The outcomes of international sustainable development negotiations, such as those on climate change or trade, are critical and analysts are keen to know which negotiating processes produce favourable results. Despite years of research, however, there is still much to know. One of the un-resolved assumptions was that problem-solving processes more often lead to win-win situations as compared to bargaining processes. Now that assumption has been tested and the findings published in a new book by IISD's Lynn Wagner.   

 "Problem-solving and Bargaining in International Negotiations" uses new empirical analysis of international negotiations to confirm that negotiations using more problem-solving approaches are linked to integrative outcomes. Problem-solving behaviour includes developing conceptual formulas and framing issues in terms of shared values among negotiators. Alternatively, bargaining behaviour "emphasizes negotiators' use of procedures to extract concessions and movement from their original, incompatible positions," leading to compromise outcomes.

Even though the thirteen cases studies in the book focused on non-environmental negotiations, the research is applicable across negotiation processes. One key insight is that problem-solving approaches usually come from the parties with less negotiating power; the onus is on them, but the opportunity is there to search for outcomes that will satisfy all negotiators' needs. With multiple countries participating in environmental negotiations, the complexity of exchanging information, a critical problem-solving behaviour that can help negotiators identify integrative options, increases. In these situations, the multi-lateral environmental agreements' scientific bodies' role in exploring and framing the issues to be negotiated may set the tone for the search for win-win alternatives through problem-solving behaviours. Moreover, this has implications for multi-lateral environmental agreement implementation. As Lynn notes, integrative outcomes are "expected to satisfy all negotiators, which should increase the degree of implementation as well as the agreement's stability."

Lynn is continuing to do research on this topic. She is currently applying the case studies to determine relationships between problem-solving and bargaining processes, justice and outcome durability.

Publishing and Ordering Information:  http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=210&pid=27842

Citation

Wagner, Lynn M. (2008) Problem-solving and Bargaining in International Negotiations. International Negotiation Series. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 175p.

Abstract: Many analysts theorize that negotiation processes determine negotiated outcomes, but none have empirically tested this hypothesis across multiple cases of international negotiation. This book examines the process-outcome relationship in thirteen bilateral and multilateral negotiations involving the United States. Declassified reports from U.S. negotiators about discussions with their counterparts provide the primary data source through which the author constructs the case studies and performs a content analysis of negotiator statements to compare process and outcome. The book seeks to advance our understanding of the relationship between negotiation process and outcome as well as to provide empirically-based guidance for decision makers when selecting a negotiating approach.

Published and related research:

Wagner, Lynn M. and Deborah Davenport. (forthcoming)  "Earth Negotiations from a Comfy Couch: International Environmental Policy Impasses and Creative Dispute Resolution Processes"

Abstract.  Organizers of international environmental negotiations have recently employed creative dispute resolution processes in several negotiating fora. To facilitate negotiations in the UN Forum on Forests on the question of whether the international community should pursue negotiations on a legally binding agreement for forests, for example, negotiators met in resort-type settings to informally discuss the issues several months prior to official negotiating sessions. Likewise, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change moved the discussion of several issues, including future obligations for emission reductions, to informal "workshops" and "dialogues," even using a ballroom full of round tables and comfy armchairs for the presenters to take the negotiators' minds off the official negotiating positions they represent. Meanwhile, the chair of the final negotiating session for the Biosafety Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity had negotiating groups draw color-coded teddy bears named for various virtues to determine the speaking order, among other unusual techniques, to build trust among negotiators and keep their focus on shared goals. We examine these cases in an effort to understand better how these Track II-type conflict resolution methods have been and can be integrated into ongoing negotiations.

Chasek, Pamela and Lynn Wagner. (2008) "Putting The Practical Negotiator to the Test: Two examinations of the formula-details proposition." In Conflict Management and African Politics: Ripeness, Bargaining, and Mediation, eds. Terrence Lyons and Gilbert Khadiagala. Abingdon: Routledge..

Abstract. In The Practical Negotiator (1982), I. William Zartman and Maureen R. Berman lay out a type of phased process analysis that examines behavior during the different phases or stages in negotiations using what they call a three-stage approach: "diagnosis-formula-details". This innovation was aimed at clarifying "the nature of the process of negotiation" (1982, 9), by identifying stages of negotiation and the different types of problems and behaviors associated with each stage. The Chasek and Wagner paper describes evidence of a diagnosis-formula-details progression in each of two sets of thirteen case studies and elaborates on factors that influence the relationship between process and outcome in international negotiations. Both studies also address the importance of early negotiation stages on later stages and outcome. One study focuses more on initial procedural decisions and their implications during the diagnosis phase, while the other study suggests that discussions of needs and alternatives should extend beyond the diagnosis phase if the outcome is to integrate the needs of the negotiating parties. 

Wagner, Lynn M. (2007) North-South Divisions in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Negotiating the Private Sector's Role in Three Rio Agreements. International Negotiation 12: 83-109.

Abstract.  This paper analyzes negotiations in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention to Combat Desertification to develop a better understanding of the divisions between delegates from the North and the South in these talks.  It focuses on discussions related to technology transfer from North to South. These transfers and the financial flows that the private sector could bring with it are closely related to what many believed was a bargain reached in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit between developed and developing countries.  During subsequent negotiations, delegates from developed and developing countries have followed a fairly predictable "script" on these issues: developed countries generally insist that the private sector, as the owner of the technology, must be involved in its transfer, while developing countries have insisted that developed country governments should honor their past commitments and promote the transfers.  This study describes the script as it has developed under the three Rio bodies, examines variables that have contributed to the development of the script and, based on this analysis, identifies opportunities to move the talks forward.

Wagner, Lynn M. (1999) Negotiations in the UN Commission on Sustainable Development: Coalitions, Processes and Outcomes.  International Negotiation 4, 2: 107-131.

Abstract. This research examines state coalitions' negotiation processes during four sessions of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). It asks whether coalition type affects the negotiation process and whether process affects the negotiated outcome. Negotiation analysts expect convergent bargaining behaviors to lead to compromises between negotiators' positions and problem solving behaviors to lead to the integration of these positions, with the latter assumed to be the superior outcome. The CSD negotiations offer an empirical test of these hypotheses, as well as hypotheses regarding expected negotiation processes for different coalition types. The study uses data gathered by the author at CSD sessions in 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1998 and finds support for the process-outcome hypotheses. The examination also provides a basis from which to offer lessons for future CSD sessions. The paper explores how changes in process timing, third party roles, and issue framing could encourage a problem solving process and integrative decisions at the CSD.

Lynn's bio: http://www.iisd.org/about/staffbio.aspx?id=350