Framing the Game: Objections to Bapat’s Game-Theoretic Modeling of the Afghan Surge

In a recently published article in the prestigious journal Foreign Policy Analysis, Navin A. Bapat uses a rationalist approach to explain key bargaining processes related to the Afghanistan conflict, concluding that “the Afghan mission may continue for political reasons until it is impossible to sustain militarily.” The article captures the essence of the strategic situation in Afghanistan: the losing dynamic involved. This brief commentary in response is an attempt to shed light on where the tenets of Bapat’s game-theoretic model may be erroneous, even while the model does produce conclusions that appear valid overall.

Első- és másodfajú etikai kudarcok (Type I and type II ethical errors)

A cikkben a szerző a piac és a kormányzat kudarcaiból kiindulva azonosítja a közjó elérését célzó harmadik rendszer, az etikai felelősség kudarcait. Statisztikai analógiát használva elsőfajú kudarcként azonosítja, mikor az etikát nem veszik figyelembe, pedig szükség van rá. Ugyanakkor másodfajú kudarcként kezeli az etika profitnövelést célzó használatát, mely megtéveszti az érintetteteket, így még szélesebb utat enged az opportunista üzleti tevékenységnek. Meglátása szerint a három rendszer egymást nemcsak kiegészíti, de kölcsönösen korrigálja is. Ez az elsőfajú kudarc esetében általánosabb, a másodfajú kudarc megoldásához azonban a gazdasági élet alapvetéseinek átfogalmazására, az önérdek és az egydimenziós teljesítményértékelés helyett egy új, holisztikusabb szemléletű közgazdaságra van szükség. _______ In the article the author identifies the errors of ethical responsibility. That is the third system to attain common good, but have similar failures like the other two: the hands of the market and the government. Using statistical analogy the author identifies Type I error when ethics are not considered but it should be (null hypothesis is rejected however it’s true). She treats the usage of ethics to extend profit as Type II error. This misleads the stakeholders and makes room for opportunistic behaviour in business (null hypothesis is accepted in turn it’s false). In her opinion the three systems: the hand of the market, the government and the ethical management not only amend but interdependently correct each other. In the case of Type I error it is more general. Nevertheless to solve the Type II error we have to redefine the core principles of business. We need a more holistic approach in economics instead of self-interest and one-dimensional interpretation of value.

Ethical decision making

The self-centeredness of modern organizations leads to environmental destruction and human deprivation. The principle of responsibility developed by Hans Jonas requires caring for the beings affected by our decisions and actions. Ethical decision-making creates a synthesis of reverence for ethical norms, rationality in goal achievement, and respect for the stakeholders. The maximin rule selects the "least worst alternative" in the multidimensional decision space of deontological, goal-achievement and stakeholder values. The ethical decision-maker can be characterized as having the ability to take multiple perspectives and make appropriate balance across diverse value dimensions. Modern organizations should develop a critical sensitivity to and empathy toward human and non-human beings with which they share a common environment.

A fair tax (system) or an ethical taxpayer?

An interpretation of fairness based on the equal sacrifice principle is not clear; three taxation rules can be derived from it. Instead of searching for a fair tax system, ethical behavior of the taxpayer should be expected and set as a target. Ethical taxation can be encouraged and the propensity to pay taxes could be reinforced by abolishing the secrecy of individual and family tax returns, setting restrictions on cash operations which are associated with corruption, and gradually eliminating tax havens and offshore areas.