Abstract
This paper presents a hyper game analysis of the Krishna waters dispute and demonstrates its potential to yield an equilibrium solution even in the face of uncertainty that may be plausible in the intent behind the apparent position taken by contending parties. The approach can accommodate the real-world conflict situation in which players conceal their negotiating strategies and develop perceptions about apparent positions that may be misperceived. The hypergame model of the conflict formulated to resolve the water-sharing dispute amongst the riparian states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India. The paper demonstrates the potential of hypergame-based conflict resolution model to yield an equilibrium solution elegantly and which appears to have attributes of a “Fair and Equitable”” allocation. Hypergame is formulated by considering the perception of one player about the other ’players’ game. All the possible perceptions are taken, and the stability analysis is carried out. The results of the stability analysis show that Fair and equitable allocation is part of the equilibrium solution. Our analysis demonstrates that the game-theoretic technique can be applied to solve any real-world conflict. Any allocation made based on “Fairness and Equity” undoubtedly lead to the equilibrium solution as seen in the present work.
Graphic abstract
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Alcalde-Unzu, M. Gómez-Rúa, E. Molis, Allocating the costs of cleaning a river: expected responsibility versus median responsibility. Int. J. Game Theory 50, 185–214 (2021)
M.T. Ashry, Finding solutions to water disputes. A report on Water and Dispute Prevention: South Perspective, Center for the Global south, The American university, Washington, DC (1998)
W.J. Baumol, Super fairness: Applications and theory. MIT Press, Massachusetts (1987)
P.G. Bennett, Towards a theory of hypergames. Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci. 5(6), 749–751 (1977)
P.G. Bennett, Hypergames: developing a model of conflict. Futures 12, 489–507 (1980b)
N.M. Fraser, K.W. Hipel, Computational techniques in conflict analysis. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2(4), 181–185 (1980)
N.M. Fraser, K.W. Hipel, Metagame analysis of the poplar river conflict. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1(5), 377–385 (1980)
N.M. Fraser, K.W. Hipel, Dynamic modeling of the Cuban missile crisis. J. Conflict Manag. Peace Sci. 6(2), 1–18 (1983)
N.M. Fraser, K.W. Hipel, Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions, Series Volume 11, North-Holland (Elsevier Publishing co., Inc, New York, 1984)
KWDT-I, Report of the Justice Bachawat Committee (Krishna Waters Dispute Tribunal, New Delhi, 1973)
KWDT-2, Report of the Justice Brijesh Kumar Committee (Krishna Waters Dispute Tribunal, New Delhi, 2013)
Nandalal, K.D.W., Simonovic, S.P. State-of-the-art report on systems analysis methods for resolution of conflicts in water resources management. IHP-VI, Technical Documents in Hydrology—PCCP series, vol. 4, 135 pages, UNESCO (2003)
Z.E. Öztürk, Fair social orderings for the sharing of international rivers: a leximin based approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 101, 102302 (2020)
D.P. Panday, Towards a Fair and Equitable Allocation of Krishna Waters. M.Tech Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT-Delhi, New Delhi (2015)
D.P. Panday, R. Khosa, R. Maheswaran et al., Game-theoretic-based modelling of Krishna waters dispute: equilibrium solutions by metagame analysis. Eur. Phys. J. B 94, 101 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00107-w
M. Perc, Phase transitions in models of human cooperation. Phys. Lett. A 380(36), 2803–2808 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53300-4
K.A. Rasinski, What is fair or is it? Values differences underlying public views about social justice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 201–211 (1987)
K. Ravikumar, R. Khosa, Fair and equitable allocations of Cauvery River waters. Water Int. 32(4), 571–588 (2007)
K. Ravikumar, Towards a Fair and Feasible Allocation of Cauvery Waters. Un-published Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Delhi, New Delhi (2008). http://eprint.iitd.ac.in/bitstream/handle/2074/6206/TH-3526.pdf?sequence =2&isAllowed=y
M.A. Takahashi, N.M. Fraser, K.W. Hipel, A procedure for analyzing hypergames. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 18, 111–122 (1984)
Acknowledgements
AA acknowledges the funding support provided by the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee through Faculty Initiation Grant number IITR/SRIC/1808/F.I.G and COPREPARE project funded by UGC and DAAD under the IGP 2020–2024. RM acknowledges the funding provided by DST under the Inspire Faculty Fellowship. DPP acknowledges the support provided by UPES under its doctoral program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Panday, D.P., Khosa, R., Maheswaran, R. et al. Game theoretic-based modelling of Krishna waters dispute: equilibrium solutions by hypergame analysis. Eur. Phys. J. B 94, 131 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00135-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjb/s10051-021-00135-6