| ID | 114813 |
| Title Proper | What makes a good compromise? |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Parijs, Philippe Van |
| Publication | 2012. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | A compromise is an agreement that involves mutual concessions. Each party gets less than it feels entitled to, but agrees to it because the situation it anticipates under the deal is better than the one it expects in the absence of a deal: conflict, exit or arbitration by a third party. Some compromises, however, are bad, and others are good. This article discusses three conjectures about what it is that makes a compromise good. Is a good compromise an honourable compromise, one that enables each party to save face? Is it rather a fair compromise, one that contributes to the progress of justice independently defined? Or is it a Pareto-improving compromise, one that changes things in such a way that it ends up making everyone better off than under the status quo? A compromise is never as good as a consensus, but it is generally better than nothing, and often achievable when a consensus is not. And when it is, trying to make it as good as possible in each of the three ways described is always worthwhile. |
| `In' analytical Note | Government and Opposition Vol. 47, No.3; Jul 2012: p.466-480 |
| Journal Source | Government and Opposition Vol. 47, No.3; Jul 2012: p.466-480 |
| Key Words | Good Compromise ; Anticipates ; Mutual Concessions ; Conflict ; Third Party |