Image 1

Bridgeton's Polluted Waters

×
×
Price:
$0.00
Quantity:
Quantity:

Educator Access
A review copy of this case is available free of charge to educators and trainers. Please create an account or sign in to gain access to this material.

Permission to Reprint
Each purchase of this product entitles the buyer to one digital file and use. If you intend to distribute, teach, or share this item, you must purchase permission for each individual who will be given access. Learn more about purchasing permission to reprint.

  • Product Description

    Abstract:
    This exercise consists of a negotiation between Rep. Roberts [R-TN] and Rep. Duffy [D-MO], the chair and ranking members, respectively, of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. A major bill, the Water Infrastructure Bill of 2025 (WIB), with majority support from both the Republican and Democratic caucuses, cannot proceed until an agreement is reached on Duffy’s demand to attach to the WIB a bill for a new regional drinking water supply program to deal with polluted water in Duffy’s district. As the Chair and Ranking Members, Roberts and Duffy have the responsibility of finding a resolution to the issue.

    Learning Objective:
    In this simulation there is no zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) unless one of the parties ignores their key needs or unless the parties reluctantly share their underlying needs and interests. Armed with this information, the parties can creatively explore ways to satisfy these interests while satisfying the key needs of for each party. This exercise supports the introduction of interest-based negotiation, the differences between interest-based and positional bargaining, how to help elicit underlying interests of parties, and the potential risks of revealing these interests. This exercise can be debriefed to illuminate concepts such as the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) and focusing on interests to create mutually beneficial options.

    This exercise is designed for traditional classroom teaching and executive education, and for students with and without experience in legislative negotiation.

    (120-150 minutes to teach)

  • Other Details

    Publication Date: January 14, 2019
    Teaching Plan: Available with Educator Access
    HKS Case Number: 2143.0
    Case Author: Stephen Goldberg, Thomas H. Sander, Bettina Poirier, Ted Illston
    Faculty Lead: Stephen Goldberg
    Pages (incl. exhibits): 3
    Setting: United States
    Language: English
    Funding Source: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
    _year: 2018-2019
    _pages: 1-10
    _geography: US & Canada
  • Warranty Information

    /teachingplan/2143_2.zip

×
×