I am interested on using the tools of Economic Theory (Game Theory in particular) to analyze relevant problems lying on the (increasingly) blurred boundaries between Economics and neighbouring social sciences.
In particular, my research interests are in traditional economic fields like Political Economy, Bargaining or Coalition formation but also on Experimental Economics and on topics emerging from Political Science or Psychology and, lately, Biology
Economic tradition has mainly considered that markets and voting are the only allocation mechanisms.
Casual observation shows that many times individuals and groups not only produce, trade or vote but also influence, appropriate or attack others in order to attain their goals: Self interested agents do choose to what extent they engage in economic and non-economic (conflict) activities.
These ideas ar not new. Sun Tzu, Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, von Clausewitz, Tolstoi or Marx tried to understand the conflictive aspect of human interactions and pointed out that any peaceful agreement must take it into account.
All this creates an important implication for Economics: In order to be stable, any agreement or allocation generated through markets or voting procedures must give to each agent at least what she could get in case of conflict. Therefore, it is evident that Economics, understood as the study of the allocation of scarce resources, must be concerned about these issues. In fact, in the last years, there has been a growing interest about them. The tools of economic analysis, like Game Theory, have been applied to the exploration of the consequences of incorporating conflict into mainstream Economics.