This thesis contains three chapters exploring the implications of strategically biased information on political outcomes. The first chapter studies how a politically motivated media outlet misreports information in order to endorse its preferred candidate during an election. The task of identifying the reporting strategy through which an interested outlet can influence the decision of voters is non-trivial as there are many ways in which this can be done. I show that there is only one plausible equilibrium, where the media outlet ``pools'' information in a way that sways the decision of the median voter -- and therefore of a majority of electors. The second chapter investigates how media bias skews electoral competition and produces distortions in the process of policy formation. I develop a model of communication with endogenous policy-making. Candidates running for office know that information passes through the lens of an interested media outlet before reaching the electorate. This generates tension between pandering to the voter with a populist policy, or pleasing the outlet with a biased policy. I show that the implications of media bias are not confined to distortions of the voters' choice at the ballot box, but they propagate back to the process of policy-making. In the third chapter, I study to what extent competing forces in the market for news are beneficial for voters. I explore a model where (i) media outlets compete for influence by providing alternative views of the same stories, and (ii) relevant information spreads quickly, and eventually voters listen to all viewpoints. In equilibrium, both media outlets reveal their private information with positive probability, and misreport otherwise. I find that even though competition triggers more news distortions, it always outperforms monopoly: ``diversity of opinion'' has a value independently of the additional media outlet's bias -- even if it is extremely biased.

This thesis addresses the question of how structural and perceived privilege impact on political participation in the United Kingdom. In doing so it adopts the causal propositions of the Civic Voluntarism Model as its starting point and adds Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of economic, social, and cultural capital, which are argued to encompass structural privilege. Perception of privilege is posited to be constituted by self-perceived status, explanations for that status, and explanations for status differences in society. Subsequent politically relevant components are perceptions of the difference and privilege of politically active people. Thus, the thesis proposes a model running from background characteristics through capital profiles to perception of privilege and thence political engagement and participation. An original survey covering these areas was designed and fielded online to a representative sample of 1,480 British adults. The resultant data is analysed using structural equation modelling, which allows for the simultaneous estimation of underlying tendencies and the structural relationship between them. The results of that model generally support the causal hypotheses of the research, as well as providing evidence of the impact of the three forms of capital and perception of privilege. In particular, a strong positive effect of legitimate cultural capital is observed and found to be more important in influencing political participation than the previously observed effects of social and economic capital. In addition, perception of privilege is found to promote participation and to channel people towards individualised political activities, especially where they subscribe to the fundamental attribution error. These effects are as hypothesised and confirm the role of both structural and perceived privilege in influencing political participation in the United Kingdom.

Migration is a political issue that has received more attention in recent years. Many questions remain as to how Western societies can successfully absorb migrants- economic arguments have largely been in favour of migration, but the social impact of diversity in previously homogeneous societies has been subject to ongoing debates in social science. Migrant societies are complex social systems with many interacting moving parts. How do rapid migration-changes in society affect the hosts? How do norms of tolerance towards minorities hold up when intergroup con icts emerge? Can segregating behaviour of different population groups be reduced by encouraging different settlement locations for new migrants? The questions address both the physical aspect of migrants entering an already populated space, and the social dimension in which the hosts are adapting their attitudes. I develop a Schelling model using Agent-based modelling to address these questions. I introduce the concept of external migration into an existing society and test how, by varying the kind of migration, introducing diversity affects local tolerance. In the second chapter, I show that large-scale migration results in short-term shocks to the populace, but that these effects are heavily dependent on the population density and how large the native majority is. In Chapter 3 I implement a version of the `contact hypothesis' which stipulates that contact with out-group members increases tolerance and I show that the adaptability increases the importance of native majorities further. In the fourth chapter, I move on to the social norms of tolerance, introducing an ABM in which agents can deceive others by signalling false information about their true attitudes. I show that the emergent pattern of these behaviours can lead to a false consensus effect in which the perceived majority public opinion is unstable. The thesis is able to generate societies that bear many similarities with the Western countries of today and can suggest explanations for the mechanisms that lead to changes in public opinion more negative towards migration, as well as reasons for growing separation of different population groups.

What are the impediments to and stimuluses for transitions from violent civil conflict to peace? This dissertation investigates factors that influence civil conflict resolution. There are four key findings. First, democratisation reforms are likely to prompt peace talks with rebel groups. There are costs associated with recognising internal armed challengers as legitimate bargaining partners that deter governments from initiating peace talks. Democratic reform periods provide a window of opportunity for peace negotiations because factors that make institutional reform more likely also encourage peaceful resolution of conflict. The emergence of democratic institu- tions changes the state preferences by increasing the influence of the median citizen vis-`a-vis the authoritarian elite. Second, fragmented conflicts are harder to resolve because they are likely to be over a multidimensional issue space. Multiparty decision making that involves two or more salient issues are likely to have cyclic collective preferences, which render armed conflict a viable instrument for pursuing political goals. Third, involvement of the United Nations (UN) mitigates the adverse impact of conflict fragmentation over peaceful resolution. UN involvement changes the incentives and opportunities of actors to founder a possible bargain. The UN fa- cilitates a path-dependent peace process and brings institutions that induce an equilibrium by overcoming the problems that arise due to cyclic collective preferences. Finally, the military manpower supply system of a state influences its civil conflict processes. How a state recruits rank-and-file members of the military forces is a central institutional arrangement that influences the incentives and opportunities of relevant actors. Compared to all-volunteer forces (AVFs), conscription is an impediment to conflict termination because the cost some individuals incur by being subject to conscription decreases the opportunity cost of rebellion, increases grievances and insulates influential sections of the population from the cost of conflict. As a result, conflict termination becomes less likely.

Given that autocrats can be challenged by insiders of their ruling coalition and/or by the citizens of the country they govern, what control strategies can they use in order to minimize the potential for conflict and violence? The current literature on authoritarian politics focuses on the use of co-optation and repression to explain how autocrats mitigate the hazardous conditions under which they rule. The former induce compliance and co-operation by providing social and material benefits, while the latter forces with the threat of physical punishment. While both control strategies received significant attention in the literature, they have been mostly examined separately from each other. Against this background, this thesis contributes to the literature on authoritarian politics and state repression by focusing on the connection between co-optation and repression, on how autocrats use these two control strategies to prevent challenges and how the use of one control strategy impacts the use of the other. This dissertation builds on some of the theoretical and empirical tensions in the current literature and brings several theoretical and empirical contributions to our understanding of authoritarian politics. Theoretically, this dissertation contributes to the literature by offering an actor-oriented theoretical explanation of autocratic repression against social campaigns, an alternative theoretical mechanism on the coup reducing effect of institutions and a transnational theoretical account of autocratic repression. The empirical contribution of this dissertation rests in showing that accounting for actors’ characteristics improves models’ predictive power, that we know very little about the factors that explain coups’ success in autocracies and demonstrates there is a transnational interdependence in autocratic repression. The findings of this dissertation have implications for dissidents mobilizing against autocrats, for professionals and policy makers interested in political (in)stability, and for organizations attempting to improve human rights practices worldwide.

Andrew Michael Ramsay‟s Essay de Politique (1719) and the revised second edition, the Essay philosophique sur le gouvernement civil (1721) claimed to promulgate the political principles of the Archbishop Fénelon author of Télémaque (1699). The assumed relationship between Fénelon and Ramsay augmented by Ramsay‟s Vie de Fénelon (1723) meant that subsequent biographers of both men have believed the Essay to be a faithful depiction of the prelate‟s political ideas. However this work, aided by the Vie de Fénelon was used by Ramsay to promote the Jacobite cause of James Stuart (the 'Pretender'). The Essay was used by Ramsay to set out a theoretical system of government that would prevent an 'excess of liberty' in the people and thereby prevent the possibility of Revolution against a king. Ramsay's second edition augmented this idea with a more focused attack on the contract theorists and apologists for the 1689 Revolution. Ramsay deliberately manipulated the political legacy of Fénelon and focused on a corrupted view of Fénelon's early (children's) educational works in his promotion of Jacobitism. In doing so, he disregarded the important later reform plans for the French state under the potential reign of (an adult) Duke of Burgundy which were later influential in Regency France. Moreover, Ramsay manipulated the name and reputation of Fénelon to disguise the real influence of his Essay, Fénelon's nemesis Bossuet. The reliance of the Essay upon the seventeenth century absolutist theory of Bossuet at a time when eighteenth century Britain and Regency France had rejected absolutism in favour of reform led to its failure. The aim of the Thesis is therefore to examine the extent of Ramsay's Jacobitism, his impact on the political legacy of Fénelon in his attempt to create a work of Jacobite propaganda, and the true influences on the Essay de Politique.

Studies of transnational advocacy mainly explore separate processes – e.g. the use of persuasion, socialization, leverage, incentives and penalties – through which specific actors influence policy and law at national and transnational levels. These processes can be seen as strings pulled by the actors involved in order to promote their aims. However, the existing literature stops short of explaining the dynamics of advocacy across time, the number of strings necessary for inducing change and the failure of advocacy. In order to address these shortcomings this thesis analyses the interactions between various processes that constitute transnational advocacy and proposes a conceptual model – labelled the integrated strings model of advocacy – to facilitate the understanding of the dynamics of advocacy. This model suggests that transnational advocacy is constituted by the following interlinked processes, labelled stages and strings in order to emphasize their dynamics: - The stages are: the making of pilot or past solutions-in-practice, problematization, the development of a common frame for possible solutions, the creation of solutions-on-paper and the making of solutions-in-practice; - These stages are constituted by six strings: the creation of social enterprises, the use of expertise, regulations, technology, the formation of alliances and the marketization of ideas and services. This model provides a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of advocacy than the existing literature and explains why some advocacy processes were successful while other failed. The model is illustrated through three case studies of advocacy focused on: (a) heritage conservation and sustainable development in Romania; (b) children's rights in Romania; and (c) access to the UK' labour market for Romanian migrants in Britain. The integrated model was developed through empirical multi-sited research conducted in Romania and the UK. My methodology was influenced by multi-sited ethnography (Marcus 1998), grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1990) and actor-network theory (Callon 1986; Latour 2005).

This thesis re-evaluates the emergence of the neoconservative critique of American post-war liberalism from 1945 to 1980. Its original contribution to the scholarship on neoconservatism lies in the claim that a particular understanding of Jewishness fundamentally shaped the neoconservatives' right turn, as well as neoconservative ideology. Few scholars have recognised the primacy of Jewish identity politics in the evolutionary history of neoconservatism. Those who have, have done so inadequately and unmethodically. Therefore, my thesis systematically analyses the Jewish dimension of early neoconservatism by placing particular focus on its two principal mouthpieces, Commentary and The Public Interest, while drawing on autobiographical writings, personal papers and oral interviews. Reconsidering neoconservatism from this angle also contributes to a reevaluation of modern Jewish political history by debunking the myth that the American Jewish community is governed by consensus based on political identification with liberalism. My thesis shows that neoconservatism not only contributed to the rise of conservatism and the fall of liberalism on a national level, but also played an important role in post-1945 Jewish intra-communal contentions about which political affiliation best expresses modern Jewish American identity. Accordingly, it demonstrates that Jewish political culture is more diverse than is usually appreciated and that neoconservatives draw on a tradition of Jewish conservatism, which has so far received little attention from scholars of modern Jewish history.

This thesis asks why some centre-right formations have been more successful than others in the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. It does so by examining a single centre-right formation – the Romanian Democratic Convention. It adds to an existing body of literature that covers the development of political parties in post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe and to the small number of studies focusing on centre-right parties in the region. Specifically it adds to the literature on party success and failure and to that on Romanian party and electoral politics. The Romanian Democratic Convention is chosen to add new insights: it is unusual because it is a study of organisational failure and because there is a geographical imbalance in the published studies of the politics of the region towards the Visegrad states. The thesis acknowledges existing academic debate about the competing influences of historical legacies, agency and structural factors in relation to post-Communist democratisation. It aims to identify what led the Convention to first establish itself but then fail to consolidate and eventually to collapse. It draws on a range of sources: semi-structured interviews; contemporaneous newspaper reports; published diaries and autobiographies and a number of secondary sources. The thesis is structured thematically, examining the role of legacies and critical events in shaping long term behaviour by politicians (chapters three and four); organisational factors and the influence of operational objectives (chapter five); the search for a broad and integrative ideology (chapter six). The conclusions in chapter seven suggest that successfully crafting a new, broad political formation requires a degree of pragmatism, directive leadership and political entrepreneurship that was missing from the Democratic Convention because it was shaped by Romania's transition from Communism, by its organisational structure and by differences within its leadership elite so that competing operational objectives could not be reconciled when the formation entered government.

Using primary material, much of which has been overlooked up to now, this thesis argues that the Iskra newspaper and its organisational appendages were conceived by Lenin and his closest collaborators in a pragmatic attempt to strike a balance between the theoretically authoritative and revolutionary, yet inactive Osvobozhdenie Truda and the more active, but reformist and theoretically unclear Rabochee Delo grouping. As such, Iskra does not appear to have been the product of a detailed plan conceived in Siberian exile, as is often thought. Nor did it represent the extreme left wing of the Russian social-democratic movement of the time, a place occupied by Osvobozhdenie Truda. Iskra and its supporting organisations formed a faction of a broader party, the RSDLP, whose institutions it aimed to rebuild and to which it aimed to give ideological leadership broadly in sympathy with the basic views of Plekhanov, though differing with him in terms of tactics. Starting from a position of weakness both in the emigration and inside Russia, Lenin at first sought an alliance with the 'Economists' of Rabochee Delo rather than a policy of open factional struggle, which was at this stage (1900-01) advocated by Plekhanov. Only when serious vacillations in the Rabochee Delo line started to emerge in the spring of 1901 did Lenin break with this tactic, in despair of any useful co-operation with the politically unstable followers of the economist journal. From the end of 1901an open struggle for the support of the RSDLP local committees inside Russia began, in which the Economists were unable to martial support, whilst Iskra, owing to its network of full-time 'agents' and their assistance, eventually won a dominant position. On this basis, plans were laid for a Second Congress of the RSDLP that reveal a distinctly democratic and pluralist conception of party organisation on the part of Lenin, A conception which does not square with his dictatorial reputation. Accordingly, this thesis argues that the Second Congress was a credible, if not perfect representation of rank and file opinion within the RSDLP at the time and that the split within the Iskra faction that took place at this meeting owes more to pre-existing tensions with the Russian Iskra organisation rather than any unreasonable behaviour on the part of Lenin. Specifically, individual agents showed signs of weariness in relation to Lenin‘s policy of factional struggle prior to the Second Congress. For this reason they sought, but failed to find compromise at the congress with the Bund and the economists, and as such provoked a split with the supporters of Lenin within Iskra. As such, it was actually an inopportune search for compromise which appears to have provoked the split within Iskra, rather than dictatorial or intolerant practices on the part of Lenin. The supporters of Martov assumed that the Bund and the supporters of economism could be appeased, but this was not in fact the case.