WILL PEOPLE PAY $$$ FOR RIGHTS? James es Ron David Crow Ka - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Th The H e Human man Rights hts Organ ganizations izations Project roject

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.

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

• nómic

icas (CIDE) DE) Facultad ltad Latinoam inoamer eric icana de Ciencias ias Soc

• cial

iales (FLACS CSO)

Purposive 60- country sample (N=98) Mexico (n=43) Mumbai (n=19) Rabat & Casablanca (n=18) 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Confide dence nce inter ervals als for represe esenta ntati tive e samp mples. s.

Average rage estimat mate, e, “What % of human rights NGOs receive substantial funding from foreign donors?”

Globally, LHRO Leaders Report High Foreign Dependency

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

1995 2000 2005 2010 10 20 30 40 50

Restrictive NGO Finance Laws

Year Cumulative Number of Laws Passed Per Year

A Growing Crackdown on Foreign $$ to Local NGOs

45 count ntrie ies s tight hten ened ed restrict iction ions, s, 1993-2012 5 eased restrictions Only 6 countries tries restrict icted ed before

• re

1993 Restricti trictions

• ns driven

en by:

• High foreign aid
• Hard-fought

elections

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
• f, 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

• n 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

MOROCCO, OCCO, IN INDI DIA, , NIG IGERIA ERIA (20 2012 12-14) 4)

Rabat & Casablanca Mumbai Lagos Sample mple size 1,100 1,680 1,000 Rural/Urban an 300 / 800 303 / 1,377 200 / 800 Dates es Sept-Oct 2012 Dec 2012 - Jan 2013 Nov-Dec 2014 Repres resents ents Rabat/ Casablanca/rural areas, adult residents Mumbai/ rural Maharashtra, eligible voters Lagos/rural Ogun and Oyo States, adult citizens

Face-to-Face Polls

Me Mexi xico co (20 2012 12-16) 6)

Mexico 2012 Mexico 2014 Mexico City, Mexico 2016 Samp mple e size 2,400 2,400 960 Rural/Urban an 730 / 1670 661/1739 0/960 Dates es Sept-Oct 2012 Nov 2014- Jan 2015 July 2016 Repres resents ents National, adults National, adults Mexico City, adults

Face-to-Face Polls

Today’s Discussion

• 4. What

t drives es $$ for righ ghts ts? 1.

• 1. How

w fami miliar liar are e pe people ple wi with th “human rights” words and

• rga

ganizati nizations?

• ns?
• 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?

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 2012 12 (N=2, =2,400) 400) Rabat t & Casa sabla blanca nca (N=1 =1,100) 0) Mum umba bai i (N=1 =1,6 ,680) 80) Lagos

• s

(N=1 =1,0 ,00 0) 0) Pooled

• led

(N=6, =6,18 0) 0) Trus ust t in relig igiou ious s institu titution ions s is is great ater er than n in LHR HROs Os by: 14% 30% 24% 32% 25% Avera rage ge imp mpor

• rta

tanc nce

• f religion

gion in daily y life e (0 (0-10) 0) 7.7 9.9 7.6 9.0 8.44 Prayer er (% at least t

• nce

ce a d day) N/A 85% 81% 88% 77% Attendance endance (% at least t once ce a week eek) N/A 46% 79% 96% 63%

HRO Staff Less Religious Than Publics

Religion’s Relationship with Trust: A Statistical Analysis

(Ordinary Least Squares;

• logit)

 Outcome variable=Trust in LHROs  Explanatory variables =

• Trust in religious institutions
• Personal religiosity

Stati tistical stical Contr trols

 Exposure to human rights actors, language, activities  Rural/urban residence  Education  Subjective Income  Sex  Age  Web use  Support for ruling political party  Voted in last election  Country  Average 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

• re

e Lo Loca cal l Mon

• ney?

y?

■ Funded by Open Society Foundation ■ Repeat project: Bogota 2017

6% 44% 38% 41% 9% 3% 15% 3% 12% 15% 85% 6% 15% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Municipal government State government Federal government Foreign governments Religious

• rganizations,

not including actual church dioceses Official Church and religious bodies, including dioceses Private Mexican individuals IN Mexico Private Mexican individuals OUTSIDE Mexico (diaspora) Foreign individuals Local foundations/organizations Foreign foundations

• r

international NGOs Mexican small businesses Mexican large businesses Multi-national corporations

• perating

in Mexico (e.g. Wal-Mart)

Percentage

• f

Respondents

"What type of organizations, foundation, or institutions have you RECEIVED funding from in the past fiscal year?"

In Mexico City, Foreign $$ Predominate

(LHRO leader survey, N=34)

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

What Drives Donations? A Statistical Analysis

Statistical models account for geographic clustering of respondents (fixed effects, random effects, cluster standard errors, OLS ) Decreas reased ed Donations Increa crease sed Donations

− Political party participation − Male interviewer + “Transparency” + Previously donated + Trust in LHROs + HR “welfare” affinity + Education + Political knowledge + Subjective income + “Crime” causes HR abuse + Positive HRO associations

Statist tistical cal Cont ntrols

 “Efficacy”  “Personal narrative”  Assessment of Mexican HR conditions  “LHRO participation  Union participation  Solidarity index  Self monitoring  Know specific LHROs  Household victimization

20 22 24 26 28 Control Transparency Efficacy Narrative Frame

People Donated More Money When we Emphasized “Financial Transparency”

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

5 10 15 Effect on donation

People Donate $$ at All Levels of Household Assets

Assets ets:

• Cars in house
• Computers, household
• Potable water, household
• Microwave, household
• TV, household
• Washer, household
• Mobile phone
• Landline phone
• Light bulbs in house

People Donate $$ at All Levels of Household Assets

Expected Donation by Ideal Message and Ideal Target

20 30 40 50 60 No assets Some Assets All Assets Ideal Message Ideal Target

Pl Please ease Read ead Mo More re on n

• penG

penGlob lobalRights alRights

The he Hu Huma man n Rig ights hts Organi anizatio zations ns Proje Project