1. Integrating data, analysis, & strategy Neutrals, Imperialists, or Counter-Hegemons? James Ron University of Minnesota & CIDE, Mexico City Shannon Golden Center for Victims of Torture David Crow CIDE, Mexico City Archana Pandya openGlobalRights

2. What Do Publics Think of “Human Rights” and “Human Rights Organizations?” PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS

3. PUBLICS MAY PERCEIVE OF LHROS AS… #1: “…..Extensions of US Power” #2: “….Tools of Global Capital” #3: “….. Part of Corrupt ‘Establishment’” #4: “….Neutral Experts” #5: “….Counter-Hegemonic”

4. MexicoMoroccoIndiaNigeria World Region Latin AmericaNorth AfricaSouth Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Major Religions Christian, Catholicism Sunni Islam Hinduism, Sunni Islam Islam, Christianity Colonial History SpainFranceBritain “Civilization” Latin American IslamicHindi African, Islamic Major languages Spanish Arabic, French Hindi, Marathi, English English, Pidgin, African languages “Most Different” Case Selection

5. Mexico Rabat & Casablanca, Morocco Mumbai, India Lagos, Nigeria Sample size (Rural/urban) 2,4001,1001,6801,000 720 / 1,680300 / 800303 / 1,377200 / 800 Dates9/10_2012 12_2012 /1_2- 13 11/12_2-14 Representativen ess National Rabat, Casablanca, & surrounding rural Mumbai & rural Maharashtra Lagos plus rural areas of Ogun/Oyo Samples

6. THREE INQUIRIES 1.How Do People Define “Human Rights” 2. How Much Do People Trust HROs? 3. What are the Determinants of Trust?

7. 1. DEFINING “HUMAN RIGHTS” On a scale of 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“very much”), how strongly do you associate {phrase} with the term, “human rights”?

8. Publics Have Positive Views of “Human Rights”

11. 2. TRUSTING LOCAL HROS On a scale of 1 (“not at all”) to 4 (“a lot”), please tell me how much trust you place in the following institutions, actors, or organizations:.

12. Modest/Strong Trust in LHROs

13. 3. DETERMINANTS OF TRUST IN LOCAL HROS (OLS REGRESSION) Dependent Variable Trust in LHROs (0=“no trust,” 1 = “maximum trust”) Independent Variables of Interest Mistrust in US Government, MNCs, Domestic Authorities Controls Index of contact with human rights discourse & groups; socioeconomic factors; political factors; age; sex; average trust; country Observations N=3,956.

14. MISTRUST IN POWERFUL ACTORS

15. THE FINDING: MORE TRUST IN LHROS ASSOCIATED WITH GREATER MISTRUST IN: The US Government Multinational Corporations Domestic Political Authorities

16. Marginal Effects

17. CONCLUSIONS Publics see LHROs as “counter-hegemonic bulwarks.” Public does NOT see them as “neutral experts,” “handmaidens of US imperialism,” or “tools of global capitalism”

18. Integrating data, analysis, & strategy The Human Rights Organizations Project James Ron University of Minnesota & CIDE, Mexico City Shannon Golden Center for Victims of Torture David Crow CIDE, Mexico City Archana Pandya openGlobalRights

19. SUPPLEMENTARY SLIDES

21. Mexico (N=2,400) Rabat & Casablanca (N=1,100) Mumbai (N=1,680) Lagos (N=1,000) Pooled (N=6,180) Women 51%*52%44%*50%*49% Age (mean years) 41*39*44*33*39 Primary activity last week Work inside home (excluding students, unemployed, retired) 31%47%34%12%31% Work outside home 53%37%61%68%55% Income Median monthly household income (2014 USD, PPP-adjusted) $349$698$467$436$488 Feel income covers household expenses ("can just cover expenses" or "can cover expenses and save") 41%38%37%53%42% Education Mean years 97*9*119 No formal education 4%26%*7%*3%10% Completed secondary 36%29%*57%*28%38% Connectivity Have a cell phone 56%88%75%91%78% Use the Internet 33%25%8%48%29% Have traveled abroad 24%10%2%16%13% Religion Catholic 80%0%8%*9%24% Non-Catholic Christian 12%0%3%*56%18% Muslim 0%100%8%*34%36% Hindu 0% 62%*0%15% Buddhist 0% 16%*0%4% Attend place of worship once a week NA46%79%97%74% Religion "important" in life (6 or above on 0-10 scale) 78%99%81%96%89% Politics Does not support a political party 39%62%7%48%39% Supports ruling party 18%27%20%19%21% Voted in last election 76%47%93%65%70% Figures are valid percentages. Country figures apply sampling and population weights where appropriate; asteriks indicate unweighted data. Pooled total figures weight all four country samples equally. Human Rights Perception Polls Respondent Characteristics

22. Statistical Relationships Between Respondents’ Definitions of 'Human Rights' and Trust in Local Human Rights Organizations (LHROs) 4-Country Pooled Mexico Rabat & Casablanca MumbaiLagos Public sees as positive "Protecting people from torture & murder" More trust No finding "Promoting socioeconomic justice" More trustNo findingMore trustNo finding "Promoting free & fair elections" More trust No findingLess trust Mixed "Protecting women's rights" No findingN/AMore trustLess trustMore trust "Protecting terrorists" No findingN/ANo finding Less trust Public sees as negative "Promoting foreign values & ideas" Less trust "Promoting US interests" Less trust "Not protecting or promoting anybody's interests" Less trustNo findingLess trust "Protecting criminals" Less trust No finding Less trust *Relationships shown are statistically significant at the 0.10-level or higher. All models are OLS regressions, controlling for average trust. The pooled model controls for country and weights countries equally. Relationships between “Human Rights” Definitions and Trust in LHROs

23. 12345 4-Country Pooled (N=3,956) Mexico (N=1,909) Rabat & Casablanc a (N=416) Mumbai (N=863) Lagos (N=768) Anti-Power Worldviews Mistrust in the U.S. GovernmentMore trust No finding Mistrust in Multinational CorporationsMore trust Mistrust in Domestic Political AuthorityMore trust No findingMore trust (trust in domestic politicians, trust in legislature, trust in president or prime minister) Contact with human rights Index of hearing, knowing, naming, & participating More trustNo finding Socioeconomic Factors Education No finding Urban residence No finding Subjective income (squared)No finding U-shaped association No finding Internet user No finding *Relationships shown are statistically significant at the 0.10-level or higher. All models also control for support for the ruling party, voting in the last election, age, sex, and average trust. The pooled model controls for country and weights countries equally. Predicting Trust in LHROs (OLS Regression)*

24. Human Rights Perceptions Polls Sampling Procedures Mexico Rabat & Casablanca, Morocco Mumbai, India Lagos, Nigeria Sample size 2,4001,1001,6801,000 Rural/Urban sample size720 rural / 1,680 urban300 rural / 800 urban303 rural / 1,377 urban200 rural / 800 urban Dates September - October 2012 December 2012 - January 2013 November - December 2014 Representativeness National, adults Rabat, Casablanca, and rural areas within 70-80 km of each city, adults Mumbai and rural Maharashtra State, eligible voters (99% of total adult population) Lagos, Ogun, and Oyo States, adult citizens Primary sampling unit Electoral sectionsLocal municipalitiesAssembly segmentLocal government areas Selection process Random, proportional to size Random, proportional to rural/urban population 1 randomly selected per parliamentary constituency Random Secondary sampling unit Blocks "Working areas" and landmarks Polling boothEnumeration areas / sectors Selection process Random (precise method unknown)* Using Google maps 1 randomly selected per assembly segment Random, proportional to size Tertiary sampling unit Households (individuals randomly selected within) Household (individuals randomly selected within) Individuals Dwellings, then households (individuals randomly selected within) Selection process Random (precise method unknown)* Interval based, beginning on foot from landmark First individual randomly selected from polling booth list; next individuals selected from list at set intervals Interval based, beginning on foot from landmark Response rate 39%33%42%59% Margin of error, estimated +/- 2.0%+/- 3.0%+/- 2.5%+/- 3.1% Over sampling Northern and Southern regions Rural areas adjacent to Rabat and Casablanca Buddhists, Christians, rural resident of Maharashtra State Rural states of Oyo and Ogun Weighting procedure Age, gender, regionEducation, age, rural/urban Education, gender, age, religion Age, gender Interview duration mean 35 minutes21 minutes48 minutes44 minutes RangeNot available14-41 minutes33-90 minutes30-90 minutes *Our team did not personally supervise and co-construct the sampling procedure in Mexico; as a result, precise methods of random selection remain unclear