Appendix for

“Surveys of World SocialForum Participants Show Influence of Place and Base in the Global Public Sphere”

Forthcoming in Mobilization:An International Journal

Ellen Reese, Christopher Chase-Dunn,Kadambari Anantram, Gary Coyne, Matheu Kaneshiro Ashley Koda, Roy Kwon and Pretty Saxena

 

Department of Sociology and Institute forResearch on World Systems

UC-Riverside

Reese, Ellen, Christopher Chase-Dunn, Kadambari Anantram, Gary Coyne, Matheu Kaneshiro, Ashley N. Koda, Roy Kwon, and Preeta Saxena. 2008. “Appendices for Research Note: Surveys of World Social Forum Participants Show Influence of Place and Base in the Global Public Sphere.”

Working Paper #45. Institute for Research on World Systems. Accessed September 2008 at http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/ irows45/irows45.htm.

 

  

Table of Contents

Part A: Statistical Tables

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of WSF 2005, WSF 2007,and USSF 2007 respondent (valid responses, unweighted)

Table 2: Demographic characteristics of WSF 2005, WSF 2007,and USSF 2007 respondents (valid responses, weighted)

Table 3 : Differences in the political activities andaffiliations of local, domestic, and international respondents at World SocialForum in 2005, Porto Alegre, Brazil (valid responses, unweighted)

Table 4: Differences in the political activities andaffiliations of local, domestic, and international respondents at World SocialForum in 2007, Nairobi, Kenya (valid responses, unweighted)

Table 6: Differences in the political activities andaffiliations of local, domestic, and international respondents at U.S. SocialForum in 2007, Atlanta, Georgia (valid responses, unweighted)

Part B: How do WSF05, WSF07, and USSF07 respondents compare to the generalpopulation and other surveys of movement participants?

 

Part A: Statistical Tables

Table1: Demographic characteristics of WSF 2005, WSF 2007, and USSF 2007 respondent(valid responses, unweighted)

 

WSF 2005

WSF 2007

USSF 2007

Language of Questionnaire

 

 

 

English

32.0%

66.7%

80.2%

Spanish

22.0%

6.0%

19.8%

Portuguese

46.0%

5.4%

n/a

French

n/a

12.7%

n/a

Swahili

n/a

9.2%

n/a

 

 

 

 

Region of Residence

 

 

 

South America

70.2%

7.3%

1.1%

Europe

10.7%

18.9%

0.4%

North America (w/out Mexico)

8.5%

9.7%

95.2%

Asia

7.7%

7.1%

0.7%

Africa

1.4%

55.4%

0.0%

Central America and Caribbean

1.1%

1.2%

2.3%

Oceania

0.3%

0.4%

0.4%

 

 

 

 

Gender

 

 

 

Male

52.0%

54.0%

37.9%

Female

48.0%

46.0%

62.1%

 

 

 

 

Age

 

 

 

Under 18

4.0%

0.4%

3.4%

18 - 25

37.0%

24.7%

27.2%

26 – 35

29.0%

24.3%

27.9%

36 – 45

13.0%

19.8%

12.5%

46 – 55

10.0%

19.3%

11.5%

56 – 65

5.0%

8.8%

13.6%

Over 65

1.0%

2.6%

3.9%

 

 

 

 

Marital Status

 

 

 

Married

n/a

40.2%

24.6%

Not Married

n/a

59.8%

67.8%

Domestic/Civil Union

n/a

n/a

8.6%

 

WSF 2005

WSF 2007

USSF 2007

Custody of Children Under 18 Years

 

 

 

Yes

n/a

37.5%

15.2%

No

n/a

62.5%

84.8%

 

 

 

 

Race/Ethnicity

 

 

 

Black

14.0%

46.6%

12.7%

Middle Eastern

0.9%

2.0%

1.4%

Asian/Pacific Islander

5.9%

8.6%

4.8%

Indigenous

1.8%

3.0%

0.7%

Latino/Hispanic

6.3%

3.0%

15.2%

White

38.7%

30.1%

48.6%

Multiracial

9.3%

3.0%

10.0%

Answered with a Nationality

14.7%

n/a

n/a

Answered with a Religion

2.3%

n/a

n/a

Other or Unclear Answer

6.3%

3.6%

6.5%

 

 

 

 

Immigrant

 

 

 

No

n/a

88.4%

82.0%

Yes

n/a

11.6%

18.0%

 

 

 

 

Religiosity

 

 

 

Not Religious

n/a

33.8%

53.4%

Somewhat Religious

n/a

27.6%

33.6%

Very Religious

n/a

38.6%

13.1%

 

 

 

 

Religious Beliefs

 

 

 

Catholic

n/a

29.3%

15.7%

Other Christian

n/a

32.9%

15.1%

Buddhist

n/a

2.4%

3.4%

Jewish

n/a

1.0%

3.3%

Hindu

n/a

2.0%

1.8%

Islamic

n/a

7.7%

1.1%

Atheist

n/a

9.3%

14.7%

Agnostic

n/a

8.7%

10.7%

Other

n/a

6.6%

33.9%

 

WSF 2005

WSF 2007

USSF 2007

Years of School

 

 

 

None

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

1 – 5 years

2.0%

1.1%

1.0%

6 – 10 years

7.0%

6.7%

2.6%

11 – 15 years

40.0%

37.7%

27.6%

16 or more

51.0%

54.3%

68.5%

 

 

 

 

Class Identity

 

 

 

Upper Class

n/a

2.0%

2.7%

Upper Middle Class

n/a

22.9%

27.9%

Lower Middle Class

n/a

36.7%

30.0%

Working Class

n/a

21.3%

32.5%

Lower Class

n/a

17.1%

6.9%

 

 

 

 

Employment Status

 

 

 

Full-time

n/a

34.0%

47.4%

Part-time

n/a

9.5%

18.1%

Temporary Basis

n/a

5.5%

10.0%

Self-Employed

n/a

19.0%

16.3%

Unemployed

n/a

11.4%

9.5%

Retired

n/a

5.7%

9.6%

Student

51.0%

17.3%

27.9%

Dependent on Family Income

n/a

2.8%

5.1%

Investments/Savings

n/a

1.7%

6.0%

Volunteer

n/a

17.8%

15.1%


Table2: Demographic characteristics of WSF 2005, WSF 2007, and USSF 2007 respondents(valid responses, weighted)[1]

 

WSF 2005

WSF 2007

USSF 2007

Language of Questionnaire

 

 

 

English

18.8%

67.2%

80.4%

Spanish

16.6%

4.7%

19.6%

Portuguese

64.6%

1.9%

n/a

French

n/a

14.3%

n/a

Swahili

n/a

11.9%

n/a

 

 

 

 

Region of Residence

 

 

 

South America

88.1%

1.9%

1.1%

Europe

4.4%

17.6%

0.4%

North America (w/out Mexico)

2.5%

6.4%

95.2%

Asia

2.5%

4.0%

0.6%

Africa

1.7%

69.0%

0.0%

Central America and Caribbean

0.7%

0.6%

2.4%

Oceania

0.2%

0.4%

0.4%

 

 

 

 

Gender

 

 

 

Male

51.9%

52.4%

38.3%

Female

48.1%

47.6%

61.7%

 

 

 

 

Age

 

 

 

Under 18

n/a

n/a

n/a

18 – 25

45.9%

24.7%

28.2%

26 – 35

26.6%

26.0%

28.9%

36 – 45

13.3%

21.1%

13.0%

46 – 55

3.2%

18.6%

11.9%

56 – 65

9.7%

7.5%

14.1%

Over 65

1.3%

2.1%

4.0%

 

 

 

 

Marital Status

 

 

 

Married

n/a

40.3%

25.0%

Not Married

n/a

51.4%

54.9%

Domestic/Civil Union

n/a

n/a

9.1%

 

WSF 2005

WSF 2007

USSF 2007

Custody of Children Under 18 Years

 

 

 

Yes

n/a

40.3%

15.7%

No

n/a

59.7%

84.3%

 

 

 

 

Race/Ethnicity

 

 

 

Black

18.4%

56.0%

12.7%

Middle Eastern

0.6%

2.1%

1.3%

Asian/Pacific Islander

2.5%

6.4%

3.3%

Indigenous

1.3%

2.5%

0.8%

Latino/Hispanic

6.9%

2.1%

15.8%

White

44.0%

26.7%

50.0%

Multiracial

10.0%

2.1%

9.8%

Answered with a Nationality

n/a

n/a

n/a

Answered with a Religion

n/a

n/a

n/a

Other or Unclear Answer

16.3%

2.3%

6.3%

 

 

 

 

Immigrant

 

 

 

No

n/a

87.7%

82.0%

Yes

n/a

12.3%

18.0%

 

 

 

 

Religiosity

 

 

 

Not Religious

n/a

28.0%

54.6%

Somewhat Religious

n/a

28.2%

32.3%

Very Religious

n/a

43.9%

13.1%

 

 

 

 

Religious Beliefs

 

 

 

Catholic

n/a

30.9%

15.1%

Other Christian

n/a

36.4%

15.5%

Buddhist

n/a

1.4%

3.9%

Jewish

n/a

0.7%

2.9%

Hindu

n/a

1.1%

2.0%

Islamic

n/a

8.6%

1.0%

Atheist

n/a

8.2%

14.9%

Agnostic

n/a

6.8%

11.2%

Other (including multiple choices)

n/a

5.9%

33.6%

 

WSF 2005

WSF 2007

USSF 2007

Years of School

 

 

 

None

0.2%

0.2%

0.0%

1 – 5 years

1.8%

1.0%

0.8%

6 – 10 years

6.0%

7.5%

1.6%

11 – 15 years

42.9%

38.3%

26.5%

16 or more

49.1%

53.0%

71.0%

 

 

 

 

Class Identity

 

 

 

Upper Class

n/a

2.3%

2.8%

Upper Middle Class

n/a

19.0%

27.5%

Lower Middle Class

n/a

35.3%

30.5%

Working Class

n/a

23.5%

32.7%

Lower Class

n/a

19.9%

6.5%

 

 

 

 

Employment Status

 

 

 

Full-time

n/a

30.9%

48.7%

Part-time

n/a

9.3%

18.0%

Temporary Basis

n/a

5.2%

9.5%

Self-Employed

n/a

21.1%

16.7%

Unemployed

n/a

12.0%

9.1%

Retired

n/a

5.2%

9.9%

Student

n/a

17.4%

26.0%

Dependent on Family Income

n/a

2.4%

4.5%

Investments/Savings

n/a

1.7%

5.9%

Volunteer

n/a

19.6%

14.7%

 


Table3: Differences in the political activities and affiliations of local, domestic,and international respondents at World Social Forum in 2005, Porto Alegre,Brazil [2]

(Note:Chi-squares are reported only for significant results: * = .1 ** = .05 ***= .01)

 

 

Porto Alegre Brazilians

Other Brazilians

Non Brailians

Prior Participation in Social Fora

Chi2 = 39.21***

 

 

 

None

44.2%

64.4%

68.4%

One

26.0%

16.7%

22.1%

Two

10.4%

12.2%

5.7%

Three to Five

19.5%

6.8%

3.8%

Six or more

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

 

 

 

 

Organizational Affiliations[3]

 

 

 

NGOs                                   Chi2 = 9.33**

44.6%

37.2%

51.8%

Labour Unions

25.0%

22.0%

26.1%

Political Parties

16.9%

24.1%

17.1%

SMOs                                         Chi2 = 16.01***

24.6%

37.2%

49.9%

Government Agency

1.5%

3.1%

4.1%

Other

2.5%

6.2%

8.1%

None                                            Chi2 = 10.69**

10.6%

4.1%

12.2%

 

 

 

 

Protests in the Past 12 Months

Chi2 = 36.26***

 

 

 

None

24.0%

17.5%

10.8%

One

21.3%

24.4%

14.2%

Two to Four

34.7%

36.9%

32.3%

Five or More

20.0%

21.2%

42.7%

 

 

 

 

Active in at Least One Movement

 

 

 

Yes

89.4%

95.9%

87.8%

No

10.6%

4.1%

12.2%

 

 

 

 

Most Common Movements to be Actively Involved with

 

 

 

Global Justice                            Chi2 = 33.46***

5.7%

6.9%

24.8%

Anti-Racism / Human Rights

25.7%

24.0%

33.2%

Anti-war / Peace                        Chi2 = 28.90***

11.4%

11.1%

30.1%

Environmental                                 Chi2 = 8.61*

37.1%

27.6%

20.4%

Media

30.0%

24.9%

20.8%

 

Porto Alegre Brazilians

Other Brazilians

Non Brailians

Least Common Movements to be Actively Involved with

 

                 

 

Anarchist

8.6%

2.3%

3.5%

Communist

5.7%

5.1%

5.8%

LGBT

8.6%

4.6%

6.6%

National Liberation

1.4%

8.3%

7.1%

Food Rights

5.3%

6.5%

7.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Porto Alegre Brazilians

Other Brazilians

Non Brailians

Views on Capitalism

 

 

 

Reform

47.8%

46.8%

36.9%

Abolish

52.4%

53.2%

63.1%

 

 

 

 

Views on the IMF

 

 

 

Reform

12.3%

17.6%

12.2%

Replace

58.0%

59.5%

62.4%

Abolish

29.6%

22.9%

25.5%

 

 

 

 

Views on the WTO

 

 

 

Reform

12.3%

17.6%

12.2%

Replace

58.0%

59.5%

62.4%

Abolish

29.6%

22.9%

25.5%

 

 

 

 

Best Level to Solve Current Problems            

 

 

 

Community / Sub-national

61.8%

54.1%

64.2%

National

6.6%

12.7%

8.5%

International / Global

31.6%

33.2%

27.4%

 

 

 

 

Views on Democratic World Government

Chi2 = 11.79*

 

 

 

Good idea and possible

26.8%

22.7%

35.2%

Good idea but not possible

34.1%

42.2%

48.0%

Bad Idea

39.0%

35.1%

26.8%

 

Porto Alegre Brazilians

Other Brazilians

Non Brailians

Views on WSF not taking a Political Stance

 

 

 

 

Agree

40.5%

47.4%

53.5%

Disagree

59.5%

52.8%

46.5%

Neutral

n/a

n/a

n/a

 


Table4: Differences in the political activities and affiliations of local, domestic,and international respondents at World Social Forum in 2007, Nairobi, Kenya

(Note:Chi-squares are reported only for significant results: * = .1 ** = .05 ***= .01)

 

 

 

Nairobi Kenyans

Other Kenyans

Non Kenyans

Prior Participation in Social Fora

Chi2 = 41.97**

 

 

 

None

89.0%

90.4%

63.9%

One

8.3%

7.7%

20.2%

Two

1.4%

0.0%

4.9%

Three to Five

0.7%

1.9%

10.3%

Six or more

0.7%

0.0%

0.8%

 

 

 

 

Organizational Affiliations[4]

 

 

 

NGOs                                                   

48.0%

64.0%

53.7%

Labour Unions Chi2 = 30.76***

2.4%

2.0%

20.9%

Political Parties Chi2 = 17.07***

1.6%

0.0%

11.9%

SMOs Chi2 = 21.84***

8.9%

10.0%

27.9%

Government Agency

1.6%

2.0%

2.9%

Other

13.8%

16.3%

11.9%

None                            Chi2 = 16.70***

25.2%

7.8%

11.0%

 

 

 

 

In a Paid Leadership Position

Chi2 = 10.47***

 

 

 

Yes

35.2%

48.6%

56.5%

No

64.8%

51.4%

43.5%

 

 

 

 

Protests in the Past 12 Months

Chi2 = 20.01***

 

 

 

None

42.7%

38.6%

25.0%

One

7.3%

11.4%

11.6%

Two to Four

33.1%

20.5%

29.5%

Five or More

16.9%

29.5%

33.9%

 

 

 

 

Active in at Least One Movement

Chi2 = 6.92*

 

 

 

Yes

57.5%

62.7%

70.9%

No

43.1%

17.4%

14.3%

 

 

 

 

Most Common Movements to be Actively Involved with

Chi2 = 43.58***

 

 

 

Health / HIV

66.7%

50.0%

25.2%

Anti-Racism / Human Rights

18.3%

35.7%

23.1%

Environmental

5.0%

7.1%

22.4%

Feminist

5.0%

3.6%

21.8%

Global Justice

5.0%

3.6%

7.5%

 

Nairobi Kenyans

Other Kenyans

Non Kenyans

Least Common Movements to be Actively Involved with

 

                      

 

Anarchist

0.0%

0.0%

2.2%

LGBT

18.8%

0.0%

15.2%

Anti-Corporate

18.8%

33.3%

26.1%

National Liberation

12.5%

44.4%

21.7%

Intellectual Property

50.0%

22.2%

34.8%

 

 

 

 

Engaged in an International Campaign

Chi2 = 65.08***

 

 

 

Yes

34.5%

64.5%

83.2%

No

65.5%

35.5%

16.8%

 

 

Nairobi Kenyans

Other Kenyans

Non Kenyans

Views on Capitalism                 Chi2 = 12.18***

 

 

 

Reform

72.0%

58.7%

53.2%

Abolish

28.0%

41.3%

46.8%

 

 

 

 

Views on the IMF                      Chi2 = 79.31***

 

 

 

Reform

84.6%

87.8%

41.9%

Replace

8.5%

7.3%

23.5%

Abolish

6.9%

4.9%

34.6%

 

 

 

 

Views on the World Bank        Chi2 = 51.23***

 

 

 

Reform

78.6%

83.8%

43.1%

Replace

10.3%

8.1%

24.4%

Abolish

11.1%

8.1%

32.4%

 

 

 

 

Views on the WTO                    Chi2 = 49.28***

 

 

 

Reform

83.8%

81.3%

47.4%

Replace

9.4%

9.4%

25.9%

Abolish

6.8%

9.4%

26.8%

 

Nairobi Kenyans

Other Kenyans

Non Kenyans

Views on the UN

 

 

 

Reform

89.1%

86.2%

82.3%

Replace

8.2%

10.3%

11.1%

Abolish

2.7%

3.4%

6.6%

 

 

 

 

Political Views                        Chi2 = 157.00***

 

 

 

Far Left

3.4%

9.7%

13.4%

Left

10.3%

12.9%

57.1%

Centre Left

6.9%

12.9%

14.7%

Centre

32.2%

12.9%

6.9%

Centre Right

26.4%

22.6%

1.7%

Right

3.4%

16.1%

3.0%

Far Right

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

Indifferent

13.8%

12.9%

3.0%

 

 

 

 

Best Level to Solve Current Problems             

Chi2 = 46.30***

 

 

 

Community / Sub-national

65.0%

67.3%

30.6%

National

6.6%

2.0%

15.4%

International / Global

28.5%

30.6%

52.3%

 

 

 

 

Part of a Global Social Movement

 

 

 

Yes

82.0%

84.0%

83.7%

No

18.0%

16.0%

16.3%

 

 

 

 

Views on Democratic World Government

Chi2 = 21.34***

 

 

 

Good idea and possible

50.7%

62.0%

37.3%

Good idea but not possible

40.8%

32.0%

41.4%

Bad Idea

8.5%

6.0%

21.3%

 

Nairobi Kenyans

Other Kenyans

Non Kenyans

Views on WSF not taking a Political Stance

Chi2 = 32.12***

 

 

 

Agree

80.3%

76.0%

55.3%

Disagree

11.7%

22.0%

36.1%

Neutral

8.0%

2.0%

8.6%

 

 

 

 

Approve of Tobin Tax Proposal                      

Chi2 = 18.99***

 

 

 

Yes

69.5%

65.3%

78.8%

No

22.9%

32.7%

11.2%

Indifferent

7.6%

2.0%

10.0%

 

 

 

 

In Favor of Reparations for those Affected by Slavery, Colonialism and Racism

Chi2 = 11.38**

 

 

 

Yes

76.7%

88.0%

80.4%

No

19.5%

10.0%

10.6%

Indifferent

3.8%

2.0%

8.9%

 

 

 

 

In Favor of Quotas to Increase Women’s Political Represenations

Chi2 = 13.02**

 

 

 

Yes

82.7%

81.5%

81.6%

No

15.8%

18.5%

10.6%

Indifferent

1.5%

0.0%

7.8%

 

 

 

 

In Favor of Women’s Rights to Abortion

Chi2 = 156.00***

 

 

 

No / Never

43.9%

59.3%

12.1%

Sometimes / It Depends

48.2%

35.2%

25.0%

Yes, under all circumstances

7.2%

5.6%

61.3%

Indifferent

0.7%

0.0%

1.6%

 


 

 

Table5: Differences in the political activities and affiliations of local, domestic,and international respondents at U.S. Social Forum in 2007, Atlanta, Georgia

(Note:Chi-squares are reported only for significant results: * = .1 ** = .05 ***= .01)

 

 

Atlanta US

Other US

Non US

Prior Participation in Social Fora

Chi2 = 47.81***

 

 

 

None

82.9%

70.0%

37.0%

One

4.9%

17.8%

14.8%

Two

9.8%

5.9%

14.8%

Three to Five

0.0%

4.7%

14.8%

Six or more

2.4%

1.6%

18.5%

 

 

 

 

Organizational Affiliations[5]

 

 

 

NGOs                                                             

21.12%

34.8%

40.0%

Labour Unions

12.1%

20.7%

16.0%

Political Parties

8.8%

7.3%

12.0%

SMOs                                      Chi2 = 92.39**

45.2%

21.5%

50.8%

Government Agency

3.0%

3.8%

8.0%

Other

12.1%

17.1%

20.0%

None                                            Chi2 = 7.24*

22.7%

9.6%

9.7%

 

 

 

 

In a Paid Leadership Position                     

Chi2 = 9.25**

 

 

 

Yes

44.4%

68.0%

76.0%

No

55.6%

32.0%

24.0%

 

 

 

 

Protests in the Past 12 Months                    

Chi2 = 14.71**

 

 

 

None

26.8%

9.8%

15.4%

One

14.6%

9.8%

11.5%

Two to Four

31.7%

38.5%

46.2%

Five or More

26.8%

41.9%

26.9%

 

Atlanta US

Other US

Non US

Active in at Least One Movement

Chi2 = 5.78*

 

 

 

Yes

77.8%

81.8%

64.5%

No

22.2%

18.2%

35.5%

 

 

 

 

Most Common Movements to be Actively Involved with

 

 

 

Anti-Racism / Human Rights

26.7%

17.8%

31.3%

Environmental

26.7%

20.2%

12.5%

Feminist

30.0%

37.1%

31.3%

Anti-war / Peace

16.7%

20.9%

12.5%

Global Justice

0.0%

4.0%

12.5%

 

 

 

 

Least Common Movements to be Actively Involved with

 

                   

 

Communism

40.0%

17.2%

0.0%

National Liberation

0.0%

9.1%

20.0%

Intellectual Property Rights

0.0%

9.1%

20.0%

Land Reforms

20.0%

12.1%

20.0%

Food Rights

40.0%

52.5%

40.0%

 

 

 

 

Engaged in an International Campaign

Chi2 = 15.59***

 

 

 

Yes

42.5%

59.8%

92.3%

No

57.6%

40.2%

7.7%

 

 

Atlanta US

Other US

Non US

Views on Capitalism

 

 

 

Reform

47.4%

38.0%

44.0%

Abolish

52.6%

62.0%

56.0%

 

 

 

 

Views on the IMF

 

 

 

Reform

35.7%

22.3%

31.0%

Replace

16.7%

21.3%

20.7%

Abolish

46.3%

51.8%

39.3%

 

 

 

 

Views on the World Bank

 

 

 

Reform

39.0%

26.0%

28.6%

Replace

14.6%

22.1%

32.1%

Abolish

46.3%

51.8%

39.3%

 

 

 

 

Views on the WTO                  Chi2 = 11.01*

 

 

 

Reform

42.5%

22.3%

34.6%

Replace

20.0%

24.8%

30.8%

Abolish

37.5%

53.0%

34.6%

 

Atlanta US

Other US

Non US

Views on the UN

 

 

 

Reform

74.4%

70.3%

73.9%

Replace

15.4%

19.0%

17.4%

Abolish

10.3%

10.8%

8.7%

 

 

 

 

Political Views                      Chi2 = 32.56***

 

 

 

Far Left

39.0%

48.7%

10.3%

Left

29.3%

36.1%

65.5%

Centre Left

17.1%

6.2%

10.3%

Centre

7.3%

4.1%

0.0%

Centre Right

2.4%

0.8%

3.4%

Right

0.0%

1.3%

3.4%

Far Right

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

Indifferent

4.9%

2.1%

6.9%

 

 

 

 

Best Level to Solve Current Problems

 

 

 

Community / Sub-national

55.6%

58.1%

38.1%

National

16.7%

9.4%

14.3%

International / Global

27.8%

32.5%

47.6%

 

 

 

 

Part of a Global Social Movement

 

 

 

Yes

82.2%

87.6%

93.1%

No

17.8%

12.4%

6.9%

 

 

 

 

Views on Democratic World Gov’t.

 

 

 

Good idea and possible

44.4%

45.3%

42.9%

Good idea but not possible

25.0%

25.7%

35.7%

Bad Idea

30.6%

29.1%

21.4%

 

Atlanta US

Other US

Non US

Views on WSF not taking a Political Stance

 

 

 

Agree

n/a

n/a

n/a

Disagree

n/a

n/a

n/a

Neutral

n/a

n/a

n/a

 

 

 

 

Approve of Tobin Tax Proposal                 
Chi2 = 11.39**

 

 

 

Yes

69.0%

76.2%

76.7%

No

4.8%

10.8%

20.0%

Indifferent

26.2%

13.0%

3.3%

 

 

 

 

In Favor of Reparations for those Affected by Slavery, Colonialism and Racism

 

 

 

Yes

88.4%

85.2%

90.3%

No

4.7%

7.1%

3.2%

Indifferent

7.0%

7.8%

6.5%

 

 

 

 

In Favor of Quotas to Increase Women’s Political Represenations

 

 

 

Yes

63.4%

69.2%

69.0%

No

24.4%

17.6%

24.1%

Indifferent

12.2%

13.2%

6.9%

 

 

 

 

In Favor of Women’s Rights to Abortion

 

 

 

No / Never

10.9%

11.7%

19.4%

Sometimes / It Depends

15.2%

14.6%

16.1%

Yes, under all circumstances

65.2%

71.9%

64.5%

Indifferent

8.7%

1.8%

0.0%


PartB: How do WSF05, WSF07, and USSF07 respondents compare to the generalpopulation and other surveys of movement participants?[6]

 

Table 1 shows the breakdown ofrespondents in terms of their demographic characteristics. At both WSFmeetings, the proportion of male respondents in our samples was only marginallyhigher than the female respondents. Similarly, IBASE’s 2005 WSF survey foundthe gender distribution of respondents to be fairly balanced (IBASE’s 2007report did not include the gender distribution). In our USSF survey, malerespondents made up only 38% of respondents (compared to 49% of the U.S.population). Although the active participation of women in the OrganizingCommittee may have drawn more women to the USSF than attended the WSF meetings,we may have also over-sampled women at the USSF (registration data on thisquestion is not yet available). In terms of age, our findings were in line withIBASE’s 2005 survey but differed slightly from their 2007 survey results. Wefound that a majority of respondents from each meeting were between the ages of18-35, with the highest proportion of youth in our 2005 sample. In our samples,70% of the 2005 WSF respondents, 50% of the 2007 WSF respondents, and 59% of2007 USSF respondents were 35 years or less. Related to this, we found that 51%of our Porto Alegre sample, 28% of our Atlanta sample, and 17% of our Nairobisample were students. Similarly, IBASE reports that 71% of the 2005 WSF sampleand 61% of its 2007 WSF sample was aged 34 or less. Reporting on surveys ofglobal justice demonstrations in Italy, della Porta et al. (2006) similarlyreports a slight male over-representation as well as high levels ofparticipation among youth. Interestingly, a survey of participants atAustralian Social Forums found that there were slightly more females (54%) anda more balanced break down of age, with about one-quarter of respondentsbetween the ages of 17 and 24 and one-quarter over 45 (Bramble 2006). SocialForum participants tend to be more youthful than the world’s adult population.The WVS found that 42% of their sample was below the age of 35, while the GSSreports that only 28% of its sample of the U.S. population was 35 and under.

The disproportionateparticipation of young adults and students attending Social Forum meetingspoints to the significance of “biographical availability” for social movementparticipation. As defined by McAdam (1986: 70), “biographical availability”refers to the “absence of personal constraints that may increase the costs andrisks of movement participation, such as full-time employment, marriage, andfamily responsibilities.” Biographical availability may also help to explainwhy most (or about 60%) of respondents in both our Nairobi and Atlanta surveyswere not married, while only 38% of Nairobi respondents and 15% of Atlantarespondents had custody of children under 18. Among Social Forum attendees,married people and those with children are under-represented relative to theirshare of the general adult population. The WVS found that almost 59% ofrespondents were married, while the U.S. Census Bureau reports that nearly 53%of U.S. residents aged 15 and over were married in 2006 and about 36% of allhouseholds in 2000 had a child under 18 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007; Fields andCasper 2001: Table 1).

Measuring the racial andethnic composition of participants is complicated by the variety ofclassifications and their meanings around the world. Our first survey allowedparticipants to self-identify their race and ethnicity through an open-endedquestion and responses were later recoded into categories commonly employedwithin the U.S. Later surveys provided a list of options, but allowed them toname other types of identities. At Porto Alegre and Atlanta, the most commonracial identification was “white” (39% and 49% respectively). Surveyors noted,however, that many of the 13% of Porto Alegre respondents identifying theirrace in terms of their nationality (a response common among Western Europeansand Latin Americans) appeared to be white, so the proportion of “white”respondents may have been closer to 52%. Likewise, IBASE’s 2005 survey foundthat 63% of Brazilian respondents identified as “white,” the most commonresponse (they only asked about the race among Brazilians). In Nairobi, thelargest proportion of our respondents identified as “Black” (47%). Almost 12%of respondents in our Nairobi survey reported that they were immigrants, while18% reported this in Atlanta. People of color and immigrants wereover-represented in our sample of USSF attendees when compared to the totalU.S. population; the U.S. Census Bureau reports that nearly 80% of the U.S.population in 2007 was “white only,” while only 13% were foreign-born (U.S.Census Bureau 2007; Camarota 2007: Figure 2).

Whereas 66% of respondents inNairobi identified as somewhat or very religious (and nearly 39% as “veryreligious”), a majority (53%) of respondents in Atlanta claimed that they werenot religious and only 13% claimed to be “very religious.” Compared tonon-Africans, African respondents in Nairobi had higher levels of religiosity,with 61% of Africans and only 17% of non-Africans, claiming to be “veryreligious.” Similarly, IBASE’s 2007 report shows high levels of religiosityamong WSF attendees, especially those from Africa: 91% of respondents fromKenya and 85% of non-Kenyan Africans identified as being religious, compared toonly 48% of those from outside of Africa. Surveys of the general public alsofind Africans to be more religious compared to other parts of the world. While74% of Afrobarometer respondents claimed to be associated with a religiousgroup, only 20% of WVS respondents and only 36% of GSS respondents in the U.S.made this claim. The WVS reports higher levels of religiosity among theirsample of the general public than we found among WSF and USSF attendees; only12% of WVS respondents claimed that religion is “not at all important in life”while 47% claiming it is “very important.”

In terms of religiousaffiliations, nearly equal proportions of Catholics and other Christians werefound in our Nairobi sample (29% and 33% respectively). In contrast, there wereabout three times as many Catholics as other Christians in our Atlanta sample(16% versus 5%). While nearly 8% of the Nairobi sample identified as Islamic,this was true for only 1% of the Atlanta sample. Respondents of other religiousfaiths, including Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, made up less than 3% eachfor both samples. Strikingly different is the religious composition of thegeneral public surveyed by the WVS, with nearly 28% identifying as Islamic.

Social Fora attendeesgenerally appear to be more highly educated than the general population. Morethan 50% of all respondents at the three meetings had 16 years or more ofeducation. Atlanta respondents were the most highly educated, with 69%reporting 16 or more years of education. This was consistent with IBASE’sfindings. About 78% of IBASE’s 2005 WSF sample and 82% of its 2007 WSF samplehad begun or completed a university education. Similarly, a survey ofparticipants at two Australian Social Forum meetings in 2002 found thattwo-thirds had a graduate or postgraduate degree (Bramble 2006). In contrast,the WVS found that only 12% of respondents in the general public reportedhaving a university degree, while the GSS reports that only 28% of USrespondents reported 16 or more years of education.

Our 2007 surveys also askedpeople to identify their social class from a series of options. At Nairobi,about one-quarter of respondents identified as upper class or upper-middleclass, compared to one-third of respondents at Atlanta. Slightly morerespondents identified as lower middle class, working class, or lower class inNairobi than Atlanta, with the “working class” label more popular withinAtlanta and the “lower class” label more popular in Nairobi. This latterdifference probably reflects variations in the relative income in the two samplesgiven the high levels of poverty within Africa and relatively low share offull-time workers in the Nairobi sample; this difference could also be relatedto a higher level of working class consciousness among Atlanta respondents, whowere also more leftist in orientation than Nairobi respondents. Our findingsfor USSF participants’ class identity are particularly striking given thetendency of the general U.S. population to over-identify as middle class (Zweig2000). Surprisingly, the WVS reports percentages that are almost exactlyidentical with our 2007 WSF findings on perceived class identity, despite thedifferences in respondents’ educational attainment.

Referencesfor Part B

Afrobarometer.2004. Afrobarometer Round 2: Compendium of Comparative Results from a 15-

CountrySurvey, http://www.afrobarometer.org/papers/AfropaperNo34.pdf.

Bramble,Tom. 2006. "Another World is Possible: A Study of Participants atAustralian Alter Globalization Social Forums.” Journal of Sociology 42(3):287-309.

Camarota,Steven A. 2007. Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’sForeign-Born Population. Washington DC: Center For Immigration Studies.

dellaPorta, Donatella, Massimiliano Andretta, Lorenzo Mosca, and Herbert Reiter.2006. Globalization from Below: Transnational Activists and Protest Networks .Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

EuropeanValues Study Group and World Values Survey Association. 2006. European andWorld Values Surveys Four-Wave Integrated Data File, 1981-2004, v.20060423,2006. Aggregate File Producers: Analisis Sociologicos Economicos y Politicos(ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tilburg Uinversity, Tilburg, TheNetherlands. Data Files Suppliers: Analisis Sociologicos Economicos y Politicos(ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tillburg University, Tillburg, TheNetherlands/Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung (ZA), Cologne,Germany:) Aggregate File Distributors: Analisis Sociologicos Economicos yPoliticos (ASEP) and JD Systems (JDS), Madrid, Spain/Tillburg University,Tilburg, The Netherlands/Zentralarchiv fur Empirische Sozialforschung (ZA)Cologne, Germany.

Fields,Jason and Lynne M. Casper. 2001. America’s Families and Living Arrangements:Population Characteristics. Current Population Reports. P20-537. Washington DC:U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and StatisticsAdministration.

GeneralSocial Survey. 1972-2006 Cumulative Data Set. www.gss.norc.org Retrieved July4, 2008.

IBASE(Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analyses). 2005. An X-Ray ofParticipation in the 2005 Forum: Elements for a Debate Rio de Janeiro: IBASEhttp://www.ibase.org.br/userimages/relatorio_fsm2005_INGLES2.pdf.

-----.2007. World Social Forum: An X-Ray of Participants in the Forum 2007. Rio deJaneiro: IBASE.

Latinobarometro.2003. Santiago, Chile: Latinobarometro.

McAdam,Doug. 1986. "Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of       FreedomSummer." American Journal of Sociology 92: 64-90.

PewGlobal Attitudes Survey. 2002. Prepared by the Princeton Survey ResearchAssociates International for The Pew Research Center for the People and thePress. Retrieved June  28, 2008 (pewglobal.org).

UnitedStates Census Bureau, International Data Base. 2006. Data for 2005 the U.S.Census Bureau, Population Division/International Programs Center. RetrievedJuly 2, 2008 (http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbagg).

UnitedStates Census Bureau. 2007. United States Population Finder. Data Set: 2007Population Estimates. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program.http://www.factfinder.census.gov (Retrieved July 3, 2008)

Zweig,Michael. 2000. The Working Class Majority: America's Best Kept Secret. Ithaca:Cornell University Press.

 

 

 

 



[1] To overcome sampling biases, particularly theover-representation of international participants in our sample, we weightedour WSF samples according to regional and country-level registration datareleased by the WSF Organizing Committees of 2005 and 2007 (IBASE 2005, 2007).The2005 figures listed attendance by region of the world (Europe, Asia, Africa,etc.), as well as attendance by the top 15 represented countries. We firstcreated weights for the 15 available countries and then assigned weights forthe rest of the countries in our sample so that our country/region demographicsmatched those released by the Organizing Committee. For 2007, the OrganizingCommittee listed the attendance rates of Kenyans, other Africans, and otherregions of the world. We weighted our cases accordingly. We were unable toweight our USSF07 survey data because the registration data for this meetinghas not yet been publicly released.

[2] Local respondents livein the host city of the Social Forum; domestic respondents live in the hostcountry; international respondents live in another country.

[3] In thesequestions the sample only contains respondents with one or more organizationalaffiliations.

[4] In thesequestions the sample only contains respondents with one or more organizationalaffiliations.

[5] In thesequestions the sample only contains respondents with one or more organizationalaffiliations.

[6] Here, we compare theunweighted (raw) results of our survey to other survey findings in Table. Forresults weighted according to national and regional participation, see Table 2.