Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Computer Science, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

I International relations are full of complexities due to their multifaceted and multilateral nature. To understand decision making processes and the payoffs of their strategies, players are enabled to utilize their capabilities to impact the strategic decision payoffs. As an example of this decision structure we can refer to the international disputes and conflicts including the sanctions. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s interests in international arena have been influenced by the changing interests of the other stakeholders in the coalition of the United States sanction against Iran. In order to analyze and predict the equilibriums of the players positions in the complex international space of the sanctions, game theory, mechanism design, multi-agent systems, and artificial intelligent as new instruments of decision theory are utilized to resolve the transactions and processes influenced by the human decisions. In this research, a policy spectrum is defined according to the strategies of Iran, the United States of America and other stakeholder’s countries. Modeling and simulating the behavior of players on this continuous spectrum which includes two extremes of capitulation and confrontation shows that in the current situation, Iran’s equilibrium and dominated strategy is emphasizing the maintenance of the current agreement in JCPOA, although this position is in the lower range of the spectrum of the current agreement. In these sanctions there is a possibility of a tragedy of the commons. In order to prevent its occurrence, the results of this study imply that the dominant strategy, given that all the players are rational, is to preserve stability, security, and integrity of Iran as a regional power. In order to achieve a stable equilibrium of the game, the stakeholders try to maximize the social welfare function instead of individual participants’ payoff. The rational strategy of Iran is to stay in JCPOA, strengthening political ties with the European players, and to empower its own military and social securities.

Keywords

کریمی، فرناز (1395). پیامدهای اقتصاد سیاسی مذاکرات هسته­ای با رویکرد نظریه بازی­ها. (پایان‌نامه کارشناسی­ارشد). دانشکده علوم­اجتماعی­واقتصاد، دانشگاه الزهرا­(س). تهران.
مرزبان، حسین و استادزاد، علی­حسین (1394). تاثیر تحریم­های اقتصادی بر تولید و رفاه اجتماعی ایران: رهیافتی از الگوی رشد تعمیم یافته تصادفی. پژوهش­های اقتصادی ایران، دوره 20، شماره 63، 69-37.
Afesorgbor. S. K. & Mahadevan. R. (2016). The impact of economic sanctions on income inequality of target states. World Development. 83. 1-11.
Arrow. K. J. (1951). Alternative approaches to the theory of choice in risk-taking situations. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 404-437.
Beladi. H.. & Oladi. R. (2015). On smart sanctions. Economics Letters. 130. 24-27.
Black. D. (1958). The Theory on Committees and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayton. M. J. (1997). Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision‐making tasks in education. Educational Psychology. 17(4). 373-386.
Coleman. P. T. Deutsch. M. & Marcus. E. C. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Cowan. D. Brunero. S. Lamont. S. & Joyce. M. (2015). Direct care activities for assistants in nursing in inpatient mental health settings in Australia: A modified Delphi study. Collegian. 22(1). 53-60.
Dalkey. N. & Helmer. O. (1963). An experimental application of the delphi method to The use of experts. Management science. 9(3). 458-467.
Davidson. P. Merritt-Gray. M. Buchanan. J. & Noel. J. (1997). Voices from practice: Mental Health Nurses Identify Research Priorities. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing. 11(6). 340-345.
Drury. A. C. (1998). Revisiting economic sanctions reconsidered. Journal of Peace Research. 35(4): 497-509.
Dobbins. J. Solomon. R. H. Chase. M. S. Henry. R. Larrabee. F. S. Lempert. R. J. & Shatz. H. J. (2015). Choices for America in a Turbulent World: Strategic Rethink. Rand Corporation.
Eftekhari. Z. & Rahimi. S. (2014). Preana: Game theory based prediction with reinforcement learning. Natural Science. 6(13). 1108.
Fan. C. K.. & Cheng. C. L. (2006). A study to identify the training needs of life insurance sales representatives in Taiwan using the Delphi approach. International Journal of Training and Development. 10(3). 212-226.
Feder. S. A. (2002). Forecasting for policy making in the post–cold war period. Annual Review of Political Science. 5(1). 111-125.
Feder. S. (1955). Factions and policon: New ways to analyze politics. Inside CIA’s Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency’s Internal Journal. 1992. 274-292.
Goodman. C. M. (1987). The Delphi technique: A critique. Journal of advanced nursing. 12(6). 729-734.
Habibi. A. Sarafrazi. A. & Izadyar. S. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science. 3(4). 8-13.
Hogarth. R. M. (1978). A note on aggregating opinions. Organizational behavior and human performance. 21(1). 40-46.
Jesse. E. (2011). Forecasting the future of Iran: Implications for US strategy and policy. Rand Institute.
Keynes. J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment Interest and MoneyHarcourt Brace Jovanovich. New York.
Lemmer. B. (1998). Successive surveys of an expert panel: research in decision‐making with health visitors. Journal of advanced nursing. 27(3). 538-545.
Meadows. A. B. Maine. L. L. Keyes. E. K. Pearson. K. & Finstuen. K. (2005). Pharmacy Executive Leadership Issues and Associated Skills Knowledge and Abilities. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 45(1). 55-62.
Mesquita B. B. D. (1980). An expected utility theory of international conflict. American Political Science Review. 74(4). 917–931.
Mesquita. B. B. D. (1981). The war trap. Yale University Press.
Mesquita. B. B. D. (1984). Forecasting policy decisions: An expected utility approach to post-Khomeini Iran. PS: Political Science & Politics. 17(2). 226-236.
Mesquita. B. B. D. (1997). A decision making model: Its structure and form. International Interactions. 23(3-4). 235-266.
Murphy. M. K. (1998). Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline development. Health technology assessment. 2(3). 1-88.
Nephew. R. (2018). The Art of Sanctions: A View from the Field. Columbia University Press.
Neuenkirch. M.. & Neumeier. F. (2016). The impact of US sanctions on poverty. Journal of Development Economics. 121. 110-119.
Okoli. C. & Pawlowski. S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example. design considerations and applications. Information & management. 42(1). 15-29.
Peters. H. (2015). Game theory: A Multi-leveled approach. Second Edition. Springer.
Powell. C. (2003). The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of advanced nursing. 41(4). 376-382.
Somerville. J. A. (2008). Effective use of the Delphi process in research: Its characteristics. strengths. and limitations. Oregon: Corvallís.
Strasser. S. London. L. & Kortenbout. E. (2005). Developing a competence framework and evaluation tool for primary care nursing in South Africa. Education for Health. 18(2). 133-144.
Ueng. B. (2012).  Applying Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s group decision model to Taiwan’s political status: A simplified model. The Visible Hand. 23.
Von Neumann J. & Morgenstern. O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
Van Zolingen. S.J. and Klaassen. C.A. (2003). Selection processes in a Delphi study about key qualifications in senior secondary vocational education. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 70(4). 317-340.
Whang. T. (2010). Structural estimation of economic sanctions: From initiation to outcomes. Journal of Peace Research. 47(5). 561-573.