Conflict management strategies

Conflict management is the process of limiting the negative aspects of conflict while
increasing the positive aspects of conflict. Conflict management strategies are diverse,
ranging from standing firm, negotiation, and dis-engagement, to submission.

Firstly, standing firm with principle may be necessary to signal an adversary

regarding a commitment to block excessive and unreasonable demands. It is likely to serve as
a communication means to let opponents know one’s own uncompromising priorities
beforehand to prevent an unnecessary test of will. Those who have higher stakes in the issue
are likely to take more confrontational strategies although that can be moderated by an
imbalance in power and weaker capabilities to confront an adversary.

The parties may have opposing objectives but they can agree on the means to settle
differences. Negotiated settlement becomes difficult if the discussion about substantive issues
translates into differences in principles, making any concession appear like a defeat. But
excessive expectations can be contained or controlled by the creation of a negotiation culture
which supports collaboration in search of acceptable options to all parties. In employment or
other contract relationships, rewards systems can be accepted by regular balancing.

In cultural settings oriented toward collectivist values, avoidance and yielding are
common methods of non-confrontational conflict management. In a culture where survival
traditionally depends on close cooperation among family and community members, the overt
expression of hostile feelings is regarded as a threat to the group unity. In more affectionate
relationships, yielding can be based on sacrifice to meet a close group member’s needs, as is
the case women in Africa who give up food for their children in the case of starvation.

By conceding, one party accepts their loss in favor of the other’s gain, but it can be
the quickest way to contain, regulate, and end conflict by satisfying the demand of an
adversary. The availability of alternative paths to satisfying one’s objectives reduces the
necessity for a contentious engagement. Conceding is more desirable than insisting on narrow
gains if relationship maintenance brings about overall benefits, either tangible or intangible.

As a method of conflict management, the avoidance of contentious issues can take

various forms, ranging from the denial of existence of a problem to disengagement. If the
fighting is not worth risking full-scale war, conflict can eventually subside by withdrawing
from contentious engagement. In cases where the risk of escalation is too high, parties may
be willing to scale down their demand and shy away from escalatory tactics. In the absence of
perceived significance of the issues, diplomatic or military clashes can remain a one-time
episode which does not merit time or attention.

Even though too great in gap in substantive interests and needs as well as capacities
may force any of the adversaries to give in, balanced outcomes can still be sought by a
creative use of avoidance and compromise. The relationship can be preserved if the rules are
considered agreeable and if the loser has a future opportunity to compete again for the prize
even in zero-sum situations of competition.

Asymmetry in conflict styles

At the same time, the strategies adopted by opposing parties can be imbalanced or
diametrically opposed. Even though one party wants to avoid conflict, the other party may
choose confrontational approaches by taking provocative actions to extract a response to their
demand. In other situations, one of the opponents seeks mutual accommodation but the other
party may take an uncompromising position.

More importantly, waging a conflict takes a different path, depending on the extent of
asymmetry in issue salience as well as power differentials among parties. A weaker state is
likely to seek avoiding a major confrontation with a stronger opponent since the costs of
action are perceived greater than any possible returns.

On the other hand, issue salience may push even a subordinate party to organize
protests despite of fear of torture, arrest or other harm. In situations that gross injustice is
inevitably embedded in an oppressive relationship, a weaker party can be morally or
politically supported by advocacy groups.
The rising of inequality between and within nations

A growing gap between the rich and poor within and between nations, in particular
between the North and the South, the destruction of quality jobs and their replacement by
casualization and temporary jobs; growing unemployment; in particular in developing
countries go hand in hand with poverty and mass migration in pursuit of adequate standards
of living. As a result, a true process of immiseration is now observable in many parts of the
world particularly within developing countries.

Inequality between nations

Inter-national inequality refers to the differential impact of globalization on regions

and states across the globe. A fifth of the world’s people live in the highest income countries
that have 86 percent of the world’s gross domestic product, 82 percent of the world’s export
markets and 68 percent of FDI.

The polarized nature of foreign investment provides yet another example of inter-
national inequality resulting from uneven globalization. At the beginning of the last decade,
the North held over three-quarters of the accumulated stock of FDI and attracted 60 percent
of new FDI flows. Moreover, insofar as FDI went to the developing countries (south), it was
concentrated in ten countries, with China alone accounting for more than one-third. Thus
foreign investment resources are being concentrated on these countries such as Thailand,
Indonesia, Colombia, Malaysia and Taiwan which are performing in global trade. Eight
countries that accounted for 30 percent of developing country GDP adsorbed around two-
thirds of total FDI.

Inequality within nations

A UNDP study, for example, notes “there is no convincing evidence that trade
realization is automatically or always associated with economic growth, let alone poverty
reduction or human development”. Moreover, even if growth occurs, it does not necessarily
and inevitably translate into development for people in general, even if it does for their states
or select interests within them.

The pattern of inequality across the globe continues to reveal significant divisions
between North and South, but when the focus shifts to inequalities between social groups, the
picture begins to look more complex. There are incidences of severe poverty in the North,
while pockets of wealth exist in even the poorest countries. In the United States since the
1970s, virtually all income gains have gone to the highest earning 20 percent. This decline in
income for the vast majority of the American population has also had important implications
for poverty trends.

Across the globe geopolitical landscape, the overall patterns of resource distribution
have tended to shift since the 1960s from the shape of an egg to a pear.