We investigated the macro-level factors that affected the development of different rates of protest across 25 European countries on a subnational level (207 NUT2 regions) between January 2020 and April 2021. Building on the theoretical consideration that people's main trigger for rule compliance is rule legitimation. We argued that the higher the risk perception gap between citizens and government the higher the likelihood of protests. Specifically, in case people perceive a higher Covid-19 threat, they are more likely to justify the implementation of strict Covid-19 regulations. This is because citizens consider such regulations useful for public safety and not a governmental abuse of power and this results in fewer protests. Conversely, in case citizens have a high-risk perception that is met by lenient regulations, people are dissatisfied with the government that does not keep them safe and this leads to more protests. Additionally, we argue that because deliberation processes foster a sense of inclusiveness and transparency among the citizens, making them feel heard by an accountable government, this increases citizens’ rule legitimation and their likelihood of protesting. Therefore, we argue that it attenuates the effect of the risk perception gap on protests. We used negative binomial regressions on secondary quantitative data. Our results confirm our first hypothesis and reject our second hypothesis. Our analysis adds to the study of crisis-management policies by investigating how a lower rate of protests can be achieved during crises.

The project assembles a unique regional panel-dataset on strikes and lockouts (work stoppages) between 1859 and 1938. The regional dimension allows to use communities as mini-laboratories for studying how conflict and compromises come about at the local level. By holding factors constant at the regional and industry level,it is possible to analyze the relative importance of local economic conditions, union strategies and political influence as they evolve over time.

The datasets described in this document have been extracted and digitized in the project Från Sundsvall till Saltsjöbaden: Ett regionalt perspektiv på strejker och protester på den svenska arbetsmarknaden From Sundsvall to Saltsjöbaden: A regional approach to strikes and protests in the Swedish labour rmarket. The project members were Kerstin Enflo (PI), Tobias Karlsson and Jakob Molinder.

Research assistance: Diego Cattolica, Maria Lundborg, Emelie Rhone Till, Scott Sutherland, Pedro Salas Rojo. Geo-coding: Robert Larsson, Erik Olofsson.

There are three interrelated datasets in this database.

1) The longest dataset 1859-1938 is built upon two separate datasets, covering the periods 1859-1902 and 1903-1927 that were extracted directly from printed sources, and information extracted from primary sources for the period 1928-1938. This dataset has been harmonized and covers only the number of work stoppages by location.

2) The first underlying dataset covers the period 1859-1902 and include many more variables. The data is recorded at the level of each work stoppage.

3) The second underlying dataset covers 1903-1927 and include many more variables The data is recorded at the level of each work stoppage.

All datasets, sources and variables included are further described in the documentation.

Cite dataset 1 as:
Molinder, Jakob, Tobias, Karlsson & Kerstin Enflo (2018) "The power resource theory revisited: what explains the decline in industrial conflicts in Sweden?" Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), s. 1-27 27 s.(Discussion Paper series; nr. DP13130) and Karlsson, Tobias (2019) “Strikes and lockouts in Sweden: revisiting Raphael’s list of work stoppages 1859-1902”, Lund Papers in Economic History 192.
Cite dataset 2 as:
Karlsson, Tobias (2019) “Strikes and lockouts in Sweden: revisiting Raphael’s list of work stoppages 1859-1902”, Lund Papers in Economic History 192.
Cite dataset 3 as :
Enflo, Kerstin & Tobias Karlsson (2018) "From conflict to compromise: the importance of mediation in Swedish work stoppages 1907-1927", European Review of Economic History, hey023, https://doi.org/10.1093/ereh/hey023

The project explored the objectives and methods of post-terrorist memorialisation in Europe and the United States, between 2001 and 2018. Interviews were conducted with memorial designers, design competition jury members, and activists in the following case studies: the World Trade Center Manhattan, the Oslo Government Quarter, Utoya island, the 2005 London bombings, the Boston Bombing, the 2004 Madrid bombing and the Memorial to Victims of Terrorism in Vitoria Gasteiz (under development 2018-19). Very specific individuals were contacted for interview, based upon their involvement with memorial planning, design or protest. Dataset includes interviews with 6 designers/curators of post-terrorist memorials, 6 civil servants involved in memorial planning and design competitions, 5 persons active in protesting memorial projects, and an academic.

States organise bombsite reconstruction and memorialisation in an ad-hoc fashion through committees which act without policy guidance. This project explores the methods and objectives of such redevelopment, generating the data necessary for identification of best practice through the assessment of redevelopment at the World Trade Center Manhattan, the Oslo Government Quarter, Utoya island, the London bombings, the Boston Marathon Bombing and the Madrid bombing. It is important to address bombsite recovery to assess the implementation of resilience. In the contemporary era, security is practiced against risks and threats which haven't yet occurred in an attempt to prevent disaster. This is particularly true of resilience policies which anticipate a multitude of threats, some of which cannot be prevented, in order to build the capacity to recover from future disasters. But what can we know about resilience if we only anticipate threats, and do not examine practices which enable the recovery of disaster space? This Future Leaders project interrogates a gap at the heart of national and international resilience policy which follows from this anticipatory temporality: there is no codified account of how to manage and reclaim sites of terrorist attack, despite the positing of unpreventable events within resilience and security discourse. Resilience policy is targeted towards the mediation of the next disaster, not the steps by which a previous disaster site can be made resilient. This project changes the temporality of existing security research. It explores whether projects to rebuild, redesign and memorialise sites of terrorist attack mediate threats in a retrospective, rather than anticipatory, manner. Does reconstruction enable resilience? And how can rebuilding be optimized to avoid protest and public dissatisfaction? It is important to assess the efficacy of post-terrorist reconstruction because extensive public funds are committed to the redevelopment of sites ($10bn at Ground Zero in Manhattan; and at least 650m Kroner is allocated for Oslo's Government Quarter) without codified policy guidance for the undertaking of reconstruction and memorialisation. Additionally, despite the best of intentions of redevelopment committees, few redevelopment projects in recent years have escaped contestation. For example, dozens of self-organised family groups have organised protests against the delayed reconstruction of the WTC in New York, against the abstract memorial which won the vote of 9-11 memorial jury, and the housing of human remains in the 9-11 museum; similarly the lack of official clarity about the future of Oslo's bombed Government Quarter provoked considerable activism from the Norwegian public. To address these responses and assess the efficacy and appropriateness of post-terrorist reconstruction, I will deploy a secondary research question: 'When have reconstruction efforts upon sensitive sites provoked hostility and activism from victims' families and protest groups?' Once the methods and objectives of redevelopment are identified, and the situations in which it provokes protest, my final research question draws the research together in the direction of influencing policy: 'What examples of effective and appropriate practice are evident in contemporary case studies of bombsite redevelopment, such that policy guidance might be produced to aid the 'resilience' of post-terrorist space?' As a result, this Future Leaders project is dedicated to the identification of effective and transparent practice in the reclamation of post-terrorist space. This project builds upon existing research into the practice of political violence and its suppression through counter-terrorism. It makes an original contribution to the study and practice of security by taking the resilience-paradigm-shift seriously: if events are now unpreventable, then research must assess the implementation of resilience at the bombsite.