David Crow

Universal values, foreign money: funding local human rights organizations in the global south

ABSTRACT Local human rights organizations (LHROs) are key domestic and transnational actors, modifying, diffusing, and promoting liberal norms; mobilizing citizens; networking with the media and activists; and pressuring governments to implement international commitments. These groups, however, are reliant on international funds. This makes sense in politically repressive environments, where potential donors fear government retaliation, but is puzzling elsewhere. We interviewed 263 LHRO leaders and key informants from 60 countries, and conducted statistically representative surveys of 6180 respondents in India, Mexico, Morocco, and Nigeria. Based on these data, we believe LHRO funding in non-repressive environments is shaped by philanthropic logics of appropriateness. In the late 1990s, transnational activists successfully mainstreamed human rights throughout the international donor assistance community, freeing up development money for LHROs. Domestic activists in the global South have not promoted similar philanthropic transformations at home, where charitable giving still focuses on traditional institutions. Instead, domestic rights activists have followed the path of least resistance toward international aid, a logic of outcomes produced by variations in global logics of (philanthropic) appropriateness.

Talk Without Borders: Why Political Discussion Makes Latin Americans With Relatives Abroad More Critical of Their Democracies:

Mulling over politics with others can change citizens’ political beliefs and choices. Is the effect of interpersonal political discussion different when one of the interlocutors has a family member living abroad—that is, is a “transnational household member” (THM)? Using data from 20 Latin American countries in the 2006-2008 AmericasBarometer, we show that talking about politics makes THMs less satisfied with their democracies and less proud of their political systems than non-THMs. When THMs engage in cross-border political discussions with relatives abroad, they gain new information and perspectives that cast their own democracy in a different light. Even absent cross-border communication, though, political discussion with peers at home can make THMs more critical by emphasizing their government’s transnational governance obligations—and highlighting failures to live up to these heightened expectations. Our study thus adds to a growing body of research on emigration’s impact on sending country politics.