Talk:Two-level game theory

Game theory Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled edit

In my opinion, and as it is stated by Robert Putman in his article "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level-games" in his book "International Organization" (1988) win-sets are: "the set of all level I agreements that would "win" - that is gain the necessary majority among the [Level II] constituents" whereas Level I is the international level and Level II is the domestic level. Therefore, that is, the win-set actually is larger than those agreements both levels actually agree on. It is everything which on the international level is supposed to be approven by on the national level. But when the win-set is formed, it is yet not known whether the national level will actually agree on the ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.202.75 (talk • contribs) 22 June 2005 (UTC)

Double game? edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

we have one link to double game. Is it same as two-level game (theory)?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic