What Makes a Good Compromise?

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 comprom...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Government and opposition (London) 2012-07, Vol.47 (3), p.466-480
1. Verfasser: Van Parijs, Philippe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 480
container_issue 3
container_start_page 466
container_title Government and opposition (London)
container_volume 47
creator Van Parijs, Philippe
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2012.01371.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1074656532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26350276</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26350276</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-dfe027c6465c44788cb85f11be02a89a9441b91e7ccacc58c313600ea81c93c03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UE1PwzAMjRBIlMFPmNQjl5Y43z0hNMFAGuICgluUZqlYaclIOmn8-6UUzRfL9nvP9kMoB1xCipu2BCZlITGnJcFASgxUQrk_QdlxcIoyjEEWhMuPc3QRY5tKykSVofn7pxnyZ_PlYm7ypffrfOH7bfD9JrrbS3TWmC66q_88Q28P96-Lx2L1snxa3K0KS4ENxbpxmEgrmOCWMamUrRVvAOrUNqoyFWNQV-CktcZarhKLCoydUWArajGdoetJNy3-2bk46LTeuq4z387vogYsk7bglCSomqA2-BiDa_Q2bHoTfhNIj47oVo-P6_FxPTqi_xzR-0SdT9Q2Dj4ceURQns4X9ABLFFv1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1074656532</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What Makes a Good Compromise?</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Full Collection</source><creator>Van Parijs, Philippe</creator><creatorcontrib>Van Parijs, Philippe</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0017-257X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-7053</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2012.01371.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Blackwell Publishing</publisher><subject>Arbitration ; Balance of power ; Calvinism ; Compromises ; Conceptualization ; Conflict ; Consensus ; Fairness ; Justice ; Liberalism ; Pareto efficiency ; Parties ; Political parties ; Universities</subject><ispartof>Government and opposition (London), 2012-07, Vol.47 (3), p.466-480</ispartof><rights>The Author 2012. Government and Opposition © 2012 Government and Opposition Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-dfe027c6465c44788cb85f11be02a89a9441b91e7ccacc58c313600ea81c93c03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-dfe027c6465c44788cb85f11be02a89a9441b91e7ccacc58c313600ea81c93c03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26350276$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26350276$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,57995,58228</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Van Parijs, Philippe</creatorcontrib><title>What Makes a Good Compromise?</title><title>Government and opposition (London)</title><description>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.</description><subject>Arbitration</subject><subject>Balance of power</subject><subject>Calvinism</subject><subject>Compromises</subject><subject>Conceptualization</subject><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Consensus</subject><subject>Fairness</subject><subject>Justice</subject><subject>Liberalism</subject><subject>Pareto efficiency</subject><subject>Parties</subject><subject>Political parties</subject><subject>Universities</subject><issn>0017-257X</issn><issn>1477-7053</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9UE1PwzAMjRBIlMFPmNQjl5Y43z0hNMFAGuICgluUZqlYaclIOmn8-6UUzRfL9nvP9kMoB1xCipu2BCZlITGnJcFASgxUQrk_QdlxcIoyjEEWhMuPc3QRY5tKykSVofn7pxnyZ_PlYm7ypffrfOH7bfD9JrrbS3TWmC66q_88Q28P96-Lx2L1snxa3K0KS4ENxbpxmEgrmOCWMamUrRVvAOrUNqoyFWNQV-CktcZarhKLCoydUWArajGdoetJNy3-2bk46LTeuq4z387vogYsk7bglCSomqA2-BiDa_Q2bHoTfhNIj47oVo-P6_FxPTqi_xzR-0SdT9Q2Dj4ceURQns4X9ABLFFv1</recordid><startdate>20120701</startdate><enddate>20120701</enddate><creator>Van Parijs, Philippe</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120701</creationdate><title>What Makes a Good Compromise?</title><author>Van Parijs, Philippe</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-dfe027c6465c44788cb85f11be02a89a9441b91e7ccacc58c313600ea81c93c03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Arbitration</topic><topic>Balance of power</topic><topic>Calvinism</topic><topic>Compromises</topic><topic>Conceptualization</topic><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Consensus</topic><topic>Fairness</topic><topic>Justice</topic><topic>Liberalism</topic><topic>Pareto efficiency</topic><topic>Parties</topic><topic>Political parties</topic><topic>Universities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Van Parijs, Philippe</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Government and opposition (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Van Parijs, Philippe</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What Makes a Good Compromise?</atitle><jtitle>Government and opposition (London)</jtitle><date>2012-07-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>466</spage><epage>480</epage><pages>466-480</pages><issn>0017-257X</issn><eissn>1477-7053</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><pub>Blackwell Publishing</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1477-7053.2012.01371.x</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0017-257X
ispartof Government and opposition (London), 2012-07, Vol.47 (3), p.466-480
issn 0017-257X
1477-7053
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1074656532
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge University Press Journals; Wiley-Blackwell Full Collection
subjects Arbitration
Balance of power
Calvinism
Compromises
Conceptualization
Conflict
Consensus
Fairness
Justice
Liberalism
Pareto efficiency
Parties
Political parties
Universities
title What Makes a Good Compromise?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T21%3A27%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20Makes%20a%20Good%20Compromise?&rft.jtitle=Government%20and%20opposition%20(London)&rft.au=Van%20Parijs,%20Philippe&rft.date=2012-07-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=466&rft.epage=480&rft.pages=466-480&rft.issn=0017-257X&rft.eissn=1477-7053&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2012.01371.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26350276%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1074656532&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26350276&rfr_iscdi=true