Every effort to push a reform through creates conflict between stakeholders — most sharply between the reformists and those invested in the status quo. Where that conflict goes unmanaged, the reform does not simply stall. It can produce a serious setback, leaving the field worse than the starting position.
The premise
Understanding the nature of conflict inside a reform is therefore a prerequisite to getting the reform done at all. CICERO treats this as a structural problem rather than a question of political will: who holds a veto, what each party stands to lose, what sequence of moves makes opposition rational, and where the payoff structure can be altered.
The goal
To produce a working model that explains the conflicts arising during a reform agenda — and a practical means of navigating them.
Method
The track combines legal analysis, game-theoretic modelling of stakeholder incentives, and quantitative case reconstruction. Its research team pairs legal analysts with economists working in game theory and data scientists building the underlying conflict maps.
Conflicts are not driven by ideological difference alone, but by structural incentives, resource allocation, and rational utility maximisation.