UCL Uncovering Politics

The late great sociologist and political scientist Charles Tilly said that ‘war made the state and the state made war’. Fighting and winning wars was, he argued, a crucial part of the story of how modern states built their bureaucratic capacity and their ability to do all the things that we want states to do. But this so-called ‘bellicist’ account of the origins of state capacity – seeing the modern state as rooted in war – does not go unchallenged. In particular, some critics see it as unduly Euro-centric and that it just doesn't work outside of Europe. We are joined by Dr Luis Schenoni, who has just been promoted to Associate Professor in International Relations here at the UCL Department of Political Science and who is also Director of our Security Studies Programme. In his new book, due out in July this year, Luis challenges that alternative perspective. He argues that, even in Latin America, the bellicist theory – if properly understood – does a remarkably good job in explaining outcomes. Mentioned in this episode:Luis Schenoni. Bringing War Back In. Victory, Defeat, and the State in Nineteenth-Century Latin America.

Action to address climate change is essential. But the effects of such action are often imbalanced: the benefits are diffuse and long-term, while the losses are often frontloaded and concentrated amongst certain communities. That imposes two kinds of challenge:- the idea that some people, such as workers in fossil fuel industries, might face higher costs than the rest of us seems unfair.- voters are rarely willing to accept short-term harms in return for future benefits that seem distant and uncertain.A solution to these problems may lie in compensating those who face heightened costs, for example by retraining workers in affected industries. But would these schemes overcome the political hurdles to implementing the needed long-term policies? In a world of deep distrust in political leaders, can voters be persuaded that so-called ‘just transition’ policies really will be fair?We are joined this week by Dr Fergus Green, Lecturer in Political Theory and Public Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science and Dr Diane Bolet, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Political Behaviour in the Department of Government, University of Essex. Mentioned in this episode:How to Get Coal Country to Vote for Climate Policy: The Effect of a ‘Just Transition Agreement’ on Spanish Election Results. American Political Science Review.No New Fossil Fuel Projects: The Norm We Need. Science. View the article without a paywall.

In the run up to the UK General Election we have a secial episode on opinion polls. Opinion polling is a staple of modern elections, captivating political enthusiasts with fluctuating numbers but also sparking controversy. Polls are sometimes criticized for inaccuracies, notably in the Brexit referendum and the 2016 US presidential election. Polling methods, including sampling and voter prediction, are hotly debated. The emergence of MRP polls, which accurately estimated results in the 2017 UK election, has added to the intrigue, despite producing widely varying predictions for the outcome of the current UK election. So what should we make of the polls? And how can we best interpret all the numbers to understand what’s really going on?Our guest is Prof Ben Lauderdale. Ben is Professor of Political Science here at UCL, a former Senior Data Science Advisor to the polling firm YouGov, the original brain behind the development of MRP methods and general polling guru.

Neo-colonialism concerns the actions and effects of certain remnant features and agents of the colonial era. One way in which neocolonialism can be seen is through unequal patterns of cultural goods between the Global North and Global South. Debates surrounding cultural globalization have traditionally divided proponents of free trade and cultural preservation. In this episode we are talking to two Political Scientists who's alternative account is grounded in a global application of the ideal of social equality. Citizens of privileged societies ought to regard and relate to citizens of disadvantaged societies as social equals, and patterns of cultural exchange play an important role in promoting these relationships. Historically, colonized peoples were often regarded as inferior based on perceived failures to produce cultural achievements, to the extent that unequal global cultural production and exchange persist, and the colonial pattern remains. We are delighted to be joined by Prof Alan Patten and Dr Shuk Ying Chan, who argue that the duty to relate to foreigners as equals implies that Global North countries should stop pressing for cultural trade concessions and instead favor the import of cultural goods from the Global South. Mentioned in this episode:Shuk Ying Chan and Alan Patten. (2023) What’s Wrong with Neocolonialism: The Case of Unequal Trade in Cultural Goods. American Political Science Review.

One of the most basic questions regarding any state is 'can it act?' Does it have the capacity, that is, to uphold the rule of law and to deliver security and public services? For a state has the capacity to act it needs information on its citizens. You can’t tax someone or assess their eligibility for services if you don’t know who or where they are.But states may be unable to require its citizens to provide information – it may have to rely on their wanting to do so. And that has potentially profound implications for how equitable state activities are – and therefore ultimately how the state develops and builds its legitimacy. We are joined this week by Dr Jeremy Bowles, Lecturer in Comparative Politics, expert in the political economy of development and the interaction of state-building processes with distributive politics. Mentioned in this episode;Jeremy Bowles (2024) Identifying the Rich: Registration, Taxation, and Access to the State in Tanzania. American Political Science Review

We're celebrating another inaugural lecture today and welcome the fantastic Professor Lucy Barnes. Lucy has made a career out of breaking new ground in the field of Political Economy. Economic policy clearly matters to us all. The view that the state of the economy is the primary driver of election results is often taken as a given. But we can only understand the implications of that if we understand how people actually view the economy. Do people look to their own good or to the good of society as a whole? Do they look forwards or backwards? What do they think ‘good’ means in this context in the first place?Watch Lucy's inaugural lecture on Youtube: https://youtu.be/hfK8Qd85-xMMentioned in this episode:Barnes, L. and Hicks, T. (2022) ‘Are Policy Analogies Persuasive? The Household Budget Analogy and Public Support for Austerity’, British Journal of Political Science, 52(3), pp. 1296–1314.Barnes, L. (2021) ‘Taxing the Rich: Public Preferences and Public Understanding’, Journal of European Public Policy, 29(5), pp. 787–804.

Ukraine's ongoing struggle against the Russian invasion incurs an annual cost of approximately $50 billion, with projections indicating that post-war reconstruction will require at least half a trillion dollars. Western nations, primarily the EU and the US, have assumed much of this financial burden. In February, the EU pledged 50 billion euros, while the US Congress recently approved a support package totaling $61 billion.However, the future commitment of Western governments and their citizens to continue financing Ukraine remains uncertain, potentially hinging on the outcome of the upcoming American presidential election in November.Some propose an alternative solution to ease this financial strain: seizing Russia's frozen assets, valued at around $300 billion in Western countries. These assets, withheld since the conflict began, could be permanently confiscated and the proceeds allocated towards Ukraine's ongoing war efforts or post-war reconstruction.Dr. Veronika Fikfak, an Associate Professor in International Law at UCL's Department of Political Science and an expert on the European Court of Human Rights, joins us to discuss the legal ins and outs of seizing Russian funds.Mentioned in this episode:Dr Fikfak's talk delivered to the legal adivsors of the Council of EuropeThe Council of EuropeFurther reading, from both sides of the argument:Confiscating sanctioned Russian state assets should be the last resortConfiscation of immobilized Russian state assets is moral and vital

We’re back from our Easter break, and since we were last on the airwaves a book has been published by a certain former UK Prime Minister arguing – among other things – that elected politicians are unduly constrained by unelected technocrats, and that ministers should be freed from such fetters in order to enable them better to represent the will of the people. Not least, the book argues for scrapping the UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility, which currently offers advice on the likely implications of different fiscal policy decisions.Well Liz Truss is – for better or worse – not our guest on today’s podcast. But the person who is has thought a great deal about how – and by whom – fiscal rules should be set. That person is Stefano Merlo, Associate Lecturer in the Politics of Economic Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Stefano is also currently finishing off a PhD in Political Economy and Political Theory at John Stuart Mill College in the Free University of Amsterdam. Mentioned in this episode:Stefano Merlo. 'A Republican Assessment of Independent Fiscal Institutions.' Journal of PoliticsStefano Merlo. 'A republican fiscal constitution for the EMU.' Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy

The NHS is currently in crisis: record numbers of people are on waiting lists, there are serious staff shortages, buildings and equipment are outdated, and research indicates that patient satisfaction is at rock bottom. There does not seem to be much optimism about the UK’s current health system and the NHS’s public support may be waning. Beyond clinical shortcomings, we face a string of public health challenges in the UK, including persistent health inequalities and a slowing or even halted rate of increase in life expectancy. Is there a way out of the current crisis for the NHS – and a way forwards for public health more broadly? How much should the state do to promote our health? And can a look at the values that ought to underpin public health strategies tell us how to do better? This week we are joined by Albert Weale, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy here in UCL Department of Political Science, and James Wilson, Professor of Philosophy in UCL Department of Philosophy. He is also co-director of the UCL Health Humanities Centre.Mentioned in this episode:Peter Littlejohns, David J. Hunter, Albert Weale, Jacqueline Johnson, Toslima Khatun. 2023 'Making Health Public: A Manifesto for a New Social Contract.'James Wilson. 2021 'Philosophy for Public Health and Public Policy: Beyond the Neglectful State.'James Wilson. 2023 ‘What makes a health system good? From cost-effectiveness analysis to ethical improvement in health systems.’ Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy.

Armed conflict is all too common around the world today. One of the consequences of conflict is that civilians are harmed. Military forces – if they respect basic moral and legal standards – seek to avoid those harms so far as they can. But sometimes they will fail in that. So how should armed forces and governments respond when they cause unintended harm to civilians?Well that is a question that the United States and its allies are thinking about very carefully at the moment.One of the researchers whose work is shaping that process joins us today. She is Dr Kaleigh Heard. Kaleigh has advised multiple governments and NGOs around the world. She is also Lecturer in Human Rights here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode:Kaleigh Heard. The Price of a Life: The Confluence of Strategy and Legitimacy in Civilian Harm Compensation.

Protest is a fundamental part of democracy. From thousands attending pro-Palestine marches in London, to farmers driving their tractors into Paris, Berlin, and Cardiff, to Just Stop Oil spraying UCL’s famous portico orange – protests are rarely out of the spotlight.But what do protests actually achieve? Do they affect political debate and policy outcomes?A new study sheds light on that, focusing on the impact of climate protests here in the UK on what MPs talk about – both in parliament itself and online.One of the co-authors of that article is Tom Fleming, Lecturer in British and Comparative Politics, who joins us for this episode.Mentioned in this episode:Barrie, C., Fleming, T. G., and Rowan, S. S. (2023) ‘Does Protest Influence Political Speech? Evidence from UK Climate Protest, 2017-2019’, British Journal of Political Science.

In the wake of the 1917 Russian Revolution, the new Bolshevik regime, keen to destroy the power of global capital, expropriated the commanding heights of the Russian economy and repudiated a mountain of foreign debt incurred by the Tsar. That action left thousands of international investors out of pocket. But addressing their claims proved exceptionally hard. Only in 1986, in the era of Thatcher and Gorbachev, did the British and Soviet governments finally reach a settlement. Other Western powers agreed resolutions later still.The story of this episode is fascinating in itself, but it also sheds new light on how disputes between states and international investors are resolved today. Those disputes rarely hit the headlines, however, that they can be incredibly important for all of us. How they’re resolved today is very different from in the 1980s, but the modern methods face severe criticism – not least from experts and campaigners who argue they can impede action on climate change and human rights. Lauge Poulsen joins us today. He is Professor of International Relations and Law here in the UCL Department of Political Science, is co-author of the study of the Russian case, and THE expert on disputes between states and investors. Mentioned in this episode:Eileen Denza and Lauge Poulsen. 'Settling Russia's Imperial and Baltic Debts'. American Journal of International Law.

Death threats, on the face it, appear to be exactly the sort of content that an online platform ought to censor – or ‘moderate’, as the preferred and obscuring term has it. Surely it is impermissible to threaten someone’s life and surely it is appropriate for online spaces like Facebook – or now Meta – to remove such speech. But what if the statement isn’t really an urge towards violence, nor a declaration of one’s intent to kill? Sometimes, when people make death threats, say to dictators, might that really be more of a political slogan or a form of critique? What if there is no intent behind the threat, and the target isn’t in danger? And ought online platforms care about such nuance when thinking about what to leave up and what to take down. We are joined by Jeffrey Howard, who is Associate Professor in Political Philosophy and Public Policy, and director of the Digital Speech Lab, and Sarah Fisher, a Research Fellow. Mentioned in this episode:Jeffrey Howard and Sarah Fisher. Ambiguous Threats: ‘Death-to’ Statements and the Moderation of Online Speech-Acts. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (forthcoming)

For around a decade, the EU – which was founded by the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law – has been struggling to contain anti-democratic developments in some member states. More broadly, the European Union faces a challenge of how to create unity, and yet accommodate the significant political, social, and economic diversity of its member states. Can it accommodate this diversity? And can it do so without risking being unfair or undermining its own legitimacy? Addressing these big questions is Professor Richard Bellamy, Professor of Political Science here at in the Department of Political Science and a Senior Fellow at the Hertie School in Berlin. He has recently co-authored a book on the subject, called Flexible Europe: Differentiated Integration, Fairness, and Democracy.Mentioned in this episode:Richard Bellamy. Flexible Europe: Differentiated Integration, Fairness, and Democracy.

One of the most remarkable transformations over recent decades has been the growing acceptance and celebration of LGBT+ rights. Here in the UK, for example, the proportion of respondents to the British Social Attitudes survey saying that same-sex relationships are not wrong at all has risen from just 11 per cent in 1987 to 67 per cent a generation later in 2022.Yet recent years have seen a backlash against such advances. Self-styled ‘family values’ movements have campaigned against the so-called ‘gay lobby’ or ‘gender ideology’ in many countries, often claiming threats not just to the family, but to the nation as a whole. In the UK and elsewhere, a backlash against trans rights has been especially prominent. We are joined by Phillip Ayoub, Professor of International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science. As well as marking LGBT+ History Month, this is a special inaugural episode for Prof Ayoub touching on his career journey and research influences. Mentioned in this episode:Phillip M. Ayoub and Kristina Stoeckl. The Global Fight Against LGBTI Rights: How Transnational Conservative Networks Target Sexual and Gender MinoritiesPhillip Ayoub. When States Come Out. Europe's Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility

How parliaments hold ministers (particularly prime ministers) to account is a fundamental part of parliamentary democracy. And one of those mechanisms of accountability involves asking questions. We take a good hard look at how – and how effectively – parliaments question prime ministers.We are joined by Dr Ruxandra Serban, Associate Lecturer in Democratic and Authoritarian Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Her research focusess directly on parliamentary questioning processes. Mentioned in this episode:Ruxandra Serban. Conflictual behaviour in legislatures: Exploring and explaining adversarial remarks in oral questions to prime ministers. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations.Ruxandra Serban. Is confrontational questioning bad for parliaments and democratic politics? The Constitution Unit Blog.

Peace in Northern Ireland is widely recognised as one of the leading achievements of politics in recent decades. The Good Friday, or Belfast Agreement, reached in 1998 by the British and Irish governments and most of the main Northern Ireland political parties brought an end to thirty years of violent conflict in which over three and a half thousand people were killed.It did so in part by establishing a system of power-sharing government. A new Northern Ireland Assembly would be elected by proportional representation, so no one group could dominate. Within the new Northern Ireland Executive, representatives of Northern Ireland’s two political traditions would have to work together.Over the years since the Agreement was reached, the power-sharing institutions have worked well some of the time. But for others they have worked badly or not at all. Since February 2022 their functioning has once again been suspended. Public anger at this situation is intense. Negotiations for restoring the institutions are ongoing. But, as yet, there has been no breakthrough.Indeed, the situation has become so grave that many think the future viability of power-sharing government is now in doubt. And there are suggestions that the settlement reached in 1998 may need to be revisited.In this episode we’re joined by two experts:Alan Whysall is an Honorary Senior Research Associate at the Constitution Unit here within the UCL Department of Political Science. He was previously a senior civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office, where he worked for many years on the Northern Ireland peace process – including the talks that led to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.Conor Kelly is a Research Assistant at the Constitution where he has worked on multiple projects relating to Northern Ireland, most recently examining perceptions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement among politicians and the public in Northern Ireland. Mentioned in this episode:Alan Whysall’s reports: 'Report 1: Northern Ireland's Political Future' and 'Report 2: The Agreement at 25' https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/northern-irelands-political-futureConor Kelly and Alan Renwick, Perspectives on the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement

The quality of public services – whether health, education, water supply, or sewage disposal – has a big impact on all of our lives. How to enhance that quality is therefore one of the big questions for political studies.Professor Marc Esteve is one of the leading experts on exactly that issue. We have recorded this special episode of our podcast to coincide with his inaugural lecture as Professor of Public Management here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode:Assessing the Effects of User Accountability in Contracting Out, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.Determinants Of Network Outcomes: The Impact Of Management Strategies. Public Administration.The Political Hourglass: Opportunistic Behavior in Local Government Policy Decisions. International Public Management Journal You can watch Marc's inaugural lecture on our YouTube channel, where it will be uploaded in January 2023.

Analysts of Russia’s war in Ukraine have often – since its inception in 2014 – highlighted a seeming contradiction. On the one hand, Russia is violating the sovereignty of a neighbouring state in pursuit of its own interests. On the other, Russia simultaneously condemns Western interventions in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, as well as Serbia back in 1999, on the basis that they breach the principle of non-interference in other states.So are Russian leaders just being inconsistent? Or is there more going on? Dr Kalina Zhekova, Lecturer in Political Science here in the UCL Department of Political Science, joins us for this week's episode. A specialist in Russian approaches to military intervention and state sovereignty, Kalina’s latest paper looks at elite-level Russian discourse during the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Mentioned in this episode:Kalina Zhekova (2023) The West in Russian Discourses of Sovereignty During the 2014 Ukraine Crisis: Between ‘Compatriot Protection’ and ‘Non-Interference’. Europe-Asia Studies.

Political science is centrally concerned with understanding how politics works. It’s a discipline of the present tense, and the bulk of our research focuses on gathering evidence in the here and now. But sometimes political scientists also dig into the past. From time to time, you’ll even find one of us trawling through the records in a dusty archive. We are discussing one particular ongoing example of historical research in political science - at prisoner-of-war camps in the UK in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. We are joined by:Zeynep Bulutgil,Professor in International Relations. Regular listeners may remember in episode we did with her back in 2022 on the origins of the secular state.Sam Erkiletian, a final-year PhD student who’s just about to submit his dissertation on patterns of socialization in groups of combatants. Mentioned in this episode:Bulutgil, H. Zeynep, The Origins of Secular Institutions: Ideas, Timing, and Organization.

Our guest today is Professor Lisa Vanhala. A Professor in Political Science here at UCL and an expert on the politics of climate change. Lisa recently gave her inaugural lecture: Governing the End: The Making of Climate Change Loss and Damage, offering a fascinating insight into the way that UN meetings and negotiations over climate change get framed, and how they proceed, informed by the ideas of Goffman and Bourdieu. She also examines the ways that civil society organisations engage with the law to shape policy and social change both around climate change and around equality and human rights, including in her award-winning first monograph, Making Rights a Reality? Disability Rights Activists and Legal Mobilization.Lisa joins us this week to talk about a comparative politics of climate change loss and damage. Mentioned in this episode:Lisa Vanhala, Cecilie Hestbaek. Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in UNFCCC Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics.Lisa Vanhala, Angelica Johansson, Frances Butler. Deploying an Ethnographic Sensibility to Understand Climate Change Governance: Hanging Out, Around, In, and Back. Global Environmental Politics.Lisa Vanhala. COP28: a year on from climate change funding breakthrough, poor countries eye disappointment at Dubai summit. The Conversation.Lisa's Inaugural Lecture.

Today we are examining speech acts and uptake. A central contribution from J. L. Austin has been the idea that our speech sometimes doesn’t only say things – sometimes it does things. When we speak, we don’t only convey content or information. We sometimes also - for instance - promise, name, refuse, or order: in short, our speech sometimes acts.And that has prompted a great deal of philosophical debate over when speech acts are successfully performed, and whether that depends on the effects on the audience. This might sound like an esoteric matter, but philosophers think that thinking about how – and when- speech does things has implications for what we should think of pornography, and for when people really consent to sex. Our guest today is Dr Sarah Fisher, a Research Fellow here in the department of political science on a cross-disciplinary project on the ethics of content moderation on social media and the future of free speech online, funded by UKRI. Mentioned in this episode:Sarah A. Fisher, Kathryn B. Francis & Leo Townsend (2023) An empirical investigation of intuitions about uptake, Inquiry, DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2023.2220359Langton, Rae. “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 22, no. 4, 1993, pp. 293–330. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265469 Some references suggested by Sarah for further reading: Townsend, L. and Townsend, D.L. (2020). Consultation, Consent, and the Silencing of Indigenous Communities. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 37: 781-798. DOI: 10.1111/japp.12438Townsend, L. and Lupin, D. (2021). Representation and Epistemic Violence. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 29(4): 577-594. DOI: 10.1080/09672559.2021.1997398Francis, K. B., Beaman, P., & Hansen, N. (2019). Stakes, scales, and skepticism. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy. DOI: 10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.016

The book that we’re discussing in this episode suggests that IMF funding becomes a resource held by local leaders, which those leaders can use to benefit their own supporters to the detriment of the rest of the population.The book – called IMF Lending: Partisanship, Punishment, and Protest – has two authors, and we are joined by both of them.- Dr Rod Abouharb is Associate Professor in International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science.- Dr Bernhard Reinsberg is Reader in Politics and International Relations at the University of Glasgow and also a Research Associate in Political Economy at the Centre for Business Research at the University of Cambridge. Mentioned in this episode:IMF Lending: Partisanship, Punishment, and Protest

Immigration is a hot political issue in many countries. Its economic and social costs and benefits are widely debated. The people who are most directly involved in it or affected by it are often highly vulnerable, meaning that policy debate ought to proceed with care and caution. Yet it’s often used as a political tool by one or other side, as campaigners fuel fears or animosities for their own ends.Our Migration Research Cluster is seeking to coordinate and promote evidence based work on the politics of migration and migration policy. To mark the Migration cluster’s foundation, we are joined by three of its members. Dr Alex Hartman is Associate Professor in Qualitative Research Methods. Her research focuses on the political economy of institutions in fragile states, with one strand looking particularly at the politics of forced displacement.Dr Moritz Marbach is Associate Professor in Data Science & Public Policy. He is particularly interested in how policies regulating migration affect migrants, voters and politicians.And Dr Judith Spirig is Lecturer in Political Science. Among other things, she examines the determinants and the consequences of anti-immigrant attitudes. Mentioned in this episode:Immigration and inequality: the role of politics and policies. Dominic Hangartner and Judith Spirig.

During the recent pandemic, unprecedented public spending was required to help tackle the deadly disease and minimise its economic fallout. But faced with heightened uncertainty, rapidly changing conditions, and imperfect information, fiscal transparency was perhaps not at the forefront of politicians’ minds when making important public investment and spending decisions. Post-pandemic, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, and on the edges of a recession, there is a greater desire to understand the government’s fiscal position and policies. In order to understand exactly what’s going on, a degree of fiscal transparency – which refers to the publication of information on how governments raise, spend, and manage public resources – is needed. We are joined by Dr Mike Seiferling, Assistant Professor in Public Finance here in the Department of Political Science at UCL and an expert (and former economist) at the IMF. Mike discusses the cost of non-transparency, and the importance of citizen engagement and civil society organizations in promoting fiscal transparency and accountability in government asset management. Mentioned in this episode:Seiferling, M. and Tareq, S. ‘Hiding the Losses: Fiscal Transparency and the Performance of Government Portfolios of Financial Assets’Hameed, Farhan, Fiscal Transparency and Economic Outcomes (December 2005). IMF Working Paper No. 05/225, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=888094

Many people in South Africa live in very unsatisfactory so-called ‘backyard dwellings’. But few take part in collective action to improve their lot. Why not?This puzzle centres on the broader idea known to social scientists as the ‘collective action problem’, that people often struggle to work together to achieve a common goal, leading to suboptimal outcomes. This has long been explored by scholars and is ever-present in our lives: in explanations, for example, of low voter turnout, depletion of natural resources, and foot-dragging in action to tackle climate change.Yet collective action problems can be overcome under certain conditions – think of successful strike actions or civil rights protests, or the effective management of some local shared resources. And political scientists are naturally keen to understand what these conditions are, seeking answers by analysing group dynamics in different settings. To explore these questions, we are joined by Dr Adam Harris, Associate Professor in Development Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science, and also an Associated Researcher with the Centre for Social Change at the University of Johannesburg. Mentioned in this episode:Making Demands on Government: Theorizing Determinants of Backyard Residents’ Collective Action in Cape Town, South Africa. African Studies Review

This week we welcome Dr Emily McTernan, co-host of this podcast, into the guest seat. Emily is talking about her new book, On Taking Offence. In it, she argues that taking offence is an important and often valuable response to affronts against our social standing, and that it deserves to be taken more seriously by scholars than it has been (and perhaps less seriously than it might be seen by some sections of society).Mentioned in this episode:On Taking Offence. Emily McTernan.

The soap opera of US politics rolls on. Joe Biden – the first octogenarian president – plans to run again in 2024. So too does Donald Trump, despite a series of ongoing legal cases against himBeneath this surface, serious issues are at stake, around economic and climate policies, relations between the United States and China, the future stance of the US towards the war in Ukraine, and women’s rights and abortion after Roe v. Wade was overturned. And there are major questions to ask about the health of US democracy itself. So, it’s high time we had one of our occasional reviews of the state of US politics. Joining us this week are the Co-Directors of the UCL Centre on US Politics:- Dr Julie Norman, Associate Professor (Teaching) in Politics and International Relations,- and Dr Thomas Gift, Associate Professor in Political Science, both in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode:CUSP - the UCL Centre on US Politics.

A common idea in academic theory and activism, as we start to move towards less unjust institutions, is that we need to decolonise things, from university curricula to museum collections. Following on from a brilliant event which took place last week at UCL, the UCL-Penn State Joint Conference on ‘Resisting Colonialism’, we are discussing these ideas with the three organisers. The conference ranged from discussions what to do about unpaid reparations, museum collections, and the monuments of colonisers; to decolonial approaches to immigration and theories of resistance. Joining us today to talk about some of these important ideas are:Dr Shuk Ying Chan, Assistant Professor in Political Theory in the Department of Political Science at UCL, whose book in progress examines decolonisation as an unfinished project of global justice;Dr Desiree Lim, Catherine Shultz Rein Early Career Professor and Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Penn State, whose monograph “Immigration and Social Equality” is forthcoming at OUP;and Dr Chong-Ming Lim, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Nanyang Technological University, whose published work examines, amongst other topics, uncivil political resistance, including the vandalising of commemorations. Mentioned in this episode:Vandalizing Tainted Commemorations. Chong-Ming Lim.Transforming problematic commemorations through vandalism. Chong-Ming Lim.Immigration and Social Equality. Desiree Lim.Black Skin, White Masks. Frantz Fanon.The Wretched of the Earth. Frantz Fanon.

Our guest this week is Professor Albert Weale, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy at UCL. Following an event honouring his career on his retirement, in this episode, we’re exploring Albert’s life and work as an academic.Over his career, Albert has published 20 books and more than 150 articles and book chapters on a diverse and impressive array of topics, from the politics of pollution, political legitimacy in the European Union and healthcare, to social contract theory and democracy. He has held faculty positions at Newcastle, York, UEA, Essex and, of course, for more than a decade, here at UCL.The event held in his honour had an impressive 28 speakers, discussing the prospects for practical public reason, priority setting in healthcare and the best form of social contract theory, and motivating our tackling of climate change, among many other issues. It highlighted the sheer range, depth and importance of the contributions that he has made to the field, both as a political theorist and, above all, as perhaps the leading scholar of the intersection between political theory and public policy.In this episode we’re exploring some of these contributions, looking back on a long and successful career.

Governments in many countries have powers to authorize – or not authorize – planned demonstrations. So what are the effects of such decisions? We might think the main effects are going to be on whether the demonstrations happen or not, but new research suggests that the impacts can be much subtler than that: they influence whether the demonstrators gain public support, with knock-on consequences further down the line.The research, which will shortly be published in an article in the journal World Politics, has been carried out in Russia – a country where public attitudes towards those in power are clearly of great interest at the moment. It also has implications for other autocracies. And it might at least raise questions in democracies too – not least as the UK government’s powers relating to protests are increased.We are delighted that Dr Katerina Tertytchnaya, Associate Professor in Comparative Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science, joins us to discuss this research.

In this episode we’re discussing elections, referenda, and how to fix our democracy, with none other than our long-time podcast host, Alan Renwick. In his inaugural lecture, Alan described democracy as rule for, and by, all, and suggested that the UK’s democratic system is falling short of that ideal. We discuss three suggested "fixes": electoral reform, improving citizen's access to reliable information, and the use of citizen's assemblies.One of the central commitments in Prof Alan Renwick’s work is to the importance of the citizen, and our role in the democratic process. He is a leading expert on citizens assemblies, and his fourth book, Deliberative Mini-Publics examines how these can contribute to the policy process and even revitalise democracy. Most recently, Alan’s research examines the public’s attitudes about democracy, and democratic institutions, post Brexit. Mentioned in this episode:Democracy in the UK after Brexit. The Constitution Unit, UCLDeliberative Mini-Publics: Core Design Features. Alan Renwick, Nicole Curato, David Farrell, Brigitte Geissel, Kimmo Grönlund, Patricia Mockler, Jean-Benoit Pilet, Jonathan Rose, Maija Setälä and Jane Suiter.A Citizen's Guide to Electoral Reform.

This week we welcome Professor Richard Bellamy back to the podcast. Richard has appeared twice before on the following topics: ‘Does the UK Still Have a Political Constitution’ (May 2021) and ‘Checks and Balances in Democracy’ (Oct 2020)Richard is Professor of Political Science at UCL. He is a Fellow of the British Academy and, this academic year, is also Visiting Professor of Ethics and Public Policy at the Hertie School, Berlin.Richard recently released a new paper, ‘Political Constitutionalism and Referendums: The Case of Brexit’, published in Social & Legal Studies, and a paper entitled ‘Political constitutionalism and populism’ in the Journal of Law and Society.

A special episode coinciding with this week’s International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia.It’s easy to assume that LGBTQ rights are more likely to advance in democracies than in non-democracies. Democracies are generally more open to diversity, and the countries with the strongest LGBTQ rights protection are democracies.But new work by Dr Samer Anabtawi, Lecturer in Comparative Politics here in the UCL Department of Political Science, suggests that we shouldn’t be so sure. Through detailed research in Lebanon and Tunisia, this work finds that democracy is neither a sufficient condition for rights advancement, nor – perhaps more surprisingly – a necessary one. Mentioned in this episode:‘Snatching Legal Victory: LGBTQ Rights Activism and Contestation in the Arab World’ Arab Law Quarterly

Despite Putin’s expectation of a swift victory, over one year on from his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, that country’s defenders are still fighting – and, indeed fighting back. One important area in which Ukraine has managed to stay ahead of Russia is in military technology.A new report from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change examines the role of military technology in the Russia–Ukraine war, and considers the lessons that can be learnt from it. One of the authors, Dr Melanie Garson, Associate Professor in International Conflict Resolution & International Security here in the UCL Department of Political Science, and also Acting Director of Geopolitics and Cyber Policy Lead at the Tony Blair Institute, joins us today to discuss intelligent warfare, military technology and AI. Mentioned in this episode:Software and Hard War: Building Intelligent Power for Artificially Intelligent Warfare (Nov 2022) Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

This week we welcome a special guest who has direct experience at the sharp end of politics. Charles Dunst is a former foreign correspondent who has reported from many countries around the world, who is now deputy director of research & analytics at The Asia Group – a business advisory firm based in Washington, D.C. – and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an independent and bipartisan DC-based think tank. Charles has just published a new book, Defeating the Dictators: How Democracy Can Prevail in the Age of the Strongman, in which he argues that democracies that are struggling with low public trust and poor performance might have a thing or two to learn about effective governance from the world’s more successful autocracies – most notably Singapore, but also others. Mentioned in this episode:Chales Dunst. Defeating the Dictators: How Democracy Can Prevail in the Age of the Strongman

The last seven years in British politics have been tempestuous. The turmoil has had multiple causes: Covid, Putin’s attack on Ukraine, and Trussonomics among them. But the politics of much of the period has been dominated by Brexit: by a referendum on an ever so simple question, followed by years of wrangling over what the question meant and how the answer that voters gave to it should be interpreted and implemented. Much of that contest took place in parliament. Meaningful voters, indicative votes, the Brady amendment, the Malthouse compromise, the Cooper–Letwin Bill and the legality or otherwise of prorogation – all became the stuff of prime-time television.So what should we make of that period? And what can we learn from it – about how parliament and our constitution work, and about how they should work?Well a new book recently published by Oxford University Press explores all these questions and many more. It’s called The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit. And its authors join me now. They are Meg Russell (Director of the UCL Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science) and Lisa James (Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit). Mentioned in this episode:The Parliamentary Battle Over Brexit. For 30% off please visit https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/parliamentary-battle-over-brexit

In 1998, after three decades of conflict, lasting peace was achieved in Northern Ireland through an accord variously known as the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement. The 25th anniversary of that Agreement comes next month. Though there are problems – the institutions of power-sharing government established through the Agreement are currently suspended, and pockets of paramilitary violence remain – the settlement reached a quarter of a century ago has been strikingly successful in its central aim: conflict has not returned; and contestation over Northern Ireland’s constitutional future is now conducted solely by political means. People in Northern Ireland have lived in much greater freedom and security as a result. For most people, life has got much better.Nevertheless, 30 years of conflict were always going to leave lasting legacies that would take time to heal. And research conducted in part here in UCL is exploring those legacies and comparing them with patterns found in other post-conflict societies around the world. This week we are joined by Professor Kristin Bakke and Dr Kit Rickard. Mentioned in this episode:The past, Brexit, and the future in Northern Ireland: a quasi-experiment‘Ten pound touts’: post-conflict trust and the legacy of counterinsurgency in Northern Ireland

Immigration is back near the top of the political agenda, here in the UK and elsewhere. The UK government’s so-called ‘Stop the Boats Bill’, which targets those who cross the Channel in search of asylum, is one rather extreme manifestation of the idea that you can stop unwanted migration by making it unattractive. A wider expression of the same view is the concept of ‘benefit tourism’: the idea that migrants are more likely to come if welfare benefits are higher, and that and that you can therefore reduce immigration be keeping benefits low.Now, there are clearly questions to ask about whether such ideas are morally defensible, but it’s also important to ask whether they work on their own terms. And new research carried out here at UCL casts important doubt on that. We are joined by one of the co-authors of that research, Dr Moritz Marbach, Associate Professor in Data Science & Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode:Jeremy Ferwerda, Moritz Marbach and Dominik Hangartner, ‘Do Immigrants Move to Welfare? Subnational Evidence from Switzerland’

This week, we have a slightly different kind of episode to normal. Rather than discussing an academic publication, we’ll be looking at the ideas and career of Professor Marc Stears. Marc is currently the inaugural director of the UCL policy lab, set up to break down the barriers between academic researchers and broader society. His career to date has included stints in academia at Cambridge, Oxford and Macquaire, being the Chief Speechwriter of the Labour Party, writing major speeches for Ed Milliband, the CEO of the New Economics Foundation, and the Director of the Sydney Policy Lab.Marc has some big ideas about politics and political reform. Two particularly attractive and compelling facets of Marc's work, found especially in two of his books, Out of the Ordinary and Demanding Democracy, are his optimism about the prospects for a better politics, and his vision of putting citizens at the heart of change and progress. His work offers us a faith in ordinary people, and in the possibility of a non-utopian kind of ordinary hope – and these are ideas that we discuss in this episode. Mentioned in this episode:Prof Stears' Inaugural lecture.Out of the Ordinary How Everyday Life Inspired a Nation and How It Can Again. Marc Stears.Progressives, Pluralists and the Problem of the State. Ideologies of Reform in the United States and Britain, 1909-1926. Marc Stears.Demanding Democracy. Marc Stears.

If you managed to catch our episode last week, you’ll know that we were talking about the European Court of Justice. This week we are looking at another international court – the European Court of Human Rights. This court has long been contentious in some circles in the UK. The Conservative Party’s election manifesto in 2015 pledged to ‘break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK’. In the last year, the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has repeatedly expressed her view that the UK should leave the Court’s jurisdiction.So what should we make of these arguments? What is the European Court of Human Rights, how does it function, and what does it do?Joining us to discuss these questions is Dr Veronika Fikfak, Associate Professor in International Law here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Veronika leads an ongoing research project called Human Rights Nudge. She also serves as a judge ad hoc at the European Court of Human Rights and has recently published an article examining the Court’s practices in relation to settling cases before they reach a formal court hearing. Mentioned in this episode:Veronika Fikfak. Against settlement before the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law

One of the chief stumbling blocks in negotiations over the Northern Ireland Protocol has concerned the role of the EU’s top court, the European Court of Justice, and parts of the Conservative Party are ever agitated by the quite separate European Court of Human Rights and its role in adjudicating on human rights disputes. So we have made two episodes looking at these institutions, starting with this one. We’re focusing this week on the European Court of Justice. Joining us is Dr Michal Ovádek, Lecturer in European Institutions, Politics and Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Michal has recently published an article on a 2018 European Court of Justice ruling concerning the pay of Portuguese judges. That might seem a little obscure. But it turns out that the case had important real-world impacts, and also tells us a lot about how the court operates. Mentioned in this episode:"The making of landmark rulings in the European Union: the case of national judicial independence." Michal Ovádek. Journal of European Public Policy

At first blush, it might seem obvious that praise is a good thing. It involves complimenting others on what they have done; it tends to make them feel good; and it’s a way for us to communicate insights about virtuous behaviour.But dig a little deeper and things are not always as they seem. Take an example from almost three years ago. A bright moment for many people in the first Covid lockdown was the weekly ‘clap for carers’, instigated to praise and give thanks to NHS workers and others who were on the frontline of the battle against the disease. But the weekly claps went sour. Many of the intended recipients of the praise came to resent them.So what was going on here? What makes praise sometimes inappropriate or wrong?These are some of the questions at the heart of the research of Hannah McHugh, a political philosopher currently completing her PhD in the UCL Department of Political Science. Long-time podcast listeners may remember that Hannah joined us last year to explore another aspect of her work: the role of blame in politics. We are delighted that Hannah joins us again, this time to discuss the role of praise. Mentioned in this episode:I'm not your inspiration, thank you very much. Stella Young. TEDxSydney

Two current news stories raise important questions about online speech, and how it should be regulated. First, twitter has been taken over by Elon Musk, who has slashed staff numbers, allowed previously barred users – not least, Donald Trump – to return, and pledged a new era of free speech and less regulation. Some claim that as a result, Twitter has seen a deluge of disinformation and hate speech.In the UK, meanwhile, the Online Safety Bill is making its way through parliament. This was originally intended in part to protect democracy against disinformation. But these provisions have now largely been stripped out, weakening the protections it will provide.This week we are joined by Dr Jeff Howard, Associate Professor in Political Theory here in the UCL Department of Political Science, an expert in free speech and on the ethics of online speech.

Regular listeners know that normally on this podcast we have conversations with our academic colleagues here at UCL. But this week we’re doing something a little bit different. In the first of what we hope will be an occasional series of episodes with real-world political actors, we’re discussing the state of democracy in the UK today – and what can be done about it – with the leader of a UK political party. That party is the True and Fair Party. And its leader is Gina Miller.

At a time of breakdown in our public health service, unaffordable childcare bills, and a cost of living crisis, questions over how our society should be governed, and what the state should provide, are pressing. Meanwhile, the response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the vulnerabilities in the energy and food supply chains exposed by the war in Ukraine reveal, some think, state failure to plan ahead and make provision, just in case. One person who has thought long and hard about what functions the state should exercise, and how it ought to perform them, is Albert Weale, Emeritus Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Longstanding listeners to UCL Uncovering Politics may remember an episode we did with him a couple of years ago on his major book Modern Social Contract Theory, which explored the principles that should guide decisions on the role of the state. Albert is now building on that foundation to develop a new approach to thinking about the role of the state, which he calls the ‘precautionary state’ – one that moves from ‘just in time’ systems, to a ‘just in case’ approach, with ample provision of public goods.Mentioned in this episode:Modern Social Contract Theory. Albert Weale. Oxford University Press.

It seems obvious that war harms civilian populations, not least children. But research can reveal much more about the nature and scale of those harms and perhaps also about what can be done about them.This week we’re focusing on a new study of the impact of war upon rates of infant mortality. The study is by Rod Abouharb, Associate Professor of International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science.Mentioned in this episode:Abouharb, M.R. 'War and infant mortality rates.' Journal of Human Rights.

Proposals for reform of the UK’s House of Lords are in the news. In the wake of a report by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Labour leader and – if the polls are to be believed – likely future Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said that he would abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a so-called Assembly of the Nations and Regions. This week Alan Renwick is joined by Meg Russell, Director of the UCL Constitution Unit and Professor of British and Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science. Meg is the leading expert on the House of Lords and on second chambers more broadly, having conducted research on the subject for more than two decades.Meg gives us a primer on the House of Lords and helps answer the questions: does it need reform? What is the best way of doing it?Associated reading:The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Meg RussellThe problem(s) of House of Lords appointments. Meg Russell

The transformation of LGBT+ lives in many societies has been one of the greatest advances of the last half century. Where previously there was criminalization and ostracism, today – often – there is inclusion and celebration. But this has not happened equally everywhere, or for all LGBT+ people. And in some places, and on some issues, there are strong counter-movements.This week we are joined by one of our newest colleagues at the UCL Department of Political Science: Phillip Ayoub, Professor of International Relations.Mentioned in this episode:When States Come Out. Europe's Sexual Minorities and the Politics of Visibility. Cambridge University Press.

Human rights atrocities make headlines around the world and are usually followed by a national and international debate over how the perpetrators should be punished, and how these events might be prevented in the future. The government of the country where such human rights violations take place often comes under intense criticism and is pressured into creating processes of enquiry or passing legislation. And yet, often, little seems to change on the ground, and victims of human rights violations are rarely, if ever, are satisfied with the outcome. This begs the question: what is the point of these international calls for justice, if justice is rarely forthcoming? A new book dealing with these questions and the contradictions in the international human rights order was released this year. Its author is Dr Kate Cronin-Furman, Associate Professor in the UCL Department of Political Science.Mentioned in this episode:Hypocrisy and Human Rights: Resisting Accountability for Mass Atrocities. Cornell University Press.