North-South Contradictions and bridges at the World Social Forum*

Ellen Reese, Mark Herkenrath, Chris Chase-Dunn?, Rebecca Giem, Erika Gutierrez, Linda Kim and Christine Petit

Transnational Social Movements Research Working Group, Institute for Research on World-Systems? (IROWS), University of California-Riverside?

To be presented at the annual meeting of the California Sociological Society, Saturday, November 11, 2006 9-10:45 am, Mission Inn, Riverside, CA.

A later version will be published in Rafael Reuveny and William R. Thompson (eds.) NORTH AND SOUTH IN THE WORLD POLITICAL ECONOMY. Blackwell.

DRAFT v. 11-10-06 7951 words. This is IROWS Working Paper # 31 available at http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows31/irows31.htm (external link), University of California-Riverside?

*Thanks to Richard Niemeyer for producing the GIS map of WSF05 participant home places in Figure 1 and to Toi Carter for providing population data broken down by age and gender.

(This formatted version and introduction courtesy Patrick Bond on Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:09:05 +0200 on Debate: SA discussion and )

(Though WSF attendees from the 'periphery' are ostensibly less radical than from other sites, here's why there's some basis for expectation that the WSF can advance militant politics not MDGist globo-reformism: "Attendees were asked whether they thought global capitalism should be reformed or if it should be abolished and replaced. Fifty-eight percent of the activist attendees indicated that they were in favor of abolition and replacement... a very large number (61%) see a need to get rid of existing global financial institutions and to replace them... Thirty-two percent of the activist attendees think that democratic world government is a bad idea, while 39% think it is a good idea but not plausible, and 29% think it is a good idea and is plausible.")

(Note: due to formatting problems, tables are omitted.)

Abstract: This paper uses the results of a survey of participants at the World Social Forum that was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 2005 to examine North/South issues and differences within the progressive sector of global civil society. Our purpose is to reflect on the problems of overcoming contradictions among and within counter-hegemonic transnational social movements in order to promote more effective cooperation in global social justice projects.

Keywords: North/South relations, global inequality, transnational social movements, World Social Forum, semiperipheral development, global social change

The World Social Forum (WSF) is both an open space and a movement of movements that are explicitly acting to oppose neoliberal global capitalism and to address issues of global social justice and environmental sustainability. Because it is recognized by all participants that countries in the Global South are especially at risk of exploitation and domination, the world-level meetings of the World Social Forum have all been held in the global south (Porto Alegre, Brazil; Mumbai, India and the 2007 world-level meeting will be held in Nairobi, Kenya.1 Overcoming global inequalities and injustices is a major goal of those who are participating in the Social Forum process.

This paper focuses on north/south differences and complimentarities among the people and the movements that are participating in the World Social Forum using the results of a survey that we made of the participants at the meeting in Porto Alegre in January of 2005 (WSF05). We study the extent to which participants in the WSF come from different world regions and the similarities and differences between participants from the global north and the global south with respect to their social characteristics, movement participation, and preferred political goals and strategies for social change. We summarize Moghadam’s (2005) study that shows convergence in the goals of northern and southern feminists, and we analyze apparent differences among northern and southern WSF participants in their attitudes toward restructuring global institutions.

The terminology of “north/south relations” has come to refer to the relations of between wealthy powerful countries with poor and less developed ones. It is fair to say that most social science approaches to global social change are core-centric, focusing mainly or only on the “great powers” or the “advanced countries.” Our theoretical approach is the comparative world-systems perspective that analyzes global inequalities as a world-historically constructed hierarchy – an intersocietal stratification system. This global intersocietal hierarchy evolved out of the rise of European societies to power over the rest of the world and it continues to exist despite the decolonization of the Americas, Asia and Africa.[2] This hierarchy is socially constituted and institutionally reproduced but it is also repeatedly challenged by the organized and unorganized resistance of the dominated and exploited peoples. The structure of global governance has evolved in response to these challenges.

The terms we prefer are core, periphery and semiperiphery defined as structural positions in a global hierarchy that is economic, political-military and cultural. The core/periphery hierarchy at the global level is organized spatially, but it is not a simple matter of latitude as implied by the north/south terminology. It is a complex and multidimensional hierarchy of different kinds of interrelated power and dependence relations.

The world-systems perspective holds that this global hierarchy is a centrally important structure for understanding and explaining world history and the trajectories of individual countries and regions. The global hierarchy is reproduced over time in the sense that it is hard to move up or down, although there is some vertical mobility. The semiperiphery, composed of large states and national societies with intermediate levels of development, is an important zone because innovations that transform technologies and forms of organization tend to get implemented (and sometimes invented) in the semiperiphery. It is a fertile location that produces structural and evolutionary change. This is the hypothesis of “semiperipheral development” (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997: Chapter 5).

The world-systems perspective also asserts that capitalism as a system is dependent on successful exploitation of the periphery by competing core states and firms (Chase-Dunn 1998).[3] Both the hypothesis of semiperipheral development and the notion of the “necessity of imperialism” are the main justifications for the assertion that core/periphery relations are a key factor in the explanation of world historical social change.

The struggle of the elites to move up the hierarchy and to stay on top requires hegemonic strategies that incorporate some of the non-elites into developmental projects, but the resistance of those below to domination and exploitation challenges hegemonic projects with new counter-hegemonic strategies of protection and democratization. This systemic core/periphery struggle is the most important engine of world historical social change.

Efforts by local and national groups to come together in transnational and international coalitions and organizations are not new. There has been a series of world revolutions in which transnational and international political alliances and organizations have played important roles for centuries (Arrighi, Hopkins and Wallerstein 1989; Boswell and Chase-Dunn? 1998). The contemporary efforts by activists to overcome North/South cultural differences and to deal with potential and actual contradictory interests between workers, women, environmentalists, consumers, indigenous peoples and etc. of the north and the south need to be informed by both the failures and the successes of the earlier struggles.

The World Social Forum, despite official statements that decry the effort to represent humanity as a whole[4], tries to be broadly inclusive. Here and in other papers[5] we present results that shed light on the extent to which this endeavor has been successful.

In the analyses that follow we use both the north/south-distinction and the core-semiperiphery-periphery distinction in order to compare the two. The north/south breakdown we use is based on the World Bank’s classification of countries into high income, upper middle income, lower middle income and low income countries, with the group of high income countries designated as the global north. For the core-semiperiphery-periphery breakdown we use Jeffrey Kentor’s (2000, 2005) measure, which includes indicators of military power and international economic dependency along with indicators of national income (See Appendix A). The “north” category is quite similar to the “core” as we have trichotomized Kentor’s measure (kentor1) except for eight countries that the World Bank includes in its “high income” group (Greece, Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, Portugal, Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel). We designate these as semiperipheral.

[Add discussion of n/s and c-s-p global population breakdowns here.]

From whence did the participants in the 2005 WSF in Porto Alegre come? Our survey is not a perfectly random sample of the participants, though we tried to make it as representative as possible given the limitations of collecting responses during the meetings. Based on the 520 survey responses for which we were able to ascertain the respondent’s home city, Figure 1 shows a global map of where they came from. There were 163 cities plotted on this GIS map.

Obviously the “tyranny of distance,” despite the long-term declining costs of long-distance transportation, continues to be a major factor in shaping the geographical nature of participation in the WSF. This can even be seen within South America. Forty-three percent of the participants came from Brazil.[6] None of our respondents were from the Peoples Republic of China, except for the five from Hong Kong, and none were from Russia.[7] Table 1 shows the home region of the respondents of our survey.

Asia and Africa are the most seriously under-represented world regions. Of course it is not just the tyranny of distance that skews the participation in an event such as the World Social Forum. People from different regions also have very different financial resources and different degrees of connectivity to global civil society. Table 2 shows the number and percentages of WSF2005 respondents from the core, periphery and semiperiphery and compares these with percentages of the world’s population in the countries in these categories.

The core is not very over-represented, but the periphery, which contains xx percent of the world’s population, is seriously under-represented. That is one reason why the 2007 World Social Forum will be held in Nairobi, Kenya.

In the analysis of demographic, social and political differences that follows we present the results broken down both by world-system zone categories and by the north/south categorization shown in Appendix A. As mentioned above, 43% of our respondents were from Brazil. Our purpose in studying World Social Forum meetings is to study those people who are active participants in global civil society. We worried that some of the respondents were “drop-ins” who were attracted to the atmosphere of the Forum but were not serious participants in global civil society, and that this might be distorting our efforts to examine north/south differences. We addressed this concern by constructing a measure that we call “activists.” These are people who participated in at least one political protest in the last year, or who report that they are actively involved in a least one of the movements listed in our survey, or who have attended the WSF05 meeting on behalf of a social movement organization. Only 31 of our 639 respondents (5%) did not do at least one of these things. These are likely to be “drop-ins” who attended the WSF05 for non-political reasons and so we excluded them from the analyses. So the tables below include only those who qualify as social activists.

First we will present and discuss the results of bivariate analyses of north/south differences among attendees and then we will further test the findings with multivariate logistic regressions. Table 3 shows the gender breakdown by north/south and core, semiperiphery and periphery categories.

Based on our sample of participants it is likely that more men (52%) than women (48%) attended the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in 2005. When the gender numbers are broken down by north/south and core-semiperiphery-periphery categories the story is similar, except for the periphery, where there is a greater preponderance of men in attendance. [8] The differences were not large for any of the categories except that of the periphery, where 64% of those attending were men and only 36% were women. Recall that only 49 of our 625 respondents came from countries that are categorized as being in the periphery. Nevertheless, this is nearly a statistically significant difference between the gender breakdown among those from the periphery and that of the whole group of attendees that answered our survey.

There are a number of plausible explanations for the rather larger gender difference found for the attendees from countries of the periphery. It could be that men are more likely to travel long distances than are women, especially from countries in the periphery, or it could be due to differences in income or education. Women from countries of the periphery still typically do not have as many years of schooling as do men, and this affects income, literacy, involvement in politics, etc.

Valentine Moghadam (2005) has studied the global feminist movement especially over the past three decades with an eye to understanding how feminists have made progress in overcoming north/south issues. During the 1960s and 1970s, transnational feminist organizing was largely dominated by feminists from the global north, but there has been growing participation by feminists from the global south. In these early years, there were significant divisions between feminists from the global north and south in terms of their priorities. Northern feminists focused more on gaining legal equality and on expanding women’s reproductive rights, whereas southern feminists focused on issues associated with underdevelopment and colonialism. Such north-south divisions were evident in the first and second United Nations conference on women in Mexico City and Coppenhagen (Moghadam 2005: 5-6; Stienstra 2000). At the third UN conference in 1985 in Nairobi, feminists focused on building bridges among women and establishing a consensus.

Three historical shifts facilitated a growing convergence among northern and southern feminists in terms of their goals and priorities. First, global restructuring and the rise of neoliberalism contributed to the decline of Keynesian welfare state, creating new concerns among northern feminists about economic issues. The new international division of labor relying heavily on cheap female labor also contributed to the growth of unionization among women raised northern feminists’ concerns about women’s labor rights. Finally, the rise of fundamentalist movements in the global south increased southern feminists’ concerns about reproductive rights and legal equality. The international diffusion of feminist ideas also contributed to the growing convergence of views among northern and southern feminists (Moghadam 2005: 5-6). These developments led to a convergence between northern and southern feminists that allowed them to better cooperate on common projects. Tensions between northern and southern feminists remain however, over issues of leadership and participation that are related to northern feminists’ greater access to resources (Stienstra 2000).

Table 4 shows the north/south and world-system position age break-down for WSF05 attendees and for the populations in countries from which attendees came. Forty-one percent of the whole group of attendees were under the age of 26, and 50% of those from the semiperiphery were under 26. Brazil is in the semiperiphery and so a large number of the young people in attendance were locals. But those who are included in this table have passed the “activists” test mentioned above. The WSF attracts young activists and this is also indicated by the fact that 22% of those who came from the core and 23% of those who came from countries of the periphery were under 26 years of age. But we should also recall that 46% of the population in countries from which all attendees came are less than 26 years of age. The largest age differences among attendees shown in Table 4 have to do with the larger numbers of young people who come from the semiperiphery and older people who come from both the core and the periphery. This is related to the different age structures within the world-system zones. Peripheral countries have only 27% of their populations that are over 35, while in core countries it is 55.5%, so older people from the periphery are over-represented while those from the core are under-represented. The percentage of young attendees from the semiperiphery was exactly equal to the percentage of that age group in the general population of the semiperipheral countries from which our respondents came (50%).

It may be that some of the same factors that explain why significantly more of the attendees who come from countries of the periphery are men also explain why attendees from the periphery tend to be older — e.g. income.

The racial self-identification question was not popular, especially among those from the global north. Only 415 of our 639 respondents chose to answer the question. Those who did not answer disproportionately came from the north.[9] Nevertheless the results in Table 5 are plausible. Global racial stratification is reflected in the attendees at the World Social Forum. Fifty-eight percent of those from the core (of those who chose to answer the question) were self-identified as white, while only 53% of those from the semiperiphery and 16% of those from the periphery were self-identified as white. The differences shown in Table 5 are statistically significant. Race and racism are north/south issues that must be addressed by all the counter-hegemonic movements.

Our results also show that 62% of the attendees from the semiperiphery were currently students, while only 26% of those from the core and 26% of those from the periphery were students. But all these students are political activists, because the non-activists have been removed from the analysis. We also found that a significantly higher percentage of attendees from the semiperiphery had less than sixteen years of education (56%), while only 34% of those from the core and 40% of those from the periphery had less than sixteen years. And an amazing 68% of the attendees from the periphery had a degree in social sciences, while for those from the core it was 57% and from the semiperiphery it was 48%. These differences are not very statistically significant (Chi-Square = 6.8, sig. = .034). Social scientists are far more frequently found among the progressive sector of global civil society than their proportion in the larger world.[10]

Thirty-one percent of the surveyed attendees speak three or more languages, and among those from the core it is an astounding 48%. Thirty-four percent of the attendees from the periphery speak three or more languages, while of those from the semiperiphery only 26% speak three or more. These differences are statistically significant. These results show the cosmopolitan nature of the attendees, and also that there are significant differences among those from the different zones. The lower percentage from the semiperiphery is probably largely due to politically active locals from Brazil who attended.

Political and Organizational Involvements

The degree of political involvement also seems to differ by world-system zone. We removed the non-political attendees from the analysis, but the remaining activists differ amongst themselves in their level of political activity. Twenty-seven percent of those from the semiperiphery indicate that they participated in five or more political protests in the previous year, while from the core it is 44% and from the periphery it is 36%. This difference is statistically significant, and also may be partly due to the large number of Brazilian attendees, but there may be other causes of the higher involvement of those from the core. Political activity is correlated with income and education, and these are relatively higher in the core.

A similar pattern is found in the responses to the question about whether or not the person is attending on behalf of a social movement organization. Twenty-eight percent of those from the core said yes, as did 24% of those from the periphery, while only 19% of those from the semiperiphery said yes.[11] But a somewhat different pattern was revealed by the question about attending on behalf of an NGO. Twenty-three percent of those from the core and 14% of those from the semiperiphery said yes, while 37% of those from the periphery answered this question in the affirmative.[12] The relatively higher proportion of those from the periphery who are attending in behalf of an NGO may have to do with incomes, funding and the efforts of NGOs who support the WSF to help overcome the global inequalities that make it difficult for people from the periphery to attend international meetings. These differences are statistically significant.

Interestingly, affiliation with a union is highest among core attendees (30%) and lowest among those from the periphery (22%), while 24% of those from the semiperiphery are affiliated with unions. These differences are not statistically significant. But a different question about reporting to a union finds the same pattern (17% in core, 10% in the semiperiphery and 2.6% in the periphery). The Chi-Square? for this table is 8.1 and is significant at the .018 level. The low level of union involvement among attendees from the periphery is probably not related to the higher level of NGO involvement because respondents were allowed to “check all that apply.” One could easily be affiliated with both a union and an NGO. It may be that union members from the periphery are less sanguine about the benefits of participation in transnational social movements than those in the core and the semiperiphery. This issue can be investigated further by comparing the political attitudes and other characteristics of union members across world-system categories.

Global Governance Issues

Attendees were asked whether they thought global capitalism should be reformed or if it should be abolished and replaced. Fifty-eight percent of the activist attendees indicated that they were in favor of abolition and replacement and those from both the core and the semiperiphery were very close to this average percentage. But only 54% of those from the periphery chose abolition and replacement. This might indicate that attendees from the periphery are less radical, but the difference is not statistically significant.

Attendees were also given three options for international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. The three options were: reform; abolish; abolish and replace. Sixty-one percent of all activist attendees favored abolition and replacement, while 25% were in favor of abolition alone, and only 13% were in favor of reform. This result indicates that the activist attendees are radical and that a very large number (61%) see a need to get rid of existing global financial institutions and to replace them. But these numbers differ significantly across world-system zones. The periphery appears to be less radical than the core. Eighteen percent of those from the periphery favor reform, while for the core it is 11% and for the periphery it is 13%. Seventy-three percent of those from the core favor abolition and replacement, while for the semiperiphery it is 58% and for the periphery it is 59%. This indicates that support for newly created global financial institutions is much stronger among attendees from the core, although it is also supported by a majority of those from the non-core. The pure abolitionists (without replacement) are more frequently found in the semiperiphery (29%) than in the core (16%) or in the periphery (23%). These differences are significant at the .029 level.

Attendees were also given three options regarding a future democratic world government: good idea and plausible; good idea but not plausible; bad idea. Thirty-two percent of the activist attendees think that democratic world government is a bad idea, while 39% think it is a good idea but not plausible, and 29% think it is a good idea and is plausible. Among those from the core only 17% say that democratic world government is a bad idea, while in the periphery it is 23% and in the semiperiphery it is 37%. This higher skepticism about democratic world government in the semiperiphery might be due to the large presence of locally oriented activists from Brazil. Thirty-eight percent of those from the core think democratic world government is a good idea and it is plausible, while 44% say that it is a good idea but not plausible. The more sanguine core attitude toward global institutions found here and in the question about international financial institutions may be related to the fact that existing global institutions have been core controlled and that democracy has been mainly institutionalized based on the cultural assumptions that have come out of the European Enlightenment. These facts of world history are likely to make non-core peoples skeptical about the possibility and desirability of so-called democratic global governance. But even in the core there is considerable skepticism about the real possibility of a democratic world government. The interstate system is still strongly institutionalized despite the rise of the globalization discourse.

Another interesting finding is that over half of our respondents agreed with the proposition that the world needs less economic growth. Understandably a smaller percentage of the attendees from the periphery agree with this, but it is still widely held. Sixty-four percent of the respondents from core countries agree that the world needs less economic growth, whereas 58% from the semiperiphery and 50% from the periphery hold this view.

These differences do not attain statistical significance.

About half of the respondents agree that “The World Social Forum should remain an open space for debated and should not itself take public positions on political issues.” But there is a nearly statistically significant difference among the respondents from the semiperiphery, where on 45% of the attendees agree with this statement while the core has 55% and the periphery has 58%. The debate between the movement of movements and the open space concept continues.

Multivariate Results

In this section we perform multivariate logistic regression analyses to see how the bivariate results regarding political opinions discussed above fare when pitted against other explanatory variables. We control for gender, the 1960s generation, union affiliation, NGO affiliation, social movement organization (SMO) affiliation, affiliation with at least one political organization, and occupational position.

The north/south differences that appeared in the bivariate table regarding attitudes toward abolishing or reforming capitalism do not survive in the multivariate logistic regressions, and neither does the north/south differences in attitudes toward whether or not the WSF should refrain from taking formal political positions just discussed.

Table 6 shows the multivariate results when the responses to the question about the international financial institutions are divided between those who favor replacement or reform vs. those who favor abolition. A negative logit regression coefficient in this table means being against reform or replacement and in favor of abolition. The table shows that those respondents from the semiperiphery are statistically more likely to favor abolition when the other variables are controlled. The respondents from the periphery are also more likely to favor abolition, but that coefficient is not statistically significant. The only other coefficient that demonstrates statistical significance in this table shows that those respondents who are affiliated with NGOs are likely to be against abolition and in favor of either reform or replacement.

Also recall from our discussion of the bivariate table above that 62% of the respondents chose to abolish and replace the international financial institutions while only 25% chose to abolish them and not replace them. There are more pure abolitionists from the semiperiphery, but even there it is only 29% of the respondents

Table 7 shows the multivariate results for those who favor global responses. The question was “Which of the following approaches would best solve the problems created by global capitalism?” and the possible answers were: strengthen local communities, strengthen nation states, create democratic global institutions. Fourteen per cent of the respondents chose more than one of these options. Table seven collapses all the non-global responses together and compares them with those that favored the global response.

Table 7 shows that respondents from the semiperiphery are significantly more likely to be in favor of non-global responses when compared with those from the core, and those from the semiperiphery are also, though statistical significance for the periphery is only attained when occupational position is controlled. None of the other variables show a significant effect. This table supports the notion mentioned above that WSF activists from the semiperiphery are less likely than those from the core to support global approaches.

Table 8 shows the multivariate results for the question “Do you think it is a good or a bad idea to have a democratic world government. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents chose “good idea, but not plausible.” Thirty-two percent chose “bad idea.” And twenty-nine percent chose “good idea and it’s plausible.”

Table 8 shows that those from the semiperiphery are more likely to be against the idea of a democratic world government and this result is statistically significant. Peripheral attendees are also more against this than those from the core, but that difference is not statistically significant. But it should be recalled that 31% of those from the periphery and 26% of those from the semiperiphery endorsed the response that a democratic world government is a good idea and is plausible. Nevertheless the overall finding of greater non-core skepticism toward global institutions is upheld by the results in Table 8.

Conclusions

The results so far show that there are some north/south demographic differences among World Social Forum attendees. Those from the periphery are few, older, more likely to be men and more likely to be associated with NGOs. When age and occupation are controlled peripheral and semiperipheral attendees are not more likely to take radical stances. But they are more skeptical toward global-level solutions. Those who favor reforming or abolishing and replacing global institutions in order to resolve social problems need to squarely face these facts. This skepticism probably stems from the historical experience of peoples from the non-core with global-level institutions that claim to be operating on universal principles of fairness but whose actions have either not solved problems or have made them worse. The new abolitionists are posing a strong challenge to both existing global institutions and to those who want to abolish and replace existing global institutions. These realities must be addressed, not ignored.

[Make a measure of synergists- maybe those who are actively involved in 3 or more movements – and see how it is distributed across north-south and core/semip/perip categories.]

We also summarize the results of open-ended questions that asked specifically about north-south contradictions within the labor and environmental movements (Erika)

Appendix A: Classifications of countries from which WSF05 respondents came World Bank classification13 World-system position- kentor1 [14]

Global “North:

High income

Australia Core

Austria Core

Belgium Core

Canada Core

Denmark Core

Finland Core

France Core

Germany Core

Greece Semiperiphery

Hong Kong (China) Semiperiphery

Ireland Core

Israel Semiperiphery

Italy Core

Japan Core

Korea (Rep.) Semiperiphery

Netherlands Core

Norway Core

New Zealand Semiperiphery

Portugal Semiperiphery

Spain Core

Sweden Core

Switzerland Core

Taiwan (excluded from all sources) Semiperiphery

United Kingdom Core

United States Core

Global “South”:

Upper-middle income

Argentina Semiperiphery

Chile Semiperiphery

Costa Rica Semiperiphery

Lebanon Periphery

Mexico Semiperiphery

Malaysia Semiperiphery

Panama Semiperiphery

South Africa Semiperiphery

Uruguay Semiperiphery

Venezuela Semiperiphery Lower-middle income

Armenia Periphery

Bolivia Periphery

Brazil Semiperiphery

Colombia Semiperiphery

Dominican Republic Periphery

Ecuador Periphery

El Salvador Periphery

Iraq Periphery

Paraguay Periphery

Peru Periphery

Philippines Periphery

Low income

Bangladesh Periphery

India Semiperiphery

Kenya Periphery

Nepal Periphery

Pakistan Periphery

Sudan Periphery

Senegal Periphery

Vietnam Periphery

References

Aguirre, Adalberto and Ellen Reese. 2004. “The Challenges of Globalization for Workers: Transnational and Transborder Issues.” Special Issue: Justice for Workers in the Global Economy, edited by Adalberto Aguirre and Ellen Reese. Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict, and World Order. 31(2).

Arrighi, Giovanni, Terence K. Hopkins, and Immanuel Wallerstein. 1989. Antisystemic Movements. London: Verso.

___, Takeshi Hamashita and Mark Selden 2003 The resurgence of East Asia : 500, 150 and 50 year perspectives. London: Routledge.

Arnold, Gretchen. 1995. “Chapter 18: Dilemmas of Feminist Coalitions: Collective Identity and Strategic Effectiveness in the Battered Women’s Movement.” Pp. 276-290 in Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women’s Movement, edited by Myra Max Ferree and Patricia Yancey Martin. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Baca Zinn, Maxine and Bonnie Thorton Dill. 2006. “Theorizing Difference from Multiracial Feminism” in Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology, Fourth Edition, edited by Estelle Disch. Boston: McGraw? Hill Higher Education.

Baiocchi, Gianpaolo 2004 “The party and the multitude: Brazil’s Workers Party (PT) and the challenges of building a just social order in a globalizing context” Journal of World-Systems? Research 10,1: 199-215. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol10/number1/pdf/jwsr-v10n1-baiocci.pdf (external link)

Bamako Appeal http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/3948.html (external link)

Batliwahla, Srilatha. 2002. “Grassroots Movements as Transnational Actors: Implications for Civil Society.” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 13(4): 393-409.

Bello, Walden 2001 The Future in the Balance: Essays on Globalization and Resistance. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.

Boswell, Terry and Christopher Chase-Dunn?. 2000. The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism: Toward Global Democracy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Brecher, Jeremy, Tim Costello, and Brendan Smith. 2002 2000. Globalization from Below: The Power of Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Byrd, Scott C. 2005. “The Porto Alegre Consensus: Theorizing the Forum Movement.” Globalizations. 2(1): 151-163.

Chabat, Sean. 2002. “Transnational Diffusion and the African-American? Reinvention of the Gandhian Repertoire,” Pp. 97-114 in Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements, edited by Jackie Smith and Hank Johnston. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Colas, Alejandro. 2002. International Civil Society. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Carroll, William K. and R.S. Ratner 1996 “Master framing and cross-movement networking in contemporary social movements” Sociological Quarterly 37,4: 601-625.

Carroll, William K. 2006a “Hegemony and counter-hegemony in a global field of action” Presented at a joint RC02-RC07 session on alternative visions of world society, World Congress of Sociology, Durban, South Africa, July 28.

__ 2006b “Hegemony, counter-hegemony, anti-hegemony” Keynote address to the annual meeting of the Society for Socialist Studies, York University, Toronto, June. Forthcoming in Socialist Studies, Fall, 2006.

Chase-Dunn?, Christopher 1998 Global Formation: Structures of the World-Economy?. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

Chase-Dunn?, Christopher and Thomas D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing World-Systems?. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Chase-Dunn?, Christopher and Terry Boswell 1999 "Postcommunism and the Global Commonwealth" Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 24,1-2: 195-219.

Chase-Dunn?, Christopher, Christine Petit, Richard Niemeyer, Robert A. Hanneman, Rebecca Giem, Erika Gutierrez and Ellen Reese 2006 “The Contours of Solidarity and Division Among Global movements” IROWS Working Paper #26 http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows26/irows26.htm (external link)

della Porta, Donatella. 2005a. “Multiple Belongings, Tolerant Identities, and the Construction of ‘Another Politics’: Between the European Social Forum and the Local Social Fora,” Pp. 175-202 in Transnational Protest and Global Activism, edited by Donatella della Porta and Sidney Tarrow. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.


Fisher, Dana R. Kevin Stanley, David Beerman, and Gina Neff. 2005. “How Do Organizations Matter? Mobilization and Support for Participants at Five Globalization Protests.” Social Problems. 52: 102-121.

Fisher, William F. and Thomas Ponniah (eds.). 2003. Another World is Possible: Popular Alternatives to Globalization at the World Social Forum. London: Zed Books.

Giem, Rebecca L. and Erika J. Gutierrez, 2006 “The Politics of Representation in the World Social Forum: Preliminary Findings” Presented at the World Congress of Sociology, Joint Session of RC02 and RC07: Alternative Visions of World Society: Global Economic Elites and Civil Society in Contestation. Durban, South Africa, Friday, July 28.

Gill, Stephen 2000 “Toward a post-modern prince? : the battle of Seattle as a moment in the new politics of globalization” Millennium 29,1: 131-140.

Glasius, Marlies and Jill Timms 2006 “The role of social forums in global civil society: radical beacon or strategic infrastructure” Pp. 190-238 in Marlies Glasius, Mary Kaldor, Helmut Anheier and Fiona Holland (eds.) Global Civil Society 2005/6. London: Sage.

Hammond, John L. 2003. “ Another World Is Possible: Report from Porto Allegre.” Latin American Perspectives 30: 3-11.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri 2004 Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: Penguin.

Harris, Richard L. 2002. “Resistance and Alternatives to Globalization in Latin America and the Carribbean.” Latin American Perspectives. 29(6): 136-151.

Harrod, Jeffrey and Robert O’Brien?. 2002. Global Unions? Theory and Strategies of Organized Labour in the Global Political Economy. London: Routledge.

Hart, Stephen. 1996. “The Cultural Dimension of Social Movements: A Theoretical Reassessment and Literature Review.” Sociology of Religion. 57: 87-100.

Harvey, David 2003 The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford. Hathaway, Will and David S. Meyer. 1997. “Chapter 4: Competition and Cooperation in Movement Coalitions: Lobbying for Peace in the 1980s,” pp. 61-79 in Coalitions and Political Movements: The Lessons of the Nuclear Freeze, edited by T. R. Rochon and D. S. Meyer. Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Held, David and Anthony McGrew? 2002 Globalization/Antiglobalization. Cambridge: Polity. Herkenrath, Mark 2006 “Social movements and the challenges of transnational coalition-building”. Presented at the World Congress of Sociology, Durban, South Africa, July 23-29.

Keck, Margaret E. and Katherine Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kentor, Jeffrey 2000 Capital and Coercion: The Role of Economic and Military Power in the World-Economy? 1800-1990 . New York and London : Garland Press.

Kentor, Jeffrey. 2005. “Changes in the Global Hierarchy, 1980-2000.” Table 4: Overall Position in the World Economy, 1980-2000.

McCammon?, Holly J. and Karen E. Campbell. 2002. “Allies on the Road to Victory: Coalition Formation Between the Suffragists and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.”

Mobilization: An International Journal 7(3): 231-251.

McAdam?, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, David S. 2004. “Protest and Political Opportunities.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 125-145.

Meyer, David S. and Sidney Tarrow (eds.). 1998. Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Moghadam, Valentine 2005 Globalizing Women: Transnational Feminist Networks. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Patomaki, Heikki and Teivo Teivainen 2004 “The World Social Forum: an open space or a movement of movements,” Theory, Culture and Society 21,6: 145-154.

Petit, Christine. 2004. “Social Movement Networks in Internet Discourse” Presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco. IROWS Working Paper #25.http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows25/irows25.htm

Podobnik, Bruce. 2003. “Resistance to globalization: social transformation in the globalization protest movement,” Presented at the annual meetings of the International Studies Association, Portland, February 24-26.

Podobnik, Bruce and Thomas Erlich Reifer (eds.) 2004 “Global Social Movements Before and After 9/11” A special issue of the Journal of World-Systems? Research (Winter). http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol10/number1/ (external link)

Pianta, Mario. 2001. “Parallel Summits of Global Civil Society.” Pp. 169-194 in: Anheier, Helmut/et al. (Eds.) Global Civil Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reese, Ellen, Mark Herkenrath, Christopher Chase-Dunn?, Rebecca Giem, Erika Gutierrez and Christine Petit 2006 “Alliances and Divisions within the ‘Movement of Movements’: Survey Findings from the 2005 World Social Forum” Presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, August 12.

Rose, Fred. 2000. Coalitions Across the Class Divide: Lessons from the Labor, Peace, and Environmental Movements. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Sehm-Patomaki?, Katarina and Marko Ulvila (eds.) 2006 Democratic Politics Globally: Elements for a Dialogue on Global Political Party Formations. Tampere, Finland: NIGD Working Paper #1/2006.

Scholte, Jan Aart. 2004. “Civil Society and Democratically Accountable Global Governance.” Government and Opposition 39(2):211-233.

Schönleitner, Günter 2003 "World Social Forum: Making Another World Possible?" Pp. 127-149 in John Clark (ed.): Globalizing Civic Engagement: Civil Society and Transnational Action. London: Earthscan.

Stienstra, Deborah. 2000. “Dancing resistance from Rio to Beijing: Transnational women’s organizing and United Nations conferences, 1992-6,” Pp. 209-224 in Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistanes, edited by Marianne H. Marchand and Anne Sisson Runyan. New York and London: Routledge.

Sikkink, Kathryn. 2003. “Beyond the Boomerang: Transnational Networks and the Dynamic Interaction of Domestic and International Opportunity Structures.” Paper for a workshop on “Patterns of Dynamic Multilevel Governance,” Bellagio, July 22-26.

Smith, Jackie. 2004a. “Exploring the Connections Between Global Integration and Political Mobilization.” Journal of World Systems Research 10(1): 255-285. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol10/number1/pdf/jwsr-v10n1-smith.pdf (external link)



Smith, Jackie and Hank Johnston (eds.). 2002. Globalization and Resistance: Transnational Dimensions of Social Movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Smith Jackie and Dawn Wiest. 2004. “The Uneven Geography of Global Civil Society:National and Global Influences on Transnational Association” Social Forces.

Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1986. “Coalition Work in the Pro-Choice? Movement: Organizational and Environmental Opportunities and Obstacles.” Social Problems 33(5): 374-390.

Starr, Amory. 2000. Naming the Enemy: Anti-corporate Movements Confront Globalization. London: Zed Books.

Stein, Michele. 1993. “Multilingual Organizing: Balancing Participation and Access.” Third Force September/October: 30-32.

Stoecker, Randy. 1995. “Community, movement, organization: The problem of identity convergence in collective action.” The Sociological Quarterly 36(1): 111-130.

Silver, Beverly 2003 Forces of Labor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements, collective action, and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.




Teivainen, Teivo. 2004. “Dilemmas of Democratization in the World Social Forum.” Institute for World Systems Research, University of California, Riverside. October 13.

Turner, Jonathan H. and Salvatore Babones 2006 “Global inequality: and introduction” Pp. 109-134 in Christopher Chase-Dunn? and Salvatore Babones (eds.) Global Social Change: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel 2004 “The dilemmas of open space: the future of the WSF” International Social Science Journal, vol. 182:629-637. UNESCO World Bank. 2006.

World Development Indicators 2006. Washington, D.C., and Geneva: World Bank. (See also: www.worldbank.org/data/). (external link)

World Social Forum Charter http://wsf2007.org/process/wsf-charter (external link)

ENDNOTES [1] In 2006 the three “polycentric” meetings were in Pakistan, Mali and Venezuela. [2] While this chapter is mainly an empirical examination of north/south differences at the World Social Forum, our theoretical perspective suggests possible explanations for some of our results and provides a framework for interpreting the world historical significance of the WSF process that we are studying. [3] The “necessity of imperialism” idea is similar to David Harvey’s (2003) notion that primitive (or primary) accumulation is a necessary and reproduced dimension of the process of capitalist development (see Chase-Dunn? 1998: 221-225). [4] See the WSF Charter at http://wsf2007.org/process/wsf-charter (external link) [5]See Giem and Gutierrez (2006) and Reese et al (2005) [6] The apparent lack of attendance from Canada in Figure 1 is due to those attending coming from cities that border the U.S. Eighteen of our respondents were from Canada, representing 2.8% of the total number of respondents mapped. [7] Chase-Dunn? and Boswell (1999) have argued that citizens from former state communist regimes such as Russia and China will be unlikely to provide much support for the next round of counter-hegemonic struggles. [8] These north-south differences do not produce a significant chi-squared. [9] Of the xxx attendees who did not provide a racial self-identification xx% were from the global north. [10] This finding has stimulated interest in the perennial issues about the roles of intellectuals in social movements, and several events that are planned for the WSF07 in Nairobi have invited activists and academics to investigate, analyze and confront these issues. [11] A very similar pattern is found in the responses to a question about whether or not the attendee is affiliated with a social movement organization, except that to percentages were a lot higher. And this pattern is also found for a question about reporting to a social movement organization. [12] A similar low semiperiphery-high periphery pattern is found for the question about affiliation with NGOS, but many more are affiliated than are attending in behalf. And this also holds for a question about reporting to an NGO. [13] Based on the Gross National Income per Capita in 2004 (World Bank 2006; see also: www.worldbank.org/data/). (external link) [14] Based on Kentor’s measure of the overall position in the world economy in 2000 (Kentor 2005: Table 4). The cutoff point between core and semiperipheral countries has been set at 2.00, the cutoff point between semiperipheral and peripheral countries at –0.89.