UCL Uncovering Politics

How does private hosting affect refugee integration? In the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, around six million displaced Ukrainians sought refuge across Europe. As public reception centres faced mounting pressure, private hosting emerged as a large-scale response, with ordinary citizens opening their homes to refugees.

In this episode, we explore whether private hosting is an effective policy option for supporting refugee integration. Drawing on new research using data from a German platform that matched Ukrainian refugees with volunteer hosts, we examine where private hosting makes a difference in refugees’ lives, where its benefits may be more limited, and what the findings mean for refugee reception policies.

Joining us is Dr Moritz Marbach, Associate Professor in Data Science and Public Policy at UCL’s Department of Political Science and co-author of the study.

Mentioned in this episode:

• 'The impact of private hosting on the integration of Ukrainian refugees in Germany', in Nature Human Behaviour.

In this episode, host Alan Renwick explores the principles of democracy and how political institutions might be organised to deliver more effectively on democratic values.

Our guest is Claudia Landwehr, Professor of Political Theory and Public Policy at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, who recently visited UCL to work on a book addressing these fundamental questions.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Democracy for Real People: Institutional Design for Equal Deliberative Responsiveness by Claudia Landwehr and Armin Schäfer. Forthcoming.

In this episode of UCL Uncovering Politics, our new co-host Dr Julia de Romémont explores how elected policymakers approach decisions about public service delivery, and whether their preferences reflect the public interest or their own electoral incentives.

Previous research suggests that financial pressures can encourage greater private-sector involvement, while policymakers are more likely to claim credit for services when the government’s role in delivery is clear. But what drives individual policymakers’ preferences when choosing between different delivery arrangements?

Julia is joined by Dr Eleanor Woodhouse, Associate Professor in Public Policy in UCL’s Department of Political Science, to discuss a survey experiment with local policymakers in the United States. The study examines how different models of service delivery, public, private and public–private partnerships, shape policymakers’ expectations of service performance and their ability to claim credit.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Policymakers' Preferences Over Public–Private Modes of Service Delivery and Credit-Claiming: Experimental Evidence, by Eleanor Woodhouse, Paolo Belardinelli and Nathan Lee.

In democratic countries, foreign policy is often assumed to be shaped, at least in part, by public preferences. But that raises an important question: do policymakers have an accurate understanding of public opinion?

Research on domestic policy suggests that political elites can significantly misjudge what the public thinks, despite the abundance of polling and other sources of information available to them. But until recently, we have known much less about whether the same problem applies to foreign policy.

In this episode, we explore new research examining both American public opinion on foreign policy and policymakers’ perceptions of that opinion. The findings offer new insights into the relationship between citizens and political elites — and into how misunderstandings about public preferences might shape foreign policy decisions.

Joining us is Dr Jonathan Monten, Associate Professor in Political Science at the UCL Department of Political Science and co-author of the study.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Kertzer JD, Busby J, Monten J, Tama J, Kafura C. Elite Misperceptions in Foreign Policy. British Journal of Political Science. 

Six prime ministers, a Brexit referendum, and an (unlawful) prorogation of parliament — it has been an extraordinary decade to lead the UCL Constitution Unit. Meg Russell steps back from that role and joins host Emily McTernan to reflect on a career spanning nearly three decades, from advising Robin Cook as Leader of the House of Commons to shaping parliamentary reform from the outside. Along the way, they discuss what this turbulent period reveals about the fragility of British democracy, the erosion of constitutional norms, and who is ultimately responsible for protecting our political system.

Mentioned in this episode:

Parading — when members of the unionist community march to commemorate historical events such as the 1690 Battle of the Boyne — is one of the most visible expressions of Northern Ireland's deep social divisions. But does it actually inflame tensions between communities?

A new study examines parading as a "contentious ritual", using survey data, interviews, and participant observation to find out. The results offer fresh insight into identity, conflict, and inter-group relations in a divided society.

Joining host Alan Renwick are three of the article's authors: Kristin Bakke, Kit Rickard, and Giovanni Hollenweger.

Mentioned in this episode:

Good policy depends on evidence, but the statistical methods behind the best research are complex and few policy-makers can master them in depth. So how do we equip people to engage critically with research without being trained statisticians?

A new module on UCL's Masters programmes tackles exactly this, teaching students to think rigorously about what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from research - from measurement and causal inference to the gap between credibility and real-world meaningfulness.

Host Alan Renwick is joined by the module's creator, Dr Julia de Romémont, Lecturer in Quantitative Research Methods and Political Science at the UCL Department of Political Science.

Social media has a content problem. Some posts incite violence or hatred; others spread misinformation or promote self-harm. The instinctive response is removal, but is that always the right tool?

A new paper argues that platforms should often demote rather than remove problematic content, reducing its visibility rather than taking it down entirely. Drawing on international human rights law, it sets out a framework for when demotion is justified, when removal goes too far, and what transparency obligations platforms owe their users. The argument has implications for everything from climate misinformation to eating disorder content to the regulation of use of social media by under 16s.

Joining host Emily McTernan is Jeff Howard, Professor of Political Philosophy and Public Policy at the UCL Department of Political Science and the founding Director of the Digital Speech Lab.

Mentioned in this episode:

Courts are supposed to treat like cases alike. But research consistently finds that judges' backgrounds and beliefs can influence their decisions. Most research focuses on courts where individual votes are public, but what about in systems where only a collective judgment is published?

A new study uses innovative statistical analysis of Swiss court data to shed light on exactly this problem, with implications for how judicial institutions everywhere should be designed.

Joining host Alan Renwick are two of the study's authors, both from the UCL Department of Political Science: Ben Lauderdale, Professor of Political Science, and Judith Spirig, Associate Professor of Political Science.

Mentioned in this episode:

Transparency is seen as a hallmark of democracy, yet some authoritarian states have real open government policies too. Why? New research suggests a striking answer: transparency may help non-democratic regimes maintain stability, by steering citizens towards official channels and away from protest.

Joining host Alan Renwick is Dr Handi Li, Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the UCL Department of Political Science, whose research tests this idea in China and finds clear supporting evidence

Mentioned in this episode: