Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MODEL
(PAPAKONSTANTINIDIS
MODEL)
It has to prove that building social capital at local level mainly depends on social
trust links among local people: Social cohesion based on social capital may be
measured by the diversification Rate (R*) from strict globalization rules: From this
point of view, local people intervention should be useful, so as to diversify these
“rules” at local level adjusting them to local identity, including communication
code, customs, ethics, culture. The Win-win-win methodology [Papakonstantinidis
Model] should facilitate local people to “readjust” bargaining globalization rules
locally, through a sensitization process: Community is defined as a discrete
spatial/ cultural entity at its sensitization process’ limit.
WIN-WIN-WIN SCIENTIFIC
CONTRIBUTION
The game/ bargain is defined by the result (pay-off) and not by players
expectations- It presupposes best choices by both players towards meeting
individual interests [“winning strategies”- Harsanyi John(1973]
Players/ or negotiators do not regret, a posteriori, from their own decision taken,
based on personal choices, during the bargain. Each of the players knows a priori
that the other negotiator (or player) is as clever as he is.
During the bargain, a “mutual respect” between the two bargainers to each
other’s best choices’ is necessary.
It is recognized that “The more DETERMINED to break down the negotiation (=
less utility), the more satisfied (=better shares) – the more risk, the more profit
Information may be the “link” between knowledge creation and the bargaining
process. In particular, “Information” is a power factor in pure individuals winning
strategies (Aumann Robert, 1987)
The more information, the better winning strategy, the more profit. Each of the
players / negotiators, starting negotiations with the other, expects to gain the
maximum profit.
According to Nash Theory, a unique solution exists that maximises the product of
the participants’ utilities. There is, therefore an interaction between “utilities” and
“strategies” In particular, “utility” expresses individual choices based on
individual necessities “Strategies” express choices + will in personal level, taking
into account the interaction factor (the other’s choices) Utility is the subjective
and strategy is the objective factor of the same anticipation.
Table 1
BARGAIN
Random Sharing between “A” and “B”
Suppose that “winning strategies” [ Pi, Qi] are in a fine ratio with the players’
(bargainers’) UTILITY ( linear function: corresponds 1-1 to bargainers’ Utility
Function), under the dogma “the more decisive to break the contract down, the
more satisfied from the bargain leading to the contract” (Kuhun-Nassar, 2001).
That is true: Bargainers expectations are 1-1 to expected Utilities for each of
them, coming from the bargain. (Bernheim & Douglas B. 1984). On the other
hand, the more information, the more uncertainty. Bargain gets its own rules out
of cooperation. People are competitive rather, than co-operative: Winning
strategies are led by bargaining rules (rules of pure competition). Nash has
described the “bargaining problem” not by expectations, but, directly, by the
results (pay-off) of the bargain.
In our example, the crucial point [the max] is 1240 (40x31) : this is the point of
final agreement led by the bargain. On that point, shares are: 40% for “A” and
60% for “B”. On that point, personal satisfaction or utility units are 40 units for A
and 31 units for B : That’s the point of agreement, expressing “fear of breaking
down the agreement for “player” “A” and , at the same time, the risk for the
“player” “B” of breaking down the agreement. In a 2-person anticipation, each of
the two (2) bargainers may ask themselves one question, as the result of “good
strategies” [instant reflection thinking] in the bargain:
What should be the best for me, taking into account that
the other person (bargainer in a negotiation) should try
for the best for himself –thus recognizing that the other
person may be as clever as I am?
What should be the best for me, taking into account that
the other person (bargainer in a negotiation) should try
for the best for himself –thus recognizing that the other
person may be as clever as I am and, at the same time,
taking into account that COMMUNITY, as the third or
invisible part also participates by the “bargainers’
characteristics” (shares/utilities)
4.2 Win-win-win analysis methodology
Papakonstantinidis, 2003
23 70 40 24 960 7 2 1920
14 80 50 12 600 6 1 600
(Papakonstantinidis Proposal)
This should be the “ground” for a Flag Theme local people creation (table,
below)
TABLE 5
FLAG THEME - Flow Chart
Flag Theme
Jointing the
Active Creating a endogenous
Participation team forces on a
Roles in psychology common
planning/ among local goal
PAPAKONSTANTINIDIS, 2007
Converging2000
Papakonstantinidis, individual strategies on a “common
goal”, through cooperation
“Flag Theme” may be concerned as an innovative idea- an “open discussion
theme” based on the sensitisation process at local level which concentrates local
resources, skills, abilities, talents, leadership as well as “priorities” and properties
at local level (Gannon Agnes, 1990, Wilkinson Kenneth, 1991)
CONCLUSIONS/ PROPOSALS
1. Social Cohesion –necessary for the L-D process, thus building local people
identity AND development (through the appropriate –for the place- flag
theme - may be , at the same time, the cause and the result of building
the Social Capital at Local Level
2. Building the Social Capital at Local Level, may be proved to be equivalent
to “Social Confidence”, or “Social Trust” among local people (Llambi Louis
2008, Lados M,& Lachewski Lutz (2003)
3. At the same time, Community [ the “C” factor” ] “participates” as the
THIRD or invisible part in any two-person negotiations
4. By introducing the “C” factor in any 2-person negotiation, then what
should be result, could improve individual strategies and /or behavior in
the bargain, from a pure “conflict” to round the corners of this conflict,
then transforming competitors to “instant alliances” (including the
Community profit) : This is the paper’s contribution)
5. Local Development is mainly based on this “new” perception
6. Based on this “perception” (round the conflict corners-the Community
within) it’s easy for local people to find a “FLAG THEM” (2007- S Africa) for
their L-D process: see at Flow Chart That is the win-win-win
Methodology/ Papakonstantinidis Model)
7. According to win-win-win methodology, L-D process, in terms of
diversification rate, from Globalization’s Rules may be justified, creating
the Community as a discrete spatial Entity
8. Technological changes and human / social relations move in the opposite
direction-“vice versa”.
9. Introducing a three-poles dealing system may improve the “bargaining
perception” thus influencing social behavior, introducing a new bargaining
perception/ethic
10. A “new bargaining perception” including the “Community profit” as the
“third” or “invisible” parameter in a bargain between TWO persons-players
may change some Globalization negative conditions, providing them with
“rules”/ social rules through social behavior changing.
11. Reforming a bilateral contradiction in a 3-part bargain between two players
(including the Community “C” as the “invisible” part between TWO, in fact
may reverse the base of human negotiation : From “competition” to “co-
operation” Reforming the “competition” to step towards “social cohesion” ,
the “objective perception of the world” may be changed into a more
ideological: From material to a “thinking” world (Kamitza R 1994) The “C”
partner my be proved to be the key-factor, against war feelings thus
introducing the Greek philosophy’s “METRON”
12. Each of the THREE parts (A, B, & C) in any bargain, may ask itself THREE
questions, thus maximizing its own profit (economic, social, cultural,
environmental etc) :
What should be the best for me, taking into account that the other
person (bargainer in a negotiation) should try for the best for himself –
thus recognizing that the other person as clever as I, AND taking into
account [at the same time] that “Community” as the third or invisible
part of negotiations between TWO, also participates and also tries under
the same conditions [ “Community” as clever as the two bargainers] so
bargainers AND the Community to be winners? - 3win Model
REFERENCES
Arrow Kenneth Debrew Gerard (1954) “Existence of an Equilibrium for a
Competitive Economy” Econometrica, v. 22 (3) p.p 221-231
Arnstein G. (1991) “Public Participation”, The Edge Publishing, N.Y
Aumann Robert (1987) “Game Theory” in Eatwell John, Murrey Milgate &
P.Newman Editions – The New Pugrave Dictionart of Economics, v 2 London, Mc
Millan Press, pp 460-482
Bagnasco A (1977) “Tre Italy: La Problematica Territoriable dello Svillupo
Italiano”- II Mulino Ed, Bologna,
Barquero A-Vasquez A (1991) “Sectoral Diversification in Rural Areas: Problems
and Potentials- UCG / International Centre for Development Studies, special issue
Berger,John (2005) Points on Political Orientation - Le Monde Diplomatique-
18.11.2005
Bernheim Douglas B. 1984 “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior” Econometrica, v
52, pp 1007-1028
Calvert Randall (1995)The Rational Choice Theory of Social Institutions NY
Cabridge Univ Press
Cinneide M. O’ (1991) “Points on what Rural Areas are” Center for Development
Studies Press, University College Galway (U.C.G) IRL
Chun Youngub etc “Bargaining with Uncertain Disagreement Points” Econometrica,
v 58, 1990 pp 951-959
Coleman J (1988) “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital” American
Journal of Sociology 94 Supplement 95-S120 Chicago University
Crawford Vincent etc 1997: “Theory and Experiment in the Analysis of Strategic
Interaction “ Econometric Society Monographs, Cambridge University Press,
Filinis Kostas (1973) “Games Theory”, KEIMENA Ed, 1972 Athens Gr
Fischer M.M (2002) ”Learning in neural spatial intervention models: A
statistical perspective” Journal of Geographical Systems, issue 4 (3) p.p 30-38
Friedmann J and Weaver C (1979) “Territory and Function” U.C.L.A Press (U.S)
Fotopoulos, 1998), “The Political Democracy” LSE Edition
Gannon Agnes (1990) “Rural Development-Strategic Objectives” F.A.O Ed, Vienna,
Grossman Gene etc 4/ 1985 “Strategies Trade Policy: a Survey of Issues and Early
Analysis – Special Papers in International Economics.
Harms Hans (1997)“Citizen Participation- A Response to the Crisis of the
Representative Democracy” International Sociological Association (I.S.A) –special
issue, Toronto Canada.
Harsanyi John(1973) “ Games with Randomly Disturbed Payoffs’ International
Journal of Games Theory, v 2 -1973 pp 1-23
Kamitza R (1994) “Structural Adjustment without a Human Face” Southern Africa:
Political and Economic Monthly 7 (6): p.p 11-12
Katseli Luca (1979) “Motivating the Indigenous Human Force” Greek Ministry of
National Economy –annual report
Kerepeszki István (2003): “Capacity Building by Non-financial support of
SMEs”. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Regional Studies Department special issue
Kottarides K-Siriounis G (2002) John Nash: Games Theory” EVRASIA Ed , 2002
Kuhn H.W and Nasar S. (2001) “The essential John Nash” Princeton University
Press, pp. 31, 43, 56, 85-89, 99-103 .
Lachewski Lutz (2003) “Micro businesses Networks and Rural Development
Agencies: a Paradoxical Relationship” special issue, The Hungarian Academy of
Sciences, Department of Regional Studies, Nov
Lados M (2003) “Report on SMEs local capacities building” –special issue-Nov
2003, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Department of Regional Studies.- head of the
Department
Llambi Louis (2008) Grass Roots” Model in Latin America (trnsl) part of the Book
“Social Cohesion and Society Development” – The Aegean University/ Dept of
Sociology 1st edition
Loury Glen (1977) “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences” Chapter 8
“Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination” Ed P. A Wallance and A. Le
Mund. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books
Meyer T (2000) –presentation on future economy perspectives, to Ministers and
multi-national managers / “G8” (group eight”) – Davos (trnsl), Monde Diplomatique,
2000
Moseley M. (2003) “Towards a Knowledge Society in an Enlarged European Union”,
p.4 ” –special issue, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Nash John Forbs (1951) “Non Co-operative Game”/Princeton University Ed,
Princeton
Neuman (von) & Morgenstern (1947) “Game Theory and Economic Behavior” –
The Princeton University Press U. S
Osirim Mary J (2003) “Carrying the Burdens of Adjustment and Globalization”
International Sociology, volume 18, number 3, Sept.2003
Papakonstantinidis L.A , (1996) “The Strategy of Development”, MAREL-NIKAS Ed,
Vol II, trnsl. Athens Gr.
Papakonstantinidis L.A (1997) The S.H.I.E.L.D Model, International Sociological
Association (I.S.A) Special Issue (R.C 26) Toronto Canada, AND “Channel View
Publications, Bristol, U.K (2003)
Papakonstantinidis, 2000) “ The Strategy of Local Development (Vo II, pp 6-7, 26-
29, 30, 44-49, 66)
Papakonstantinidis L. A (2002) “The Sensitized Community” Typothito Edition,
Ath trnsl
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2003“The Strategy of Economic and Regional
Development” Typothito
Papakonstantinidis L. A (2003, Nov) “Building the Social Capital and Local
Capacities in Rural Areas” – special issue of Hungarian Academy of Sciences-
Department of Regional Studies, Nov, 2003
Papakonstantinidis L. A (2004) “Sensitization and Involvement the Community: A
Rural Tourism Application of the win-win-win Model” Review of Economic
Sciences”-TEIEP, issue 6
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004) “Knowledge Creation and the win-win-win model”
Scientific Review of Applied Economics TEIPI Ed, Jan 2004
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004, Jan) “Rural Tourism: win-win-win” Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism” , issue 2 , India
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004, Febr) “ Digital Economy and Hyper-cube space”
“Journal of Applied Economics and Management”, issue 1, India
Papakonstantinidis- Lagos“Integrated Total Quality Management and Sustainable
Development” [Lagos D, Papakonstantinidis L.A] Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Volume 1, issue 1, /2003 pp 64-82, ISSN 0972-7787 www.johat.com
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2003) “Digital Economy and Hyper-cube: New Applied
Economics in Managing a Local Government Organization : A Proposal” Journal of
Applied Economics and Management, Volume 1, issue 1,/ 2003, pp 17-34, ISSN 0972-
8937, JAEM- INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE, Bundelkhand University, Jansi
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004)“Sensitization as a form of knowledge creation and
the Win-Win-Win Model…” Scientific Review of Applied Research, Vol VIII, No 2 /2003,
pp 89-108, ISSN 1106-4110
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004) “Rural Tourism: Win-Win-Win- case study Women
Cooperative Gargaliani”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Volume 1, issue 2, /2003
pp 49-70, ISSN 0972-7787 www.johat.com
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004) “Sensitization and Involving the Community. A
Rural Development Application of the Win-Win-Win Model” Review of Economic
Research 6/2004 pp 177-192
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2005) “Operations Management by a hyper-cube & win-
win-win perspective: A Local Development Approach” Journal of Applied Economics
and Management, Volume 2, issue 2,/ 2004, pp 111-130, ISSN 0972- 8937, JAEM-
Institute of Economic and Finance Bundelkhand University, Jansi
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2005)“Win-Win-Win Model and Sensitization
Process”-Journal of Space and Community- Hungarian Academy of Sciences/Regional
Studies Dept
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2002) “The win-win-win model” – “Developing
Sustainable Rural Tourism” Thematic guide- chap 7.9 –“Euracademy Guide”,
Gotland-Sweden, www.euracademy.org.
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2003) “Building the Social Capital and Local Capacities in
Rural Areas- The Animation Process”2003 [ Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre
for Regional Studies] Gyor-Hungary “Euracademy Guide” –p 15
Papakonstantinidis L.A 2004) “Sensitization & the win-win-win model: An answer
to Globalization’s Impact on Local Communities and Common Perceptions of the
World Tendencies- Case Study: Community Redefinition- Tychero Evros- ISA e-Ed.
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004) New trends in Regional Policy: Territory-Space
Definition by a 3-level Bargaining Approach- The Win-Win-Win Model. Case Study: The
LEADER EU Initiative Application in Greece” “Regional and Rural Development
Interface” Babes-Bolyai University, Faculty of Economics – Cluj-Napoca Romania, -
European Program “Reabalk European Project”.
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2005) “Le migration economique polonaise dans quelque
lieux du Peloponnese” I.S.A. Ed
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2005) “Networking SMEs: A win-win-win approach ISA
Ed special issue “Networks and Partnerships for 'Learning Regions' in everyday
practice”-
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2004) “ Bargaining win-win-win Model and the Hypercube
(the MARTIX concept) Dimension” – Journal of Applied Economic & Management vol 1
issue 1, JENSEN, India
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2007) “Bargaining Problem and Local Development”
Gutenberg, (trnsl –GREEK) Athens, 2007
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2007) “Clustering & Networking SMEs in Rural Areas &
win-win-win Model” ISA – World Congress’s minutes, Durban South Africa (July, 2006)
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2008) Win-Win-Win Methodology on Rural Tourism
Activities / Good Practices from Greece” The Asian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
(AJHT) – v1/iss 1 – Santo Tomas University Manila Philippines , pp 95-120
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2008) "Forecasting the tourist impact based on GINI
Index: Flexible development policies" Journal ITTM / India (Vol.1 No.2) pages 48-57.
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2008) “Bargaining as the basic Globalization Ideology”
Review of Social Sciences –Dec 2008- draft (approved)
Papakonstantinidis L.A (2008-Sept) Building Social Capital for Local
Development : The Economy of Poor and the win-win-win Model” International
Sociological Association/ First ISA Forum of Sociology “Sociological Research and
Public Debate- Barcelona Spain September 5-8 2008, Official e-minutes
(2008S00879)
Petrella Ricardo (2001) “Globalization impact on space-time (trnsl) Local
Government Journal (tetradia topikis autodioikissis) , Athens, Greece, Nov 2001
Portes A (1998) “”Social Capital : its origins and application in a modern sociology”
Annual Review of Sociology –v. 24 p. p 1-24
Putnam R (2000) “Bowling Alone the Collapse and Revival of American Community-
New York Simon and Schuster, based Development – The case of Mining Areas in
Orissa India” Draft paper Social capital Initiative South Asia Infrastructure Unit”
Ramonet Ignacio “Mondalisation et les perspecives sociale dans l’economie glolale”
trnsl- Monde Diplomatique, Aug, 2000
Schor Juliet (2000) “The Over-worked American” Le Monde Diplomatique
Stochr W and Todtling F (1979) “Spatial Equality : some antithesis to current
regional development doctrine” H. Folms Ed.
Swensen T (Danmark-2008) “Confidence Indicators” (trnsl in Greek)
Torreta Gullietta (1997) “Sociological Aspects in the Human Resources
Management inside the Public Administration” I (I.S.A) R.C 26 , special issue, Toronto
Canada
van Damme Eric, Stability and Perfection on Nash Equilibria, New York and Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1987, second edition, 1991.
Varoufakis Yanis, Young, Conflict in Economics, Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf and
New York: St Martin's Press, 1990.
Varoufakis Yanis,(1991) Rational Conflict, Oxford: Blackwell.
von Neumann John, Morgenstern Oscar, Theory of Games and Economic
Behaviour, Princeton University Press, 1944 (second edition, 1947. third edition,
1953).
Wilkinson Kenneth(1991) “Social Stabilisation: The Role of Rural Society”-
International Center for Development Studies –U.C.G –IRL, special issue,1991
Walras S.(1980) “Global Rules for a Global Economy” N.Y Ed
Yitzak Samuel (1997) ”The Changing Realm of Organisations: New Challenges
for Sociological Practice” International Sociological Association (I.S.A –R.C 26),
special issue, Toronto Canada
Prof Papakonstantinidis L. A