the outcome
the stakeholder expects or is prepared to accept, nor is it likely to be what the player wants in his or her heart of hearts. It is the position the
stakeholder favors or advocates within the context of the situation. Then, use a ruler to measure how far each player is from one end of the
line that reflects the range of choices. Let the left-hand end of the line equal 0. Then each other point on the line is simply its distance from 0
on the ruler.
 Influence - The value assigned to each player in this column reflects the relative potential ability of each player to persuade other
stakeholders to adjust their approach to the issue to be more in line with the influencer’s perspective. The values typically will fall
between 0 and 100 but they are not restricted to this range. They can be larger or smaller than 100 but must be above 0. Here are
some useful rules of thumb for getting started in estimating player influence.
 Salience - Salience assesses how focused a stakeholder is on the issue. Its value is best thought of in terms of how prepared the
stakeholder is to work on the issue when it comes up rather than some other issue on his or her plate. The range is from 0 – 100.
 Flexibility - Every stakeholder is assumed to care about two dimensions when addressing an issue. The position variable, discussed
above, assesses the outcome the player currently advocates. Flexibility/Resolve evaluates the stakeholder’s preference for reaching an
agreement as compared to sticking to his or her preferred position even if it means failing to reach an agreement. The variable ranges
between 0 and 100. Higher values reflect greater flexibility; lower values greater resolve.
 Veto -
 Players & Their Positions
Player Influence Position Salience Flexibility Veto Fixed Position Player Influence Position Salience Flexibility Veto Fixed Position

OU-Students-JAC 5 95 100 0 0 1 TRS 25 95 100 0 0 0

CPI (AP) 5 95 50 20 0 0 CPM (National) 30 0 20 100 0 0

Maoists 5 100 80 5 0 0 INC(AP) 30 5 90 30 0 0

Chiranjeevi 10 0 85 36 0 0 CBN 30 15 70 55 0 0

TDP(T) 10 45 50 50 0 0 AP-RE-Ind +Tel Film 35 45 70 10 0 0

MIM 10 55 70 80 0 0 KCR 40 95 90 30 0 0
INC(T) 10 85 100 25 0 0 DMK 50 5 55 45 0 0
BJP 10 95 60 15 0 0 Mamata 50 5 60 65 0 0
KRosaiah 15 15 75 90 0 0 Pchidambaram 65 38 50 40 0 0
SharadPawar 15 15 20 90 0 0 PranabM 75 4 60 80 0 0
YSJ-Group 20 5 80 35 0 0 INC 110 8 30 100 0 0
TDP(AP) 25 0 90 40 0 0
SoniaG 125 15 55 90 1 0

CPI (National) 25 47 20 50 0 0 UPA 135 5 50 77 0 0

Model Output – Run 1
 Only Telangana-
Vadi’s are allowed to
have Fixed Positions
with little/No
Flexibility.

 Game Ran for 12

Rounds.

 No shocks allowed
w.r.t Influence or
Salience. Clean Run
of the Model
Model Output – Run 2
 Both Telanganavadis
and Samaikya
Andhravadis are
allowed little/No
Flexibility.

 Game Ran for 20

Rounds.

 No shocks allowed w.r.t

Influence or Salience.
Clean Run of the Model
Model Output – Run 3
 The external players
(UPA Partners) stick to
fixed positions.

 Game Ran for 12

Rounds.

 No shocks allowed
w.r.t Influence or
Salience. Clean Run
of the Model
Analysis
 When TELANGANA-vadi’s show NO/Little flexibility and SAMAIKYA ANDHRA-vadi’s show lot of flexibility
the model predicts Separate Telangana in next 2-5 years.

 When both TELANGANA-vadi’s and SAMAIKYA ANDHRA-vadi’s show NO/Little flexibility the model
predicts the compromise scenario to have HYDERABAD as the common capital of two separate states
TELANGANA and SEEMANDHRA

 Unless most of the influenced players divert their FOCUS on this issue and HARDEN their positions the
outcome doesn’t change much.