surp final final
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
1/21
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH:BUILDING
SOCIAL CAPITAL BY A
WIN - WIN- WIN METHODOLOGY
Prof. Leonidas A. Papakonstantinidis
School of Management and Economicsex Director
Technological Educational InstituteKalamata
Abstract: The paper deals with local development, both as a regional and social sciences
field. 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.
Key-words: Methodology, Bargain, Sensitization, Social Confidence, win-win-win model,
Social Trust Links, Community as a Discrete Entity.
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
2/21
1. INTRODUCTION: THE CONCEPT- METHODOLOGY
The aim of this paper is to prove that, (1) Social Capital as a concept of community
behavior and natural resources management, defined as the capital that refers to
connections within and between social networks (emphasizing the social trust, in this
paper)- something of a cure-all, for the problems of a modern society (Portes, A.,
1998) may be the base of a local development program. (2) Local Development may
be concerned as a unique diversification / declination from the globalization rules
(Papakonstantinidis, 2007) (3) The discrete entitys diversification rate (R*) from
globalization/ or bargaining rules, (Walras S, 1980) may be the crucial parameter
which would define Local Development as a social cohesion result at local level.
(4)Local Development is concerned as the limit-end of a unique and continuous
sensitized development process, applied in a discrete spatial entity
(Papakonstantinidis, 2008/ May), (5) Local Development is achieved via GOOD
CASES rather than good practices, due to the unique identity each region has, as
well as its people with their own communication code, ethics, mentality, customs.
(Katseli Luca 1979), (5) A win-win-win approach may be the appropriate
methodological tool toward introducing sensitization in the development process. It
may strengthen social cohesion process by improving its confidential indicators (so to
trust each-other in interrelations process).
In order to meet with paper requirements it is indispensable that the appropriate
methodology be adopted, step by step : (1) A theoretical foundation is provided by
recent literature (in points), connecting Local Development with Social Capital/
Social Cohesion, as well as with The Bargaining Problem- Games Theory & the
Modern Innovation Theory (M.I.T)[Fischer M. M 2002, Kamitza R 1994, Moseley
M. 2003, Petrella R 2001 ] (2) According to the afore-mentioned theoretical
background, it is necessary to strictly define the Bargaining Problem (as the basis
of Globalization rules) by its math /philosophical validation and try to define the
local development process in terms of diversification (R*) from Globalization
Rules (3) Next step is to create links between the local development process (as a
continuous sensitization process) and the bargain in terms of diversification rate
from G. R, building Social Trust Links- see at Swensen Social Confidence
Indicators, 2006 (4) Finally, the Community is included in the model as the third or
http://www.in.gr/dictionary/lookup.asp?Word=strengthenhttp://www.in.gr/dictionary/lookup.asp?Word=strengthen -
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
3/21
invisible part of each bargain between two persons, based on instant reflection, so
each part wins ( the win-win-win model).
Limitations are resulted, both by the Games Theory and the Modern Innovation
Theory application in social sciences and their synthesis into a social market problem
within the Community.
2. RECENT LITERATURE IN POINTS
From the Local Development side, Kenneth Wilkinson (1991) focuses on the
endogenous local development process / bottom-up approach (bargain, locally) 2nd,
Friedman / Weaver UCLA (1978)in their classic Territory and Function refer :
The base of an autonomous local development may be a discrete value system, an
ideology, local peoples reaction to the dominant local principles (including local
communication code, customs, culture), creating thus the social cohesion
environment at local level.
From the pure Sociological side, J. Coleman (1988) as Social Capital describes the
cooperation processes of individuals, which minimize possible dilemma, coming
from individuals, networks and common actions. Besides, Glen Loury (1977) used
the term social capital to describe a dynamic theory of racial income differences
discrimination (women, minorities, etc). J Coleman adopted Glen Lourys definition,
in developing and popularizing the concept Also, Putnam (2000) describes social
capital as the basis of social schemes creation (i. e networks)
In conclusion, an increasing number of recent literature in the local development field,
currently recognizes the existence of links among local development process, social
trust & capital A number of Local Development approaches toward this theme are
referred below: The Political Entity (Freedman-Weaver, UCLA, 1978, the
Selected Closed-Spatial Discrete Entity of the Intra-Scientific Vienna Centre (Stohr
& Todtling 1980), The S. H. I. E. L. D Model, Papakonstantinidis, 1997, Rome)
The Tre Italy Model, Bagnasco, 1987, The parallel system and The sensitized
Community (Papakonstantinidis, 1998 & 2002), The political Democracy (LSE,
Fotopoulos, 1998), the Grass Roots Model in Latin America (Luis Llambi, 2003)
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
4/21
Barquero A-Vasquez A (1991) These theoretical approaches pre-existed to the
suggested win-win-win.
3. THE BARGAINING PROBLEM
A two-person bargaining situation involves two individuals (Neuman & Morgenstern
1947), who have the opportunity, either to be competitors to each-other (win-lose)
[von Neumann-Morgenstern, 1928/1947-zero sum two players game Theory]
Filinis Kostas (1973), or to make coalitions, or even to create pure individual
strategies, based on bargainers instant reflection behavior (win-win) [Nash J. F,
1950, Arrow K 1954, Aumann Robert, 1987, Crawford V, 1997, Kottarides K, 2002,
Varoufakis Y, 1990). J.F. Nash ( 1950) focused on payoff shares/utilities
combination:
Bargain may result either in agreement or disagreement. (Kuhun H.W-Nassar S,
2001) Papakonstantinidis, 2003, 2005, Varoufakis Y, 1990) Utility expresses the
constraint or the fear factor of disagreement for the negotiator who desires
negotiations to be led in agreement more than the other one. Who needs more,
negotiation leading to an agreement expects more utility, but probably there is a lossin terms of shares, due to lack of risk. On the contrary, who is indifferent about
agreement or expects less utility /per unit, has- to win in shares under the dogma
the more risk, the more profit (Crawford V. 1997).
It is necessary to analyze the Nashnon-cooperative- instant reflection game /or a
win-win perception as follow:
Non-co-operative game, is a game between two (2) players/ individuals who have
opposite interests (Aumann Robert , 1987). Each player makes his own choices, based
on instant reflections rational movements and his physical cleverness.
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].
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
5/21
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 others
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 .
Social behavior is not recognized as an acceptable one in the bargain, thus deriving
unfair results: That means, who needs the agreement as the result of a bargain, has
to loose in shares, by accepting any result.
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.
Interaction, based on instant reflection individual winning strategies, is the base of the
Nash Non Cooperative Games Theory A two (2) 2person anticipation is based on
utilities.
According to Nash Theory, a unique solution exists that maximises the product of the
participants utilities. There is, therefore an interaction between utilities andstrategies In particular, utility expresses individual choices based on individual
necessities Strategies express choices + will in personal level, taking into account
the interaction factor (the others choices) Utility is the subjective and strategy is the
objective factor of the same anticipation.
Negotiation may lead either to agreement or disagreement Utility expresses the
fear factor constraint of disagreement for those who desire the agreement, more
than the other negotiators. (Aumann 1987).
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
6/21
In conclusion, at any moment according to the N. C. G Theory- there is only one
equilibrium point at which any individualat any moment- makes the best choices
for himself, in relation with the other persons best choices.
3.1 The bargaining problem Utility Theory (math)
Bargaining Problem is mainly based on Utility Theory- a mathematical theory of
the Neo-classical School of Thought, able to satisfactory explain individual
expectations/ anticipations, of a possible outcome. Usually it is expressed in the form
of a mathematical function, f(u) = u1/2
Individual winning strategies are corresponding 1-1 to utilities U (A) and U (B)
(Chun Youngub, 1990). Utility theory of the individual is mainly based on the
concept of anticipation.
In the Two-person utility Theory there are two (2) individuals in a bargain who
have the opportunity to collaborate for mutual benefit in more than one way. In its
simple/initial version, no action, taken by one of the two individuals without the
consent of the other can affect the well-being of the other one, but in real terms there
is only ONE decision, taken by the involved in a bargain individuals.
Utility in the bargain is a personal matter: Utility units are not compared.
(Kuhun-Nassar, 2001)
Utility units express fear units of a disagreement outcome
If A needs more the agreement to be achieved, than the payoff coming
from the bargain, then he should be ready to accept any result of agreement,
even if it is not favorable for him (loss of shares)
If A has decided not to accept an agreement during the bargaining process,
then he risks more but at the same time- has to win more from the agreement,
in terms ofshares.
The utility range expresses the optimist and/or the pessimist instant
reflection of each party.
Utility expresses individual choices based on individual necessities and
will. It is rather a subjective than objective factor, influencing individual
behavior. On the other hand, individual strategies in the bargain the
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
7/21
objective factor- are defined by personal choices and will, resulting from the
necessity to meet personal needs. From this point of view, Utility , as a
subjective factor is expressed by strategy an individual winning strategy-
in the bargain, so as to meet Utility. There are links between Utility and
Strategy: Utility is the ability to meet needs and Strategy is the plan
the individual plan- to achieve this ability, step by step
Utility is the subjective factor and the Individual Winning Strategy is the
objective factor of the same thing: Bargainers have needs (=utilities). In
order to satisfy these needs, they use individual winning strategies, as the
result of their instant reflections in the Bargain. (table 1)
Lim U1i(&)U2i(&)=max U1iU2i (1)
i
3.2 Nash win-win random sharing/utilities- An example
It expresses utilities/strategies, as the interaction between two negotiators and (2)
expresses the utility function- as a shares/utility combination The bargaining problem
decision making during negotiations of A & B -Nash highlighted the payoffs of the
bargain, # personal expectations(Table 1):
Table 1: BARGAIN
Random Sharing between A and B
Share A
(%)
Share B
(%)
Utility A Utility B Utility AXB
100 0 0 71 090 10 1 70 70
80 20 5 68 340
70 30 10 64 960
60 40 16 60 960
50 50 23 52 1196
4 5 55 40 31 1 240
( max)
30 70 45 24 1080
20 80 50 12 600
10 90 61 4 244
0 100 80 0 0
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
8/21
3.3 The equilibrium point
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 : Thats 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?
4. SUGGESTION: THE WIN-WIN-WIN MODEL
4.1 What the suggested win win- win is
According to the afore-mentioned analysis, paper contribution in the scientific
thought (2008) should be summarized in introducing the third WIN for the
COMMUNITY (the third-part pole).
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
9/21
According to my suggestion, COMMUNITY the C factormust participate in any
bargain by its bargainers characteristics (shares/utilities), thus adding the THIRD
WINat any two bargainers win-win expectation between TWO (the METRON
analysis or the THREE POLES analysis like in other fields i.e philosophy, economy,
creating an interactional flow By introducing the THIRD POLE in the bargain, then
the crucial bargainers QUESTION must be changed in:
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
The following methodology is adopted in points (Papakonstantinidis):
knowledge creation creating a non conflict behavior inserting sensitization
integrated information creation uncertainty due to negative entropy thus,
smoothing potential conflictsclosing differences in the competitive bargainpayoff-
utilities & shares, influencing behavior in the bargain /individual winning strategies
influencing by a new behavior in the opposite, the more decisive, the more risk
,should derive more profit in a globalizing world but inserting sensitization in the
bargainthus smoothing the conflict strategies taking into account the C factor
converting a bilateral conflict into a 3-part negotiation leading to a new social
perception , the win-win-win perception, including a real cooperation between
negotiators, thus, carrying alongside a social markets perspective- the
INTERMEDIATE POSITION
4.3 Information/ behavior & the bargaining problem (Knowledge
transfer, information, behavior)
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
10/21
Paper conception is mainly based on Games Theory especially on its Non-
Cooperative Games Theorys version by J. F Nash, 1950- in relation with the Modern
Innovation Theory - (M. M. Fischer, 2000).
M. I. T provides us with useful methodological tools as knowledge creation and
knowledge transfer (Table 2).
Table 2: Scheme: Knowledge Creation/ Information/ Types of Behavior
Type of
Knowledge-1
Type of
Knowledge-2
Synthesis Resulted Behavior
tacit tacit Sympathetic Socialization
tacit codified Conceptual Externalization
codified tacit Procedural Internalization
codified codified Systemic Networking
sympathetic systemic Conceptual Sensitization
systemic systemic Procedural Strategic
Papakonstantinidis, 2003
Literature (Reinsmann, Fischer,2002 & others) introduced various processes of
knowledge conversion based on the proven and built information systems
incorporated in an organization. Possible cases among different types of knowledge
produce the four (4) major processes of knowledge conversion : (1) Tacit knowledge
to tacit knowledge produces sympathized knowledge (socialization) (2) Tacit
knowledge to codified knowledge produces conceptual knowledge (externalization)
(3) Codified knowledge to tacit knowledge produces procedural knowledge
(internalization) (4) Codified knowledge to codified knowledge produces systemic
knowledge (combination). Each of these processes of knowledge conversion
corresponds [1-1] to a specific type of information (Papakonstantinidis 2003) i. e :
Social Information-Sensitization
External Information- Participation
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
11/21
Internal Information-Involvement
Combined Information-Networking
4.4 The suggested win-win-win approach
According to the above analysis, paper contribution in the scientific thought (2007)
should be summarized in introducing the third WIN or the third person in a two-
party bargain, i. e the C invisible part, which should be the Community interest
= C , thus taking part as community be present in every two-party bargain,
claiming its own share from this
Suppose that:
Ua = Pi, Ub = Ri , Uc = Qi , ....in a mathematical approach (tables
1, 2):
Ua = x , Ub = (100-x)k and f = [ x (100-x)k ] = 0 , so that Ua +
Ub = max
THEN
lim Pi(&) Qi(&) Ri(&) = max Pi Qi Ri = max Ua Ub Uc = Ua + Ub + Uc
i
or, how to transform a competition into the absolute cooperation,
taking into account the integrated information, coming from
knowledge transfer AND the sensitization process in the community,
thus maximizing bargainers utilities and the Community utility (Uc)
4.5 The Sharing problem in a Bargain [Utilities, Shares, strategies,
decision- choices, behaviour, Final Agreement]
Having defined: (1) How information resulting from knowledge creation
/knowledge transfer should contribute to what we call social market (2) How
sensitization should be introduced to given information, as to turn it to an integrated
information (Papakonstantinidis, 2006) (3) How integrated information should
influence human behaviour during the bargain, or negotiations (4) How a human
social behaviour could lead to a new perception of thinking or taking a decision,
in the bargain (see at Calvert Randall, 1995, Berger,J 2005 Cinneide M. O 1991,
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
12/21
Coleman J 1988, Yitzak Samuel 1997, Bernheim Douglas B. 1984 (5) How
socialization could influence human choices or winning strategies during the bargain,
based on instant reflection (Nash) (6) How scientific thought could transfer the
problem from utilities (personal perception) to pay-offs (objective perception =
counting size)Harsanyi John(1973), then, the data of Table 2 may be transformed in
a new set of data, as Table 3.
TABLE 3: Suggesting Sharing between A , B and C
Share
(%)
Share
(%)
Utility
A
Utility
B
Utility
AXB
Share C
(%)
Utility
C
Utility
AXBXC
90 4 1 71 71 6 1 71
80 13 2 70 140 7 2 280
70 22 5 68 340 8 3 1020
60 31 10 64 640 9 4 2560
50 40 16 60 960 10 5 4800
max
41 50 23 52 1196 9 4 4784
32 60 31 40 1240 8 3 3720
23 70 40 24 960 7 2 1920
14 80 50 12 600 6 1 600
(Papakonstantinidis Proposal)
Notes, as to explain the symbols :
C expresses the Community (an acceptable system value at local level), as
the third or invisible part in the bargain- In real terms, it reflects the
confidence indicators, or, in other words, if and at which level each member
of the Community trusts the other, during the bargain (H. Hans 1997).
The less shares for A+ B the more share for C part.
Utility is a personal matter: Utility units are not compared to each other. They
express the fear of breaking down the agreement.
If A needs more the agreement than the payoff, then he should be ready to
accept any form of agreement.
Based on this concept ( the C factor) then, it is concluded that
Sensitization process applied in local people has succeeded to change/
transform individual winning strategies into a NEW type of social trust
behavior (Swensen, 2006), leading to SOCIAL COHESION, at local level
(Papakonstantinidis, 2006, 2007, 2008).
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
13/21
TABLE 4: Social Confidence Indicators (%)
Country Indicator (%)
2007
1 Denmark 64.5
2 Norway 63.9
3 Sweden 62.3
4 Finland 56.4
5 Netherland 53.9
6 New Zeeland 52.6
7 Canada 47.0
8 Australia 46.9
9 Indonesia 46.7
10 Iceland 45.3
11 North Ireland 43.9
12 Suisse 42.1
13 USA 42.1
14 Japan 42.0
..46 GREECE 23.7Swensen, 2006)
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
14/21
This should be the ground for a Flag Theme local people creation (table, below)
TABLE 5: FLAG THEME - Flow Chart
Source: Papakonstantinidis, 2000 & 2007
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).
5. 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
LocalAbilitie
Leadership Properties
Priorities
Flag Theme
Active
ParticipationRoles in
planning/
Creating a
teampsychology
Jointing theendogenous
forces on acommonoal
Converging individual strategies on a commongoal, through cooperation
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
15/21
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 papers contribution)
5. Local Development is mainly based on this new perception
6. Based on this perception (round the conflict corners-the Community within)
its 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 Globalizations 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 philosophys 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) :
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
16/21
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
EconomyEconometrica, 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, Greece.
Fischer M.M (2002) Learning in neural spatial intervention models: A statistical
perspectiveJournal 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).
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
17/21
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 inInternational 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 Istvn (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.
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
18/21
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 (2003The 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-LagosIntegrated 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 Economicsin 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.
http://www.johat.com/http://www.johat.com/ -
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
19/21
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 Process2003 [ Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Centre for
Regional Studies] Gyor-Hungary Euracademy Guide p 1.
Papakonstantinidis L.A 2004) Sensitization & the win-win-win model: An answer to
Globalizations 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 Congresss minutes, Durban South Africa (July, 2006).
http://www.johat.com/http://www.euracademy.org/http://www.johat.com/http://www.euracademy.org/ -
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
20/21
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 leconomie 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.
-
8/14/2019 Surp Final Final
21/21
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.