Listen Now

It is estimated that around a fifth of people working in the UK today are disabled in some way. Many of these people report feeling that their employers do a poor job at accommodating their requirements to make their workplaces more inclusive.  Yet the 2010 Equality Act was designed to protect disabled people from ‘discrimination or disadvantage’ in work by placing a legal responsibility on employers to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to accommodate their disabled workers' needs.  So why is this discrimination still occurring? Is the Equality Act still fit for purpose? And what can be done to improve the situation? To discuss these questions and the launch of their new report, Uncovering Politics is joined by two members of the UCL Department of Political Science: Dr Sarabajaya Kumar, Lecturer in Voluntary Sector Policy and Leadership; and Dr Colin Provost, Associate Professor of Public Policy. Mentioned in this episode: S. Kumar., & C. Provost., Ableism and the Labour Market (The Association of Disabled Professionals: 2022)

‘It’s the economy, stupid’. That, famously, was one of the organising principles of Bill Clinton’s campaign for the US presidency in 1992. Thirty years on, amidst a cost of living crisis, economic policy decisions still often dominate politics.  Some of the debates about economic policy relate to questions of fundamental values: how much weight should we place, for example, on the size of the cake or on its distribution? But other debates focus on questions of fact. Would lowering taxes today fuel inflation? Did austerity a decade ago protect the public finances by bringing spending closer to tax receipts, or harm them by shrinking the economy and thereby diminishing the tax take? So, if fundamental questions at the heart of politics are, at least in principle, answerable by experts, that raises the question of what the relationship between elected politicians and expert economists should be. The Bank of England was given independent control over monetary policy 25 years ago. So should other areas of economic policy get similar technocratic treatment? Or does political control matter? To discuss these issues, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Anna Killick, Research Fellow in the UCL Department of Political Science.  Mentioned in this episode: A. Killick., Politicians and Economic Experts: The Limits of Technocracy (Newcastle: Agenda Publishing, 2022)

It almost goes without saying that public opinion matters in a democracy, where leaders can be scrutinised in the free press and held accountable at free and fair elections. But public attitudes matter in authoritarian contexts too – as illustrated by how careful Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is being at the moment to control the media narrative around his war in Ukraine.  So, what role does public opinion play in autocracies? Can we accurately measure public opinion in such settings? And what does the evidence suggest about the state of public opinion in Russia today? To answer these questions, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Katerina Tertytchnaya, Lecturer in Comparative Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science.  Mentioned this episode: N. Buckley, K.L. Marquardt, O.J. Reuter, & K. Tertytchnaya., 'Endogenous Popularity: How Perceptions of Support Affect the Popularity of Authoritarian Regimes', Varieties of Democracy Institute  N. Buckley, K.L. Marquardt, O.J. Reuter, & K. Tertytchnaya., 'How popular is Putin, really?', Washington Post  

Uniquely, this week we are discussing both a new publication and a new institution.  The publication is a book called Out of the Ordinary: How Everyday Life Inspired a Nation and How It Can Again. This book examines the political thought of a group of writers and artists in mid-20th-century Britain, centred around Dylan Thomas, George Orwell, and J.B. Priestley. Their ideas, it argues, offer a vision for how to overcome the polarisation and alienation of our politics today. The institution is the UCL Policy Lab, which was launched earlier this week, and which seeks to bring together UCL’s top political scientists and economists with policymakers and others in order, we hope, to foster positive change. Professor Marc Stears, the author of Out of the Ordinary and the inaugural Director of the UCL Policy Lab, joins Uncovering Politics this week. Mentioned this week: M. Stears., Out of the Ordinary: How Everyday Life Inspired a Nation and How It Can Again (London: Belknap Press, 2021) The UCL Policy Lab

Displacement of civilian populations is a feature of politics in many parts of the world. War is perhaps the most familiar driver of displacement – we have seen that, of course, on a tragic scale in Ukraine in recent months. But other factors lead people to leave their homes too, including government development policies and the effects of climate change.  And displacement also has profound effects: on the people involved most directly; but also on the dynamics of conflict and of politics more broadly.  To discuss population displacement, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by two students from the Department of Political Science: Sigrid Weber and Pasan Jayasinghe. Sigrid and Pasan are currently researching population displacement for their PhDs, in Iraq and Sri Lanka respectively. Mentioned in this episode: S. Weber., 'Controlling a Moving World: Territorial Control, Displacement and the Spread of Civilian Targeting in Iraq', Unpublished PhD chapter P. Jayasinghe., 'A History of Resettlement and Electoral Administration in Sri Lanka', Unpublished PhD chapter

Climate change is perhaps the greatest challenge facing humans today. Yet politics appears to be failing to deliver the required response.  Students of politics are therefore conducting a wealth of research to understand what’s happening and what could be done better. But is that research actually doing any good? Is it contributing to better outcomes? To explore this topic, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Fergus Green, Lecturer in Political Theory and Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode: F. Green., & I. Robeyns., 'On the Merits and Limits of Nationalising the Fossil Fuel Industry', Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements F. Green., & E. Brandstedt., 'Engaged Climate Ethics', The Journal of Political Philosophy Fergus and Ingrid will be speaking about their paper tonight (Thursday 19 May), at Foyles on Charing Cross Road, London. You can get a free ticket to this event here.  

Most of the UK went to the polls last week, and the vote in Northern Ireland was perhaps particularly significant. Next year will mark 25 years since the 1998 Belfast or Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to Northern Ireland after nearly 30 years of conflict. The power-sharing arrangements established by the Agreement have brought many successes, but they are teetering on the edge of collapse. Whether a new Executive can be formed following last week’s elections is far from clear, but the consequences of failure could be severe. So can power-sharing be restored? If so, how? And how might Northern Ireland move beyond repeated collapses of devolved government and find a more stable political footing?  To explore these questions, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Alan Whysall, Honorary Senior Research Associate at the UCL Constitution Unit, and by Dr Etain Tannam, Associate Professor of International Peace Studies at Trinity College Dublin.  Mentioned in this episode: A. Whysall., 'Northern Ireland's Political Future - Challenges After the Assembly Elections: A Discussion Paper', Constitution Unit A. Whysall., 'Northern Ireland's political future: challenges after the Assembly elections', Constitution Unit Blog C.J. Kelly., & E. Tannam., 'The Belfast/Good Friday agreement's three strands have not outlived their usefulness', Constitution Unit Blog

No democracy in the world has yet achieved equal representation for women in its national parliament. So it’s important to understand what could be done to improve the situation.  One long-standing idea is that some electoral systems may be better than others in enabling fairer representation. A new article co-authored by Dr Eleanor Woodhouse, Lecturer in Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science, explores this idea. Mentioned in this episode: P. Profeta., & E. Woodhouse., 'Electoral Rules, Women's Representation and the Qualification of Politicians', Comparative Political Studies  

Climate change is – as the article we’re discussing this week puts it – ‘the quintessential long-term problem’. Action is needed to avert massive long-term harm. But the steps that are required will generate short-term costs.  Democracies are famously short-termist. Politicians who want to be re-elected don’t like imposing short-term costs on voters. So: can we design democracies better to foster longer time horizons?  To answer this question, UCL Uncovering Politics is joined by Dr Jared Finnegan, Lecturer in Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode: Jared J. Finnegan., 'Institutions, Climate Change, and the Foundations of Long-Term Policymaking', Comparative Political Studies

Some states are secular, while others are based, to a greater or lesser degree, on religion. The difference matters. Secular states are more likely to respect the diverse perspectives of their citizens and protect a range of social and political rights. So what explains variation in institutional secularism? Why did some state secularize centuries ago, while others underwent a secular shift more recently, and yet others remain religious to this day? This is one of the key questions about political development, but it has gone relatively under-studied. A new book, however, changes that. Called The Origins of Secular Institutions, it takes a sweeping view of political development across half a millennium and several continents. It combines statistical analysis with exploration of deep historical narratives. And it tells a new story about how the development of printing, the extent of censorship, and the timing of the emergence of secular movements have shaped the nature of politics around the world today. We are delighted to be joined by the author of this book, Dr Zeynep Bulutgil, who is Associate Professor in International Relations here in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode: The Origins of Secular Institutions: Ideas, Timing, and Organization (Oxford University Press)

We’re looking this week at the political role of courage. The current, dreadful conflict in Ukraine provides numerous extraordinary examples of courage: of civilians who stand up to Russian tanks; of Ukraine’s president, who remains in Kyiv despite manifest personal danger; of anti-war protesters in Russia, who take to the streets though they know they are likely to be arrested and perhaps beaten.  Courage can take many forms. So we ask what exactly it is, and what roles it can play – in times of conflict and in the context of peaceful democracy. But first, we’ll focus in on one kind of clearly courageous action in politics – the action of local peace communities in conflict-ridden societies. We’ll consider what these local peace communities are, where they can be found, and when they succeed. To explore courage and peace communities, we are joined by two PhD students here in the UCL Department of Political Science.  Dušan Rebolj studies political theory and is a member of the Political Theory research cluster. His dissertation project applies the tools of political theory to the topic of political – especially democratic – courage. Jennifer Hodge is a student of international relations who belongs to the Conflict and Change research cluster. She has created a new dataset on peace movements around the world and is using it to analyse their dynamics.

A new book out this month by our colleague Tom O’Grady begins with a remarkable quotation from a UN Special Rapporteur writing in 2018 about welfare reforms in the UK: ‘British compassion’ – the rapporteur said – ‘has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited and often callous approach apparently designed to impose a rigid order on the lives of those least capable of coping, and elevate the goal of enforcing blind compliance over a genuine concern to improve the well-being of those at the lowest economic levels of British society.’ In his book, Tom argues that, over the past 30 years, the UK’s welfare policies – meaning policies that provide relief from unemployment, poverty, and disability – have shifted from relative generosity to sometimes extreme meanness. He analyses why the change has occurred, arguing that much of the responsibility lies in the discourse of politicians and the media – most particularly, the choices about such discourse made by the Labour Party under Tony Blair in the 1990s. The book combines cutting-edge political science, careful historical reconstruction and, in its final pages, an exploration of the options for better welfare policies in the future. It’s rich in meticulous research. But it is also passionate and committed, issuing a rallying cry to politicians – especially those on the left – to do better.  And Tom’s book is our subject on this episode of UCL Uncovering Politics. We are joined by the author himself. Dr Tom O’Grady is Associate Professor in Quantitative Political Science at the UCL Department of Political Science.  And we are delighted to say that we’re also joined by Garry Lemon, Director of Policy, External Affairs, and Research at the Trussell Trust, which supports over 1,200 food banks – helping people facing poverty across the UK. Mentioned in this episode  The Transformation of British Welfare Policy, Politics, Discourse, and Public Opinion.

We talk a lot about trust – or, more often, the lack of trust – in politics. Often we’re referring to people’s trust in politicians. But social trust – our trust in the people around us – matters too.  The evidence from must countries is that social trust has been falling in recent decades. But the countries of Scandinavia have bucked that trend. Indeed, in Denmark, the survey evidence suggests that social trust has risen since 1979 by 30 percentage points. So what’s going on? What factors shape social trust? What can policymakers do to promote social trust? And has Covid shifted any of the long-term trends? Host Professor Alan Renwick is joined by Professor Peter Thisted Dinesen, Professor of Political Science in the Departments of Political Science of both UCL and the University of Copenhagen.  Mentioned in this episode: Danish Exceptionalism: Explaining the Unique Increase in Social Trust Over the Past 30 Years Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: Evidence from the Micro-Context

The fortieth anniversary of the Malvinas/Falklands War of 1982 is coming up in just a few weeks’ time. There will no doubt be many retrospectives, which, here in the UK, will focus on the actions of the British government, and whether the UK’s response would be different if anything similar took place today. But what about Argentine perspectives on the war? Why did the then Argentine government invade the islands? How was the conflict perceived in Argentina at the time, and how is it seen today? In understanding the thinking of Argentina’s rulers in 1982, can we gain insights into the calculations of authoritarian leaders who might be contemplating military action today – not least, of course, President Vladimir Putin of Russia? Host Professor Jennifer Hudson is joined by Dr Luis Schenoni, Lecturer in International Relations. His research explores the determinants of international conflict and its effects on the dynamics of state formation, particularly in Latin America.  Mentioned in this episode: Was the Malvinas/Falklands a Diversionary War? A Prospect-Theory Reinterpretation of Argentina’s Decline

How should we teach about politics? How – if at all – should teaching politics be different from teaching hard sciences, such as physics, or arts and humanities subjects, such as History or English, or indeed other social sciences, such as Economics or Sociology? The territory of politics is inherently contested, so should we embrace that contestation in our teaching or should we stick to known facts? These and many other questions are explored by a new centre within the UCL Department of Political Science called the UCL Centre for the Pedagogy of Politics. And we are delighted to be joined by two of its founders and Co-Directors in this episode. Dr Cathy Elliott is Associate Professor (Teaching) in Qualitative Methods and the Politics of Nature in the UCL Department of Political Science, as well as our Graduate Tutor. And Dr J-P Salter is Lecturer (Teaching) in Public Policy – again, in the UCL Department of Political Science – and also our Deputy Director of Education Mentioned in this episode: Poverty at the UCL Art Museum: Situated Learning in a World of Images UCL Centre for the Pedagogy of Politics twitter account

How can you best deliver effective public services? Is it better to exert top-down control over the work of bureaucrats on the ground – through targets, monitoring, and prescribed procedures – so that slacking or corruption or inconsistency can be prevented? Or can more be achieved if you free up bureaucrats to work out their own approaches, utilizing their practical knowledge and allowing their desire to do a good job to flourish? Our colleague Dr Dan Honig, who is Associate Professor of Public Policy here in the UCL Department of Political Science, argues that we have tended to get the balance wrong, with too much top-down control and not enough freedom on the ground. In two books – one of them published in 2018 by Oxford University Press and the other on its way – Dan sets out the case for a new approach. And his work is making waves not just in academia. At the end of 2021 he was announced by Apolitical as one of its hundred most influential academics in government in the world.  Mentioned in this article: Navigation by Judgment. Why and When Top-Down Management of Foreign Aid Doesn't Work Dr Dan Honig is named as one of 100 most influential academics in government by Apolitical

It’s sometimes said that we’re living through an epidemic of taking offence. We have become hyper-sensitive, the story goes, to any slight against our sense of self-worth. And a generation of so-called ‘snowflakes’ are told they just need to relax a little.  But what does it actually mean to take offence? How does feeling offended fit in alongside all the other emotions that our social interactions might invoke, such as anger, indignation, or contempt? Is taking offence really such a bad thing – or might it, at least in some circumstances, actually have positive value? Well the person who has thought about such questions more deeply than anyone else is Dr Emily McTernan, Associate Professor in Political Theory in the UCL Department of Political Science. Emily is currently finishing a book to be published by Oxford University Press called On Taking Offence, and last year a version of the first chapter was published in article form in one of the top political philosophy journals. Mentioned in this episode: Taking offense: An emotion reconsidered Why taking offence is good: small acts of resistance

Ethnic voting means voting on the basis of ethnic identity, rather than, say, policy preferences or how well or badly you think the incumbents have governed.  Ethnic and other forms of communal voting are found in many parts of the world – think, for example, of very different voting patterns between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. But ethnic voting is often thought particularly to be a feature of politics in many African countries. And such voting is also often seen as rather problematic for healthy democracy, because it can shield those in power from accountability if they govern poorly. Well a new study published last year sheds fresh light on ethnic voting in Africa. It focuses particularly on the fact that increasingly many marriages in many African countries now cross ethnic lines. And it explores the impact of such marriages on voting. One of its authors is Dr Adam Harris, Associate Professor in Development Politics in the UCL Department of Political Science and an expert on the politics of sub-Saharan Africa and he joins us for this episode. Mentioned in this episode: Electoral Preferences Among Multiethnic Voters in Africa

Now, no one would claim that the subject of contracts between governments and private sector suppliers is all that sexy. But the last two years of the Covid crisis have certainly revealed its importance. In the earliest weeks of the pandemic back in 2020, governments around the world scrambled to secure enough PPE, hospital ventilators, and Covid tests. Then there was the race to buy up vaccines. In recent weeks, shortages of testing kits have been back in the headlines. Here in the UK, vaccine purchasing is held up as exemplary, while contracting for PPE remains mired in allegations of cronyism. But controversies over government contracting are far from new. Debates about the merits – or otherwise – of the contracting out of public services and of public–private partnerships have been running for decades. And scandals over nepotism and revolving doors between the public and private sectors have been familiar for a lot longer than that. On the other hand, of course, many would say that close cooperation between governments and private sector suppliers has brought innumerable benefits. We are joined today by Dr Eleanor Woodhouse who is a Lecturer in Public Policy in the UCL Department of Political Science and an expert in, among other things, public–private partnerships. In 2021, she published (with colleagues) a book with Cambridge University Press, called Partnership Communities: Public–Private Partnerships and Non-Market Infrastructure Development Around the World. We are also joined by Alice Moore who is a PhD student in the UCL Department of Political Science. Her research investigates the role of trust and relationships in the delivery of outsourced public services and the effects on competition for public contracts and on the quality of the services provided. She’s also a Research Officer at the Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation at the London School of Economics.

Few issues in public policy are as important as the size of the state. How much should the state spend? How much, therefore, should it raise in taxes? And what exactly should it spend this money on? In a democracy, we expect policymakers to be responsive to public opinion in answering such questions. But what do the public actually want? Indeed, to what extent do most of us even have meaningful preferences that take account of unavoidable trade-offs between different priorities? Such questions have long challenged political scientists. But a new paper just published by three colleagues here in the UCL Department of Political Science offers a new approach to measuring such preferences, and some intriguing answers on what people want. Those colleagues are Lucy Barnes, Jack Blumenau, and Ben Lauderdale. And we are delighted to be joined by Dr Lucy Barnes, Associate Professor in Comparative Politics and our Deputy Head of Department, and Ben Lauderdale, Professor of Political Science and Head of Department in the UCL Department of Political Science. Mentioned in this episode: Measuring Attitudes toward Public Spending Using a Multivariate Tax Summary Experiment