| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Burns, Tom R., et al.
(author)
-
A social procedural approach to the Pareto optimization problematique : Part II. Institutionalized procedures and their limitations
- 2009
-
In: Quality and quantity. - Amsterdam : Elsevier. - 0033-5177 .- 1573-7845. ; 43:5, s. 805-832
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In the previous article (Part I) we briefly introduced the Pareto problematique, selective criticism of it, and Generalized Game Theory's (GGT) approach to the Pareto optimization problematique. GGT stresses the embeddedness and multilevel character of social games; its application to optimization problems leads to a conceptualization of two-phase societal procedures to achieve agreements for change-or, conversely, maintaining-states of the world. In this part two general types of games are distinguished analytically in the 2-phase process: on the one hand, elementary strategic games take place among agents in the first phase in diverse social settings, and, on the other hand, regulative conflict resolution or collective improvement games are organized as procedures in the second phase. Many elementary strategic games end in stalemates, difficult-to-resolve conflicts, and non-optimal outcomes such as occur in collective action or prisoner dilemma type games. This type of situation is the point of departure for the activation of a meta-game regulatory procedure for resolving stalemates, conflicts, and non-optimal states in order to accomplish societal improvements and efficiencies. In a word, the paper identifies and models institutionalized regulatory mechanisms that resolve conflicts, inefficient or non-optimal states, and disequilibria; and lead thereby to solution or resolution of Pareto optimization problems in the face of general non-unanimity or conflict about the outcomes. In addition, the article present more detailed models of the adjudication, negotiation, and democratic procedures introduced in the previous article and discusses their legitimacy bases, the limits of such societal procedures, and the accomplishment of societal efficiencies through the procedures.
|
|
| 3. |
- Burns, Tom R., et al.
(author)
-
A social procedurial approach to the Pareto optimization problematique, Part I : Pareto Optimization
- 2009
-
In: Quality and quantity. - Amsterdam : Elsevier. - 0033-5177 .- 1573-7845. ; 43:5, s. 781-803
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article applies a variant of game theory to the Pareto multi-value problematique, that is situations where members of a group, community or society are faced with alternative allocations, institutional arrangements, or states of the world and may collectively choose an allocation, institutional arrangement or state of the world if they can agree on it. This type of multiple value decision situation is increasingly prevalent not only on the level of societal and political issues but on the level of many enterprises, particularly those advocating corporate social responsibility. Because actors hold and apply values from different perspectives, there are potential contradictory value judgments and incompatible equilibria. In a world of contradiction, incommensurability, and disequilibrium, to what extent can conflicts be resolved and social equilibrium accomplished? Force works but it is inherently unstable. Drawing on an extension of classical game theory, generalized game theory (GGT), this article addresses the multi-value problematique in terms of collective "resolution procedures." These regulative procedures-or social algorithms-are applied to problems of conflict and suboptimality in a multiple value world such as Pareto envisioned. This paper (the first of two) outlines key elements of GGT, defines the Pareto multi-value problematique, pointing out several of the critical weaknesses, theoretical as well as empirical, of the Pareto approach. GGT is then applied in defining and analyzing several major procedures to realize improvements in a multi-value world characterized by conflict and sub-optimality. A second article conceptualizes a complex of societal games making up a social system with 2-phase multi-level game processes; it applies the conceptualization to the different societal procedures for multi-value choice under conditions of conflict. Procedures such as democratic voting, adjudication and administrative decision-making, and multi-lateral negotiation are capable of producing outcomes that in many cases are widely accepted as legitimate and become social equilibria (at least within some range of conditions). These procedures and the conditions for their activation and implementation are modelled and explicated through a generalized game approach.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Burns, Tom R, et al.
(author)
-
Avslutande reflektioner
- 2007
-
In: Makt, kultur och kontroll över invandrares livsvillkor. - Uppsala : ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS (Uppsala University Publications).
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Burns, Tom R, 1937-, et al.
(author)
-
Dynamic Systems Theory
- 2007
-
In: Handbook of 21st Century Sociology. - Thousand Oaks, Ca : Sage Publications.
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- Burns, Tom R., et al.
(author)
-
Inledning och översikt
- 2007
-
In: Makt, kultur och kontroll över invandrares livsvillkor. - Uppsala : ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS (Uppsala University Publications).
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
- Burns, Tom R., et al.
(author)
-
Revolution : An Evolutionary Perspective
- 2001
-
In: International Sociology. - Cardiff : University College Cardiff Press. - 0268-5809 .- 1461-7242. ; 16:4, s. 1-25
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 33. |
- Burns, Tom R.
(author)
-
Rule System Theory : An Overview
- 2008
-
In: Rule Systems Theory. - Frankfurt/Oxford/New York : Peter Lang Publishing Group.
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 34. |
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
- Burns, Tom R., et al.
(author)
-
Social Order and Disorder : Institutions, Policy Paradigms and Discourses – An Interdisciplinary Approach
- 2005
-
In: A New Agenda in Critical Discourse Analysis. - Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company. ; , s. 283-309
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Taking the new institutionalism as a point of departure, this article focuses attention on socio-cognitive models or paradigms and the related discourses that are part and parcel of any institutional arrangement and its evolution. Institutional paradigms are communicated and articulated through discourses – descriptive narratives, conceptual metaphors, and normative articulations. Discourses play a central role in actors’ defining their situations, identifying problems and solutions, conducting situational analyses, and making key judgments, among other activities. The article conceptualizes the linkages between organizational arrangements, policy or problem-solving paradigms, and discourses, and identifies those institutional configurations conducive to relative stability, or to paradigmatic and discursive shifts and institutional transformation.
|
|
| 37. |
|
|
| 38. |
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
|
|
| 41. |
- Burns, Tom R, 1937-
(author)
-
Structural Discrimination
- 2008
-
In: Identity, Belonging and Migration. - Liverpool : Liverpool University Press.
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 42. |
|
|
| 43. |
- Burns, Tom R, 1937-
(author)
-
System Theories
- 2006
-
In: Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. - Malden, Mass : Blackwell Publishing.
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 44. |
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
|
|
| 48. |
|
|
| 49. |
|
|
| 50. |
|
|
