A Comparative Methodology for Analyzing Negotiations

Druckman, D. (1993). A Comparative Methodology for Analyzing Negotiations. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria: WP-93-034

Preview

Text WP-93-034.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Most of the lessons learned for policy makers from past international negotiations have been derived from descriptive assessments of particular cases taken one at a time. The objective of this study is to develop a truly comparative and systematic approach to negotiation analysis that will provide the capability to draw lessons from a larger and more representative data base of negotiation cases.

Structured interviews were conducted with 23 Austrian diplomats to gather information about particular international negotiation cases that they personally participated in. These interviews were coded into a taxonomy of important negotiation elements to develop a data base that describes each negotiation case as a profile of 35 key factors. These data were then analyzed systematically to derive a better understanding of the process of international negotiation and how that process leads to successful outcomes or deadlock.

One of the most important findings is the effectiveness of bilateral negotiations. They are more likely than multilateral negotiations to be characterized by successful treaties, low delegation turnover, friendly political relations, and deadlines that are met. Bilateral negotiations may be a more cost-effective alternative to participation in multilateral forums: fewer transaction costs and better outcomes.

Actions (login required)

View Item