James Ron

Parental care influences outcomes for children's type 1 diabetes (T1D). There is little evidence about the impact of parental caregiving in developing countries, where fixed dose human insulin (conventional) therapy and limited self-monitoring of blood glucose are common. This article investigates whether performance of key T1D management tasks by children or their caregivers impacts hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We surveyed the caregivers of 179 children with T1D routinely treated in a specialized diabetes clinic in Maharashtra, India to determine who performs key diabetes care tasks: child or parent. We used linear regression to estimate the relationship between parental caregiving and HbA1c, and how this association varies by child age and time since diagnosis. Caregivers of older children were less involved in care tasks, though caregivers of 11- to 18-year olds performed more care for children diagnosed for a longer duration. Parental involvement in key insulin delivery tasks was associated with lower HbA1c levels for all children. These reductions were greatest among children 11 to 14 years old and diagnosed for less than 2 years: mean HbA1c levels were 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) if the caregiver, and 14.4% (134 mmol/mol) if the child, performed the tasks (P < .05). Parents of children diagnosed with T1D early in life remain involved in care throughout the child's adolescence. Parents of children diagnosed in late childhood and early adolescence are significantly less involved in care, and this is associated with worse glycemic control. Clinics must know who performs care tasks and tailor diabetes education appropriately.

This chapter discusses key findings of the preceding chapters and presents some directions for future research. While public opinion in the global South is far from monolithic, this research found relative favor for human rights ideas and organizations, suggesting deeper grassroots support than many critics allege or practitioners fear. However, the preceding chapters also argued that this general public good will has not been fully harnessed or transformed into action. This chapter suggests that human rights researchers should spend more time investigating the public experiences with and opinions about human rights. Scholars have devoted enormous attention to the construction, diffusion, and reception of human rights norms, but have largely focused on states, legal systems, organizations, and other institutions. Few have explored public attitudes toward international human rights norms and organizations; additional research is needed on the depth, limits, variability, and potential of public support for human rights.

This chapter first sets out the book’s purpose, which is to examine the interaction between global South publics and human rights ideas and organizations. This chapter underscores the importance of the book’s key concepts: human rights, local human rights organizations, and public opinion. The chapter then discusses the four case studies—India, Mexico, Morocco, and Nigeria—that are the focus of the present inquiry, and explains why these countries were selected. It goes on to describe the book’s mixed-methods approach and introduce the Human Rights Perceptions Polls, followed by a brief overview of key findings.

This chapter analyzes the diffusion of human rights consciousness among global South publics. Survey data reveal broad diffusion of human rights discourse, as respondents report hearing “human rights” regularly in their lives. Actual engagement with organized human rights activities is much lower, however, as knowledge about, contact with, and participation in human rights organizations is relatively rare. Concerning to those who hope the human rights sector is reaching and engaging those most likely in need of human rights protections, statistical analysis shows those with lower socioeconomic statuses are less likely to engage with human rights organizations or activities. This chapter discusses implications for social movement mobilization, including potential strategies for increasing participation in local human rights activities among diverse publics.

This chapter surveys global South publics’ definitions of “human rights” and perceptions of local human rights organizations. Many human rights practitioners fear negative public opinions about human rights ideas and organizations, such as seeing them as protecting criminals or terrorists, imposing foreign ideas, or offering a rhetorical “cover” for offenses of governments. Data show, however, that people generally regard “human rights” very positively and have high levels of trust in local human rights organizations. Another key finding is that pro-human rights constituents generally have anti-power worldviews, including mistrust in their national governments, the US government, and multinational corporations. Findings do not show evidence of a strong middle class human rights constituency, as some have argued, but instead suggest a constituency based more in worldview or ideology than materialist explanations.

This chapter examines the persistence of the top-down foreign funding resource pattern for local human rights organizations (LHROs) in the global South. Local publics have generally high levels of support for human rights ideas and organizations, and they do make donations to other causes. Despite this high potential for local donations, almost all LHRO funding flows from northern institutions. Part of the explanation lies in socially constructed philanthropic routines: individuals prioritize donations to “tangible” charities rather to organizations that support policy, advocacy, and legal work, and LHROs pursue international resources, rather than engage in costly domestic fundraising efforts. The chapter argues that local rights groups face an uncertain future if they do not begin to capitalize on public support. It further suggests that LHROs should—and can—develop a more diverse domestic resource base.

(2017). Introduction to special issue on “Public Opinion Polling & Human Rights”. Journal of Human Rights: Vol. 16, Public Opinion Polling & Human Rights, pp. 257-260.

Local human rights organizations (LHROs) in the global South are increasingly keen to raise funds from cocitizens and local businesses to diversify their funding, to increase their political legitimacy, and to bolster their resilience to fluctuations in international donor trends. This concern with local funds has assumed new urgency today following the global governmental crackdown on foreign aid to domestic civil society. This article focuses on the potential for local human rights fundraising in Mumbai, one of India's most important economic centers, as well as a hub of social movements and human rights organizing. Like other governments, India has launched a crackdown on foreign aid to local NGOs. Interviews with a representative sample of Mumbai's LHRO leaders indicate that they depend on foreign aid, worry about government regulation, and are keen to raise funds from the city's booming corporate sector. Our representative survey of 1,680 adults living in Mumbai and its rural environs, however, shows that LHRO fundraising among Mumbai businesses could pose an acute reputational challenge. While Indian human rights groups do enjoy some public support in Mumbai, the public's trust in these groups is statistically associated with greater mistrust in local businesses. LHRO leaders in Mumbai face a critical dilemma: The city's booming corporate sector presents a tempting fundraising target but any attempt to access these funds risks undermining the local rights sector's reserves of public support.

Human rights groups in global South countries rely heavily, but not exclusively, on funds from abroad, and this pattern has created a number of vulnerabilities. Conventional explanations for this pattern include political repression, poverty, and cultural particularity. We argue that these do not tell the whole story, however, and offer evidence that local rights groups receive more public support than many assume. Other, less common, explanations for rights groups’ reliance on external funds include habit and routine, fear of political manipulation by co-citizens, and, potentially, a failure to provide services that local people deem sufficiently valuable. To broaden their funding base to within-country sources, local rights groups in the global South will have to hire new staff, experiment with new methods, and better define their value added.