Presented on October 27, 2016 at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel in Tel Aviv, Israel. To cite the data included in this presentation, please contact jamesr@umn.edu. The H Th e Human man Rights hts Organ ganizations izations Project roject
WILL PEOPLE PAY $$$ FOR RIGHTS? James es Ron David Crow Ka Kassi ssira ra Absar José é Ka Kaire ire Un Univer ersity sity of Minneso esota ta Centr tro de Invest estigac igació ión y y Docencia ia Económ onómic icas (CIDE) DE) CSO ) Facultad ltad Latinoam inoamer eric icana de Ciencias ias Soc ocial iales (FLACS
Globally, LHRO Leaders Report High Foreign Dependency Average rage estimat mate, e, “What % of human rights NGOs receive substantial funding from foreign donors?” 100% 90% 80% Purposive 60- 70% country sample Rabat & (N=98) Casablanca 60% (n=18) Mexico 50% (n=43) Mumbai 40% (n=19) 30% Confide dence nce inter ervals als for represe esenta ntati tive e samp mples. s. RON, J., A. PANDYA & D. CROW. 2015. “ Universal Values, Foreign Money: Funding Local Human Rights Organizations in the Global South .” Review of International Political Economy. 23/1: 29-64
A Growing Crackdown on Foreign $$ to Local NGOs Restrictive NGO Finance Laws 50 45 count ntrie ies s tight hten ened ed restrict iction ions, s, 1993-2012 Cumulative Number of Laws Passed Per Year 5 eased restrictions 40 30 Restricti trictions ons driven en Only 6 countries tries by: restrict icted ed before ore High foreign aid • 20 1993 • Hard-fought elections 10 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year DUPUY, K., J. RON & A. PRAKASH. 2016. “Hands Off My Regime! Governments’ Restrictions on Foreign Aid to Non -Governmental Organizations in Poor and Middle-Income Countries .” World Development. 84: 299-311.
What Do Publics Say? 1. Are governments cracking down because of, or in spite of , public opinion? 2. Will ordinary people pay $$ to support local human rights organizations (LHROs)? Sources: • RON, J., S. GOLDEN, D. CROW & A. PANDYA. Forthcoming, 2017. Human Rights and Public Opinion: Views from the Global South. Oxford University Press. • PANDYA, A. & J. RON. Forthcoming. “ Local Resources for Local Rights? The Mumbai Fundraiser’s Dilemma.” Journal of Human Rights 16/3 . • RON , J., A. PANDYA & D. CROW. 2015. “ Universal Values, Foreign Money: Funding Local Human Rights Organizations in the Global South .” Review of International Political Economy. 23/1: 29-64 • RON, J. & D. CROW. 2015. “ Who Trusts Human Rights Organizations? Evidence from Three World Regions. ” Human Rights Quarterly . 37/1: 188-239.
Our Evidence ■ Pu Publi lic c Op Opini nion on Po Polls: s: n=7,060, face-to-face ■ NG NGO L O Leader ader Inter ervie views ws: n=260, face-to-face ■ Design ign & I Implementatio lementation: U Minnesota, CIDE, FLACSO, DATA-OPM (Mexico) ■ Funding ding: Open Society Foundation, U Minnesota, CIDE, FLACSO
Face-to-Face Polls MOROCCO, OCCO, IN INDI DIA, , NIG IGERIA ERIA (20 2012 12-14) 4) Rabat & Mumbai Lagos Casablanca Sample mple size 1,100 1,680 1,000 Rural/Urban an 300 / 800 303 / 1,377 200 / 800 Dec 2012 - Jan Dates es Sept-Oct 2012 Nov-Dec 2014 2013 Rabat/ Mumbai/ rural Lagos/rural Ogun Casablanca/rural Repres resents ents Maharashtra, and Oyo States, areas, adult eligible voters adult citizens residents
Face-to-Face Polls Mexi Me xico co (20 2012 12-16) 6) Mexico Mexico City, Mexico 2014 2012 Mexico 2016 Samp mple e size 2,400 2,400 960 Rural/Urban an 730 / 1670 661/1739 0/960 Nov 2014- Dates es Sept-Oct 2012 July 2016 Jan 2015 Mexico City, Repres resents ents National, adults National, adults adults
Today’s Discussion 1. 1. How w fami miliar liar are e pe people ple wi with th “human rights” words and orga ganizati nizations? ons? 2. What t phrases ses do peo eople le associate with “human rights”? 3. How w mu much do pe people ple tr trus ust t LHROs? Os? 4. What t drives es $$ for righ ghts ts?
Familiarity
Associations “How strongly do you associate ___ ______ ____ with ‘human rights’?” 1 (not at all) – 7 (a lot)
Associations with “Human Rights”
Associations with “Human Rights”
Associations with “Human Rights”
Overall, associations are positive (+) (+) (-)
Trust “How much trust do you place in ______: A lot, some, a little, or none at all?” Rescaled to: 0 (min) – 1 (max)
Trust in LHROs Moderately High “Please tell me how much trust you place in ___________________.”
What Makes an LHRO “Likeable”? Mexico City, 2016, N=960
RELIGION AND TRUST
Publics Highly Religious Mexico ico Rabat t & Lagos os Pooled oled Mum umba bai i 2012 12 Casa sabla blanca nca (N=1 =1,0 ,00 (N=6, =6,18 (N=1 =1,6 ,680) 80) (N=2, =2,400) 400) (N=1 =1,100) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) Trus ust t in relig igiou ious s institu titution ions s is is 14% 30% 24% 32% 25% great ater er than n in LHR HROs Os by: Avera rage ge imp mpor orta tanc nce 7.7 9.9 7.6 9.0 8.44 of religion gion in daily y life e (0 (0-10) 0) Prayer er (% at least t N/A 85% 81% 88% 77% once ce a d day) Attendance endance (% at N/A 46% 79% 96% 63% least t once ce a week eek)
HRO Staff Less Religious Than Publics
Outcome variable =Trust in LHROs Religion’s Explanatory variables = Relationship Trust in religious institutions Personal religiosity with Trust: Stati tistical stical Contr trols A Statistical Exposure to Age human rights Web use Analysis actors, language, Support for ruling activities political party Rural/urban Voted in last residence election Education Country (Ordinary Least Squares; Subjective Income Average ologit) Sex individual trust Pooled analysi ysis: : Casablanca nca/Rabat, at, Lagos, Mexico 2012, 2, Mumbai ai
Trust in Religious Institutions = Trust in LHROs People who trust religious institutions “a lot” trust LHROs 10% less, controlling for all factors
Personal Religiosity = Trust in LHROS People who are the most personally religious trust LHROs 9% more, controlling for all factors
Mexi xico co Cit ity, , Sum umme mer 20 2016: 6: Can an HR HROs Os Ra Rais ise e Mor ore e Lo Loca cal l Mon oney? y? ■ Funded by Open Society Foundation ■ Repeat project: Bogota 2017
In Mexico City, Foreign $$ Predominate (LHRO leader survey, N=34) "What type of organizations, foundation, or institutions have you RECEIVED funding from in the past fiscal year?" Multi-national� corporations� operating� in� Mexico� (e.g.� Wal-Mart) 0% Mexican� large� businesses 15% Mexican� small� businesses 6% Foreign� foundations� or� international� NGOs 85% Local� foundations/organizations 15% Foreign� individuals 12% Private� Mexican� individuals� OUTSIDE� Mexico� (diaspora) 3% Private� Mexican� individuals� IN� Mexico 15% Official� Church� and� religious� bodies,� including� dioceses 3% Religious� organizations,� not� including� actual� church� dioceses 9% Foreign� governments 41% Federal� government 38% State� government 44% Municipal� government 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percentage� of� Respondents
Mexico City HRO Leaders: Local Funding “Very Important” (N=34)
Survey Experiment, Mexico City 2016: Who Donates More $$, and Why? 50 pesos per person (n=960)
Four Descriptions (240 respondents each) ■ The organization is “ effective ” ■ The organization is “ financially transparent ” ■ The organization helps “ a specific individual ” with a painful story ■ “Control”: Neutral description
Decreas reased ed Increa crease sed Donations Donations − Political party + “Transparency” What Drives participation + Previously donated − Male interviewer + Trust in LHROs Donations? + HR “welfare” affinity + Education + Political knowledge A Statistical + Subjective income + “Crime” causes HR Analysis abuse + Positive HRO associations Statist tistical cal Cont ntrols Statistical models account for geographic clustering of “Efficacy” respondents “Personal narrative” Assessment of Mexican HR conditions “LHRO participation (fixed effects, random Union participation effects, cluster standard Solidarity index errors, OLS ) Self monitoring Know specific LHROs Household victimization
People Donated More Money When we Emphasized “Financial Transparency” 28 26 24 22 20 Control Transparency Efficacy Narrative Frame
Effects Compared Transparency Efficacy Narrative Donated in the past Trust in HROs Political party participation HR importance crime factor HR importance welfare factor Positive HRO assoc Education Political knowledge Male interviewer Subjective income -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Effect on donation
Recommend
More recommend
