The global justice movement has been among the most important social movements of the neoliberal era. It represented a model and provided a training ground for future movements and challenged the hegemony of neoliberal globalization. In this analysis, I employ the counter-hegemonic frame analysis to explain how the global justice movement in the US, developed a critical interpretation of neoliberal globalization that undermined its hegemony. Such an approach explains framing and frame disputes that take place within movements and coalitions as arenas of counter-hegemonic practice (Hardnack 2019). Frame analysis is an approach to understanding the discursive work of how social movements interpret existing conditions and problems (Snow and Benford 2000). Of course, activists and organizations often disagree about how political and economic contexts should be framed; such disagreements are referred to as frame disputes (Benford 1993; Carrol and Ratner 1996).

This paper focuses on three questions. First, what is the content of the global justice movement’s framing repertoire? Next, what aspects of this repertoire contest neoliberal hegemony? Finally, what was the structure of the anti-neoliberal master frame deployed by the US-based global justice movement? To examine counter-hegemonic framing, I conducted an ethnographic content analysis of archival data), which includes media coverage of the protests in the New York Times, 47 oral history interview transcripts, and over one hundred archived documents such as fliers, press releases, and position statements.¹

Neoliberal Globalization in World History

If, as 90s activists often argued, the World Trade Organization (WTO), Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI), and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) represented “globalization on steroids,” then neoliberalism was the steroids. Each project arose out of historically specific relations of production and established consent among individuals and civil society (Jessop 2007). Modern globalization and neoliberalism are linked to structural crises of capitalism and the strategy of development. Kiely (2005, 5) conceptualized globalization in two ways: First as a “period specific to neo-liberal capitalism;” second as an ideology and political project, which began in response to the economic crisis of the 1970s, which marked “the end of the post-war Golden Age of capitalism.” Late 20^th century globalization emerged as an important aspect of the accumulation strategy corporations implemented to spur stagnant economic growth in the US. During this period, corporate executives operating according to neoliberal ideas and responding to declining profits began to push for a restructuring of the global financial system (Dreiling and Darves 2016).

In the US, globalization has had a profound effect. Scholars now generally agree that globalization has contributed to deindustrialization, and increased income inequality (Ayres and Macdonald 2009; Korzenievics and Moran 2009) and facilitated the decline of unions. (Clawson and Clawson 1999; Silver 2003). For example, union density was at 24% in 1973 and plummeted to 13.5% in 2000 (Hirch and MacPherson 2013). Furthermore, the number of union recognition elections and the number of victories in these elections fell precipitously during this period (Tope and Jacobs 2009). Neoliberal globalization also negatively impacted the well-being of African Americans in urban centers (Wilson 1997), and the discourse surrounding race, as well as the strengthened the mechanics of structural racism (Barlow 2003). Women were also impacted by global reproductive labor chains, and the structure of labor markets (Marchand and Runyan 2000).

The shift from the development project to the globalization project, along with an adversarial domestic political climate severely weakened progressive social movements and labor (Wallace, Fullerton, and Gurbuz 2009). It was not until the Service Employees International Union’s (SEIU) Justice for Janitors campaigns in various cities beginning in the late 1980s (Milkman 2006), and then the UPS strike of 1997 at the national level, that labor won a battle during the neoliberal era (Kumar 2008). Following Cox and Nilsen’s (2014) conception, the eventual rise of the global justice movement provided a worthy “movement from below” to counter the neoliberal “movement from above.”

The Global Justice Movement

The global justice movement (GJM) of the 90s and 00s could broadly be described as a movement against neoliberal globalization (Smith 2007; Evans 2008). Hosseini (2010, xvi) describes the GJM’s grievances broadly, writing that these include: “International financial institutions (e.g., the WTO), free trade agreements, the World Bank and regional banks, related domestic and foreign policy adjustments such as the privatization of public assets, financial deregulation, tax cuts and cut backs, international debt, global inequality, climate change, multinational corporations, and war.” Although different actors shared similar grievances, characterizing the GJM as a single movement, or as a monolith, is a mistake. The GJM is a “movement of movements” composed of several constituent movements (Mertes 2004). Thus, the GJM is a “broad coalition of smaller (anti-sweatshops, debt relief, fair trade, AIDS, etc,) and larger (human rights, organized labor, international hunger, etc,) movements and draws participants and participating organizations from a diversity of ideologies (anarchists, socialists, liberal reformists, etc.,)” (Buttel & Gould 2004, 39). This wide diversity within the GJM made for meaningful differences in the conceptualization and practice of resistance. Some participants accepted the neoliberal market logic while simultaneously voicing serious criticisms; others rejected not only “corporate globalization” but also what they called “corporate rule.”

I present a snapshot of the GJM protest wave between 1999 and 2006 collected through a content analysis of the New York Times (see Figure 1²). Note that the actual size of the protests may have differed from the observations provided by participants and independent media sources. Furthermore, national protest data from the Times are notorious for their coastal bias and for ignoring events in rural areas and smaller cities.

The most significant event in the United States in this period was the 1999 “Battle of Seattle” in which somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 demonstrators helped shut down talks at the World Trade Organization ministerial meeting. Both before and following Seattle, the GJM manifested in “days of action” against the IMF and World Bank as well as trade agreement meetings such as NAFTA, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Although the April 2000 International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank protest was smaller than subsequent IMF/ World Bank protests, activists view it as the second major battle for the US GJM. Later IMF/World Bank protests in 2001 and 2002 each drew at least 20,000 protesters. I include several multi-issue events that were organized by organizations associated with the GJM. For example, the protests at the January 2001 inauguration of George W. Bush drew 20,000 protesters. Other significant events include demonstrations against the World Economic Forum in January of 2002 and the Miami Free Trade Area of the Americas protest in November 2003.

Insert Figure 1 here

Although this analysis focuses on the GJM in the US, the GJM was a transnational movement (Smith 2008; della Porta and Tarrow 2005). The transnational character of the GJM became a major focus of inquiry for many scholars. Perhaps the most significant work on the GJM as an anti-neoliberal movement is Jackie Smith’s (2008) Social Movements for Global Democracy. Smith contextualizes the GJM within a field of conflict between the “neoliberal globalizers” on one hand, and “global democratizers” on the other. One example of transnational character of the movement was the World Social Forum, which was essentially a GJM version of the World Economic Forum (Reese, Smith, Byrd, and Smythe 2011). The first World Social Forum took place in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and directly challenged the dominant view that “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism by offering the slogan: “another world is possible” (Fisher and Ponniah 2003; Ayres 2005). While the transnational analysis is useful, my unit of analysis scales down this approach and focuses on the major GJM mobilizations in the United States; the center of the capitalist world-system.

The GJM targeted neoliberalism within movement-generated discourse. In Adler and Mittleman’s (2004) case study of an anti-globalization protest in April 2002, against the World Bank and IMF, they list some features associated with globalization. These include altering local cultures, reducing government spending, privatization, export promotion, increasing migration, and greater availability of consumer goods. In their study, they asked respondents which of these features they consider benefits, and which they consider costs of globalization. They found “altering local cultures” was unanimously categorized a cost. Interestingly, respondents overwhelmingly defined reducing government spending, privatizations, and export promotion as costs. As Adler and Mittleman (2004, 207-208 point out, “…the protesters views do not indicate a complete rejection – ‘antiglobalization’ – but a selective rejection of aspects of globalization, especially neoliberal policies and institutions that seek to universalize them.”

In addition to economic concerns, ecological issues were also prominent in the GJM. Many of the most important grievances were linked to the impact of global trade and economic policy on the environment. GJM activists often engaged in frame bridging – the practice of linking congruent but separate frames together through focus on a particular issue or set of issues (Benford and Snow 2000) – by including environmental concerns with other concerns. The most well-known example is the “Teamsters and Turtles together at last” slogan from the Seattle demonstrations. This inter-movement solidarity dates back to contention over NAFTA.

The GJM began to decline following the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The GJM found itself in a drastically different political context and a strengthened repressive state apparatus. Hadden and Tarrow (2007) found that three factors led to this decline: First, an increasingly repressive atmosphere; second, “political linkage between global terrorism and transnational activism of all kinds”; and third, social movement spill-out in which activity shifted to efforts to bolster the emergent antiwar movement. Furthermore, they found that the escalating calls for war constrained the political opportunities available to the GJM in terms of the public openness to the “Seattle model” (360).

The GJM is especially important because it provides some of the most glaring connections between grievances and global political-economic trends. As a result, there is a wealth of theory and research on the GJM’s opposition to neoliberalism (Ayres 2004; Smith 2008; Evans 2008; Husseini 2010; McBride 2009; Podobnik and Reifer 2009). As Ayres (2004, 27) points out, “The mobilization of beliefs and interpretations critical of neoliberal globalization had been central to the eruption of a protest movement that achieved global proportions by 2003.”

The Battle of Seattle and A-16

On November 30^th, 1999, activists representing unions, environmental, religious, leftist, and student groups descended on Seattle to voice their opposition to the WTO Ministerial meeting (Thomas 2000). Estimates of the size range from 14,000 protesters, according to police estimates, and over 50,000 protesters according to organizers (Smith 2001). The organizing for the WTO protest was a long process beginning before organizers chose Seattle as the meeting site for WTO Ministerial. Once Seattle was chosen over San Diego, organizations such as Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen and the King County Labor Council, associated with the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), joined with the Direct Action Network (DAN) in the formation of People for Fair Trade/NO2WTO. DAN, a major coalition in itself that grew out of Earth First!, was a web-based network of organizations including Art and Revolution, The Ruckus Society, and Global Exchange. This coalition would serve as a host organization and base of operations for the protests, rallies, and teach-ins to come (Fisher, Stanley, Berman, and Neff 2005).

The April 16^th, 2000 IMF/World Bank (A16) protest was the next meeting related to neoliberal globalization in the US. At this event, around 10,000 to 25,000 protesters converged on the buildings that housed these institutions in Washington DC. Organizers from Jubilee 2000, 50 Years is Enough, and the Mobilization for Global Justice, among others, sought to capitalize on the success of the Seattle protests and build the movement. Activists named the action, “A16” and were able to garner significant advance media attention as a result of the success of the “Battle of Seattle.”

These events were high points in the US-based mobilizations by the GJM in terms of the scale of mobilization, effectiveness, and the media attention they attracted. Drawing on protest event analysis, I turn to focus on the framing surrounding these protests.

The GJM’s Framing Repertoire

The GJM deployed a wide range of frames relating to issues of control, legitimacy, and the accountability of neoliberal institutions. This specifically applies to the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. In table 1, I outline the framing repertoire of the GJM, paying close attention to the most dominant frames, especially the political-economic aspects. The table presents a typology of frames that emerged through my qualitative analysis of movement documents and interviews. I identified three broad categories of frames, which I identify as “democratic deficit,” “social protections,” and “symptom/injustice.” Below and within each of these categories I provide specific examples of how these frames were deployed by the global justice movement.

Insert Table 1 here

My intention here is to cover a lot of ground and provide an overall picture, not a detailed census of all GJM frames. To start, I analyze the frame dispute of the undemocratic nature of the institutions, the reform/abolition dispute, and the corporate power frame.

Category A: The Democratic Deficit of the WTO, IMF, and World Bank

As described in the first column, consistent with this research (Ayers 2004, Smith 2008), I found that the GJM frames neoliberal institutions in terms of a democratic deficit. However, I push the analysis further by examining the GJM’s arguments surrounding control of these institutions. The GJM often addressed questions about the legitimacy of global institutions in different, and sometimes contradictory ways. Still, there is clearly evidence of a frame dispute over these questions.

Nearly all organizations involved in the Seattle protest described the WTO as unaccountable to the demands of civil society; that it makes decisions in a top down manner; and often undermines democratic institutions. This included criticisms that the WTO ministerial as an unaccountable “closed door meeting.” This characterization is explicitly stated in several documents, and is prominently described in a widely circulated pamphlet titled the Citizen’s Guide to the World Trade Organization:³ 

The WTO’s lack of democratic process or accountable decision-making is epitomized by the WTO Dispute Settlement Process. The WTO allows countries to challenge each others’ laws and regulations as violations of WTO rules. Cases are decided by a panel of three trade bureaucrats. There are no conflict of interest rules and the panelists often have little appreciation of domestic law or of government responsibility to protect workers, the environment or human rights. Thus, it is not surprising that every single environmental or public health law challenged at WTO has been ruled illegal…WTO tribunals operate in secret. Documents, hearings and briefs are confidential (Working Group on the WTO / MAI 1999, 5). 

Beyond arguing that the WTO violated democratic principles, the GJM also made the case that democracy is undermined when it is posed as a barrier to the market. While such a contradiction between markets and democracy was not necessarily consistent with stated neoliberal principles, it is clearly consistent with neoliberal practice.

The AFL-CIO framed the WTO in a similar manner. In a flier distributed by via People for Fair Trade/ NO2WTO (1999, 1), the labor federation describe the WTO ministerial with the following bullet points:

• Meeting of trade bureaucrats from 134 countries

• No elected Officials

• No accountability or open-ness of meeting and decision-making.

The IMF and World Bank also received similar criticisms, though not to the same degree as the WTO. A common aspect of the resistance to the IMF is the impact of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). SAPs are framed by Jubilee 2000 and the 50 Years is Enough Network as undemocratic, because “There is no formal process to solicit input from ordinary people who must live under SAPs” (Jubilee 2000/USA 1999, 3); and “…have consistently denied citizens information about, and involvement in, major decisions affecting their societies” (50 Year is Enough Platform 2002, 2).

Reform and Abolition

Flowing from the democratic deficit frame, a debate emerges on the possibility of reform and the role of economic elites in these institutions. The debate over whether it was possible to reform WTO took a central role in one of the major coalitions: People for Fair Trade/ No2WTO. In fact, the hybrid name for the coalition emerged from a stalemate within the coalition on this very issue:

Essentially, to boil it down and simplify it, there was a pretty significant split between activists in Seattle, of some who wanted to put forth the message that we need to just stop the WTO and reform it and make it work; the camp that really was behind the concept of fair trade. And, there were a lot of other people, including some students and some of the people of color organizations, who would say, “Sorry. There isn’t really any fair trade in the current and we need to abolish the WTO.” Sort of reformists versus the abolitionists, right? (Simer 2000, 8) 

Obviously, there are political aspects of this debate that lead certain ideological affiliations to fall on different sides. From a Gramscian perspective, these differences should be expected, given that civil society is a key battleground for hegemony. Differences and disputes are indicative of “the war of position” and of attempts to undermine neoliberal hegemony within the global justice movement itself.

The most common characterization came from the reformist side. Here, organizations such as the AFL- CIO and the Sierra Club voiced a “fair trade,” or reform frame, arguing that provisions that protect labor and the environment could be enforced by the WTO. Since my interviewees labeled the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club as key proponents of the reform frame, I present examples from their documents. Although most scholars regard the Sierra Club as one of the most mainstream environmental organizations, the Club also participated in contentious politics over trade policy. The following excerpt, from one of their mailings, provides an example of how the Sierra Club (1999, 1) deployed this frame:

Make Trade Clean, Green, and Fair!

To make trade clean, green and fair, the Sierra Club is urging the Clinton administration to take executive action to: 

• fix current trade rules so that they no longer undermine environmental and health standards; 

• open the WTO to citizen participation; and 

• conduct a thorough, objective, and participatory environmental assessment of the WTO.

Notice there is an emphasis on the notion that trade could be better, that trade can be fixed. The Sierra Club’s Dan Seligman (2000, 3) described that their main goal is to advocate for responsible trade and “tweak the trade rules so they cannot be used as anti-environmental instruments.” This framing of the WTO also emerges in the AFL-CIO.

The AFL-CIO is a politically moderate organization composed of many unions. It has close ties to the Democratic Party. There long have been differences of policy in engaging with trade policy between the different unions that are members of the AFL-CIO. Some unions, such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have at times embraced trade liberalization. Others such as the Teamsters tended toward what is sometimes characterized as a protectionist stance. Verlene Wilder (2000, 1), a member of the King County Labor Council, a regional labor council affiliated with the AFL-CIO, describes the federation’s middle-ground position as follows:

…the position was that the AFL-CIO was not in favor of the WTO as it exists right now, because it has an ability to apply sanctions and there’s no rules in their process that protect labor and environment, families, communities. That in order for it to be effective, it needed to implement those rules and that our position, the AFL-CIO’s position was that the WTO should not continue to operate as they are presently operating, without the institution of those rules. 

There should be no illusion of a reform consensus within and among the major organizations and coalitions. Instead, there are disputes. Within these frame disputes factions vie for hegemony, seeking recognition and consent to their leadership within their movements. Factions often deploy frames in response to frames that other segments of the movement are deploying. As an alternative to the reform approach to the WTO, many activists and organizations voiced an abolitionist frame. Jason Adams (2000, 21) of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), a small yet culturally significant revolutionary union, discusses how they actively engaged the reformist orientation of the AFL-CIO:

We had this big banner….and it said, “Capitalism Cannot be Reformed”. We made that on purpose for the labor march, because the AFL-CIO’s position was to reform the WTO. So, we wanted to make a kind of radical statement. 

In contrasting these positions, we clearly see a frame dispute between two wings of the same movement in their orientation toward the WTO.

Identifying the possibility of change and attributing blame are key framing processes. In what follows, I identify frames designed to paint a picture of the intent of the WTO, MAI, GATT, NAFTA, FTAA, IMF, and World Bank. How the intent of these institutions is presented is understood by movement actors to suggest distinct and sometimes mutually exclusive strategies for engaging with them. Here, these frames include the reform frame, the abolition frame, the pluralist frame, the corporate power frame, and the structure of capitalism frame.

The notion that neoliberal institutions can act as regulatory bodies that can erect and enforce labor, environmental, and human rights protections was a common talking point for reformists. Aside from the “Clean, Green, and Fair” slogan of the Sierra Club, examples include, “fair trade,” and “responsible trade.” This framing can also be traced back to contention over NAFTA (Sierra Club 1999). In an especially poignant example, the AFL-CIO states: “We must use trade and investment agreements to reward those governments that respect worker’s rights, protect the environment and allow democracy to flourish, not those that create the most hospitable climate for foreign investment, regardless of social concerns” (AFL-CIO 1999b, 1).

In another case, Mike Dolan (1999, 5), of Public Citizen, vividly describes how this difference manifested itself in the debate between People for Fair Trade and NO2WTO by drawing attention to the radical tactical positions as well as the “message” of some of the more militant constituencies, and finishing with a prognostic vision for the WTO:

…it’s not just about action; it’s also about message. NO2WTO is all about destroying corporate capitalism in general, that the WTO is an illegitimate institution and we must destroy it. Some of the message of People for Fair Trade is, incorporate core labor standards, environmental and consumer protections, into the agreements negotiated under the auspices of the WTO and you’ve reformed the institution, especially if you include basic transparency, democracy and accountability into the WTO. 

Here, Dolan is making the case that the message is important, specifically Public Citizen’s reform frame. The reform frame was sometimes linked to the corporate power frame, which stipulate that corporations have disproportionate influence on these agreements and institutions. Dolan (1999, 6-7) continues:

This is a fight for the hearts and minds – all right, at least the minds – of the political elites. That’s the geography of this, the topography, that’s the schematic. We win if we can wean the political elites from the corporate elite’s teat. I blush. But, basically to peel off enough of the political elites from the slavish devotion to the corporate free trade agenda to deny the WTO its political mandate to move forward with trade expansion according to the corporate agenda. 

This approach paints a kind of dysfunctional pluralism, which views corporate influence as a contingent pathology, which can be ameliorated if the GJM’s message resonates with elites. In this view, the pro-corporate policies of these institutions are unfortunate consequences of corporate power. There is an assumption that institutional actors are charged with considering popular concerns and remaining accountable to people that are affected by their policies. From this perspective, corporations are a rival interest group. Following this logic, challengers simply need to gain enough influence to generate autonomy from interest groups with more influence.

Corporate Power

Conversely, there is also a direct counter-frame to the idea that these institutions can oversee basic social protections, which I call the corporate power frame. Some organizations take the corporate power frame even further, by taking a more radical perspective and connecting corporate power to capitalism. Art and Revolution, an artist and activist group that was part of the original formation of DAN, ties their abolitionist position to the influence of corporations. After describing a list of grievances and cases of perceived wrongdoing by the WTO, Art and Revolution states, “Reforms lead nowhere when corporations and their governmental counterparts are in charge. We need to globalize solidarity and liberation not capitalism, and fight for a participatory and sustainable global village. The WTO must be shut down” (Art and Revolution 1999, 1). Moving beyond the WTO and including the IMF and World Bank, Mobilization for Global Justice (2000d, 2) attacks “the big three” for being, “undemocratic institutions dominated by corporate interests” and “the chief instruments used by political and corporate elites to create today’s unjust, destructive global economic order.”. Finally, the Citizen’s Guide describes the WTO as “one of the main mechanisms of corporate globalization” and “a comprehensive system of corporate managed trade” (Working Group on WTO/MAI 1999, 2).

Between and across these frames of democracy, reform/abolition and corporate power, there is a salient debate over the legitimacy of the WTO, IMF and World Bank. Throughout the GJM, frames that decry corporate influence are deployed. The corporate power frame, if resonant, sets up the rest of the framing repertoire of the GJM, and answers the classic question, “who stands to gain?” and more importantly, it conjures a villain for their broader narrative about how neoliberal globalization undermines social protections and has negative consequences for society.

Category B: Neoliberal Globalization Undermines Social Protections

As described in the second column of Table 1, large segments of the GJM criticized the WTO for its role in undermining social protections. For example, Victor Menotti (2000, 3) of the International Forum on Globalization described the WTO as, “a binding contract in which our governments agree to constrain themselves from intervening in the marketplace, whether it is to protect food safety, or environment, or what have you. Our role is to put that message out for people.” The content of that “message” and others in the GJM’s repertoire are precisely what this article seeks to clarify.

If the objective of neoliberal globalization is to open markets, we must also ask, what stands in the way of markets? The GJM emphasized national policies that in the view of the GJM, are undermined or removed, as part of the “transnational corporate agenda.” Moving from broad social protections to more specific ones, these include sovereignty, environmental regulations, labor rights, human rights, and health standards. A pamphlet authored by the International Forum on Globalization (1999, 1) ties the erosion of these protections to the WTO:

The WTO’s primary mandate is to diminish the regulatory powers of nation-states and local communities—particularly our rights to make laws about public health, food safety, environment, labor, culture, democracy and sovereignty—while increasing the powers and freedoms of global corporations to act without any controls.

The argument that economic globalization erodes sovereignty of nations has been quite popular among academics and activists alike. Although neoliberal aspects of globalization have been widely acknowledged, social movement scholars have given scant attention to how the GJM made these connections for themselves.

The GJM identifies mechanisms whereby neoliberal globalization undermines sovereignty. Several documents link the erosion of national sovereignty, and the ability of nations to enforce social protections to investor-to-state lawsuits. Global Exchange (1999, 1) tied attacks on sovereignty to investor-to-state lawsuits and corporate power. This is expressed in their leaflet titled, Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the WTO, “The WTO undermines national sovereignty…by creating a supranational court system that has the power to levy big fines on countries to force them to comply with its rulings, the WTO has essentially replaced national governments with an unaccountable, corporate-backed government.”.

A corporation’s ability to sue national governments was condemned by pretty much everyone involved in the GJM. For example, a Public Citizen news release explains that, “domestic laws that set commercial terms on labor or human rights considerations are deemed illegal barriers to trade” (1999:1). However, trade agreements are only part of the story, similar criticisms are levied at the IMF’s and World Bank’s notorious SAPs. SAPs are conditions placed on loans that include privatization, elimination of environmental regulations, labor and human rights. Jubilee 2000 (1998, 1) states, SAPs are “economic policy ‘reforms’ that profoundly alter the nature of a country’s economy and the role of its government.”. Other organizations duplicated this claim. In an action guide containing talking points for A-16, the Mobilization for Global Justice (2000, 1) answers the question, “What are the IMF and World Bank and why are they bad?” After labeling the IMF and World Bank “the world’s biggest loan-sharks”, they explain the connection between SAPs and neoliberal policies:

When the Bank and IMF lend money to debtor countries, the money comes with strings attached, usually in the form of “structural adjustment” programs that require debtor countries to slash government spending on health care, education, and other social programs, and to lower labor and environmental standards in order to make the countries more attractive to transnational corporations.

These “strings attached” are also viewed as a benefit to transnational corporations. This view is also echoed by several originations including DAN, Global Exchange, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, 50 Years is Enough, and Jubilee 2000 among others. This indicates that SAPs are a major part of how the GJM as whole frames their grievances with the World Bank and IMF.

Environmental concerns were also a major issue in this movement in general and are mentioned, at least, in passing, by nearly every organization. The GJM clearly understood environmental regulations and protections as central targets of neoliberal institutions (Dreiling 2000). For example, Global Exchange (1999, 1) includes environmental devastation in their Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the World Trade Organization: “The WTO is destroying the environment. The WTO is being used by corporations to dismantle hard-won environmental protections, which are attacked as ‘barriers to trade.” In relation to the IMF, the Mobilization for Global Justice’s (2000, 7) news release, Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the IMF, explained how the IMF helps erode environmental protections:

IMF loans and bailout packages are paving the way for natural resource exploitation on a staggering scale. The IMF does not consider environmental impacts of lending policies; and environmental ministries and groups are not included in policy making…Government cutbacks inevitably target the environmental ministry as one of the first agencies to come under the budget axe.

In addition, several organizations cite specific regulations as being in jeopardy. These include regulations related to species extinction, deforestation, agricultural practices, and the use of biotechnology. Many environmental regulations exist for health reasons, which would explain why the GJM often links environmental and health concerns. The impact of these policies is also important and is explored further below in terms of the symptoms of neoliberal globalization.

Neoliberal institutions are also targeted because of the threat they pose to labor. In the US, the GJM expressed solidarity with workers in the Global South. This also affected the way people think about the products they buy. Many SMOs criticized specific corporations such as Nike, Gap, and Old Navy. Han Shan (2000, 7) of the Ruckus Society describes some of the actions carried out by the Ruckus Society and Global Exchange in which they linked the WTO to sweatshop labor:

We coordinated an action with Global Exchange that was a banner hung on Old Navy’s flagship store that said, “Sweatshops – Free Trade or Corporate Slavery?” Basically, wanting to tackle an issue that would make sense as far as what the WTO does, but a sub-focus, really. But put a human face on what kind of globalization the WTO really means. People have said, and I don’t know if it’s Global Exchange’s slogan or if it’s against sweatshops as a whole, “The road to free trade is paved with sweatshops.” We thought that was an intriguing target, and we’d hopefully kind of tear it down and make it make sense to some folks. When we talk about the WTO, we’re talking about forests being cut down. We’re talking about sea turtles. We’re talking about sweatshops. 

Social movement frames are often so ubiquitous that they can be difficult to notice. For example, labeling an apparel manufacturing facility as a sweatshop is itself evidence of successful framing.

Race to the bottom 

One of the most effective ways the GJM, and other critics of globalization highlighted the erosion of social protections was the “race to the bottom” that describes the impact of trade liberalization policies that are designed to maximize the use of “comparative advantage” by allowing capital to move to regions with lower labor costs and fewer environmental regulations (Buttel & Gould 2004; Ayers 2004; Smith 2008). Neoliberal institutions seek to exacerbate this process. Larry Dohrs (2000, 3-4), described how the race to the bottom is a reframing of a comparative advantage:

When they wouldn't put "race to the bottom," I said, okay, lax environmental laws constitutes comparative advantage… So if you're only going to use comparative advantage, even though you really have to say race to the bottom, because it's in the text with President Clinton saying it. It still didn't make it in there. So I think there was, among economists, people sort of educated in the mainstream of economic theory, a real discomfort with even acknowledging that there is a race to the bottom, that there can be a race to the bottom, and that comparative advantage can have its negative side, as well as its positive side.

Dohrs describes how he wanted the “race to the bottom” language included at a teach-in. He then props up the more positive sounding “comparative advantage” and reworks it to frame this basic economic concept and supposed advantage of trade liberalization. In so doing, he was hardly alone. This frame was widely used by organizations and activists throughout the period.

Category C: Symptom/Injustice Frames

As described in the third column of Table 1, it is well documented that diagnostic and prognostic framing are central framing tasks (Benford and Snow 2000). In this section, I draw on Gamson’s (1992) concept of the injustice frame and tie it closer to diagnostic framing through what I call symptom/injustice frames which are used to provide evidence of the overarching diagnostic master frame – in this case, neoliberalism. As a counter-hegemonic framing approach, symptom frames are a way for social movements to explain and justify claims of an existing system of domination and connect lived experiences to broader social processes. In the same way a physician would emphasize certain symptoms to generate a diagnosis, social movements also engage in symptom framing. If neoliberalism is an ongoing project that has already produced effects, social movement framing then would focus on the consequences of neoliberalism.

Deindustrialization

Unions based in the US and Canada also warned of the dangers of capital flight by drawing attention to the role globalization has in the decline in manufacturing jobs and the deindustrialization in the most developed economies. As manifested in the practice of plant closures or in the loss of manufacturing jobs, deindustrialization is a major issue for US and Canadian mobilizations against corporate globalization. The King County Labor Council (1999, 1) listed two corporate strategies undertaken as part of deindustrialization:

1. Exploit all options for increasing “competitiveness” in the global economy: contracting out, downsizing, out-sourcing, closing enterprises, de-industrializing areas in developing countries.

2. Relocate to places where labor is cheaper…developing countries, right to work states, free trade zones.

The early 1990s fight over NAFTA informed the global justice movement’s analysis in presenting its deindustrialization frame. For instance, the PFT/NO2WTO Labor Committee (1999a, 1) simply states that the WTO was similar to NAFTA, writing that:

The World Trade Organization…Don’t believe a word they say…That’s what corporate free trade fanatics said about NAFTA. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! And all we got was lost jobs…The WTO is NAFTA on Steroids.

Austerity, Privatization, and Corporatization 

The movement linked the loss of jobs in manufacturing to NAFTA but did not make NAFTA or deindustrialization as prominent in its framing directed at the IMF, World Bank and MAI. Instead, the global justice movement deployed an anti-austerity frame. Austerity for the poor and working classes is an important component of the IMF’s structural adjustment programs (SAPs)which are conditions placed on borrowing nations seeking loans. In the context of neoliberal globalization, SAPS are a mechanism to target public welfare, institutions, and infrastructure and make them vulnerable to privatization and/or corporatization.

Privatization refers to the practice of placing a public good or service into the realm of the market. Corporatization refers to privatization that transforms a publicly owned and governed service or institution into one that is owned and operated as a private corporation (Manski and Peck, 2006). As a major component of the implementation of neoliberalism, Mobilization for Global Justice (2000, 1) ties privatization to SAP’s which “…often call for the selling off of government-owned enterprises to private owners, often foreign investors. Privatization is typically associated with layoffs and pay cuts for workers. This is practically echoed by Jubilee 2000. The AFL-CIO focuses on privatization more domestically highlighting how the WTO could lead to the further privatization of education and healthcare.

Inequality 

Economic globalization increases inequality within and between countries. The GJM also makes this case repeatedly, and ties increasing inequality to WTO, IMF, and World Bank policies. After listing public health issues in LDCs, Kevin Danaher (2000, 13) blames inequality, and specifically ties it to the market: “This is stuff that shouldn’t be happening. The reason it is happening is because of inequality. The market only moves product to people with money. People without money die.”. Interestingly, the persistent mentions of inequality as a symptom adds another dimension to the neoliberal diagnostic frame.

Concentrates power in rich countries 

This frame ranges from describing the enrichment of core countries as an unfortunate consequence of neoliberalism, to presenting it as an essential part of a broader imperial agenda. One of the major criticisms of economic globalization is the disproportionate power of developed countries. Kevin Danaher (2000, 5) explains that:

The way these trade negotiations typically have worked is the big industrial country governments get together. They work out the plan of what they want, and then they present it to the Third World countries as a fait accompli, and they say, “You want to sell stuff in our countries? You’re going to sign on to this.” 

So all this talk about, “Oh, the WTO is democratic because each government gets one vote.” It’s bullshit. I mean, it just doesn’t work that way. 

The IMF and World Bank are singled out for their role in the providing funding to less developed countries. Leading organizations criticize the development mission of the IMF and World Bank and frame it as a new form of colonialism. Global Exchange (1999b, 1) makes this argument in one of their statements:

The real function of institutions such as the World Bank is not to promote “development” but rather to integrate ruling elites of third world countries into the global system of rewards and punishments. Because direct colonial control of the third world is no longer tolerated, northern elites need an indirect way to control policies implemented by third world governments. 

Others, such as those involved in the Peoples Assembly, Basement Nation, Ruckus Society, and the 50 Years is Enough Network,.go on to state explicitly that economic globalization is a form of imperialism.

Racism

Discussions of colonialism and imperialism cannot be separated from the racial ideology that has historically served as its justification. Due to the social and political bases of the GJM, which was mostly white and often reformist, the important counter-hegemonic framing of organizations and activists of color were frequently marginalized. Within the Seattle coalition, many activists of color felt frustration over the lack of openness and desire to organize within communities of color. For example, Lydia Cabasco (2000, 3), of People for Fair trade/NO2WTO explains that much of the framing deployed by the GJM was not particularly salient or resonant to these communities:

When you have black men being hauled off to jail, or you have environmental justice issues, and then you have people talking about the WTO, and then talking about saving the dolphins and the turtles and beef, that doesn't relate to people of color. People couldn't find a way to connect to those issues.

On the other hand, due to cross-border resistance against NAFTA inspired and in part led by movements based in Mexico – particularly the Zapatista uprising, but also including independent labor unions such as FAT and leftwing political parties – many Chicana/o and indigenous activists, as well as their allies, played critical roles in the global justice movement in the US. Miguel Bocanegra (2000, 6) of the University of Washington chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (MEChA) says,

The links were really easy to make, because this kind of work has been going on in our community since 1994 and before that around globalization. So when a lot of white people started talking about globalization and free trade and stuff like that, it was an old issue for us. It was something we had been talking about since 1994, and the Zapatistas had been fighting and dying for in Mexico since ‘94. ... So it wasn't like an issue that we had a hard time making connections with. But I think the connections with other communities of color was a little bit more difficult.

The deployment of the racism frame varied widely. For some, racism was at the center of the neoliberal agenda. Other organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, tended to describe racism and neoliberalism as a corporate strategy of “divide and conquer.” Others still took a much more intersectional approach and argued that all issues were related. And many simply included racism in a long list of grievances to extend their organization’s frame and attempt reach more people.

Gender Oppression

While the many of the leading activists and intellectuals in the forefront of the Global Justice Movement were feminist women, the GJM’s discourse on gender had to compete with labor and environmental issues. Some organizations such as Mobilization for Global Justice (2000a), were quick to point out that “SAPs hurt women the most…Women have also become more exploited in the private sector workforce as regulations rolled back and sweatshops abound.” One important intervention followed the formation of a group which put together the Woman’s Guide to the WTO. Anne Slater (2000, 2) of Seattle Radical Women describes their intention to emphasize the impact of globalization on women.

…besides saying the WTO is bad, but looking at the fact that what they were going to do on agriculture was going to primarily impact women, who were growing food for subsistence or affect the kinds of seeds that the women could use, that they had been using for hundreds of years. 

These interventions challenged the racism and sexism both of capitalist society and of the GJM itself. In so doing, they exposed and contested neoliberal hegemony on new and critical terrains of struggle.

Conclusion

There is an anti-neoliberal master frame which can summarized as follows: Neoliberal globalization is a corporate led effort to undermine sovereignty, and protections for labor, human rights, and the environment in order to open markets and increase profits. This master frame consists of three categories of subframes. First, a democratic deficit frame emerges from the classic reform versus abolition prognostic frame dispute, which is closely tied to specific diagnostic frames related to the nature of the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. The corporate power frame emerged from this debate, which is consistent with the description of the political-economy master frame described by Carroll and Ratner (1996). Second, the global justice movement values protections for national sovereignty, labor right, human rights, and environmental safeguards from neoliberal corporate actors that seek to undermine them through strategies such as investor-to-state lawsuits and SAPs. Third, the symptom/ injustice frames linked to the anti-neoliberal diagnostic frame extend the scope of who and what are harmed by neoliberalism, and helps build a broader movement of the aggrieved in the process.

This empirical application of a Gramscian approach to collective action frames that highlight how the movement links political and economic conceptions of power and deploys frames which contest neoliberal hegemony in the context of globalization. Han Shan (2001, 11), of the Ruckus Society illustrated the importance of political economic issues when addressing the significance of the global justice movement:

It certainly is something that fills us with hope, that there is this burgeoning movement, that there are young people with incredibly sophisticated critiques of global capital and people who are looking at the roots and not just the leaves, to quote Thoreau…There are people recognizing that we need to work on symptoms, for sure, but as we treat the symptoms, we need to also be treating the underlying disease. 

The global justice movement countered many of the claims made by proponents of neoliberal globalization through counter-hegemonic framing. These include claims that free trade benefits everyone and that “there is no alternative” to neoliberal globalization. Many if not most movement activists argued that neoliberal institutions were not only influenced by transnational corporations, they were dominated by them. In addition, the movement made the case that corporations and government bureaucrats seek to undermine social protections, specifically the sovereignty of nation states, to erode regulations that may stand in the way of the ability of multinational corporations to conduct business. Although human rights, natural systems, and workers are not the only targets of neoliberalism, they are the primary targets named by most organizations. For example, many environmental groups mention labor, and many labor groups mention the environment.

The global justice movement exposed the neoliberal offensive that began in the 1970s. However, the movement missed several aspects of the neoliberal agenda – such as financialization – and emphasized problems with global development at the expense of addressing the domestic impact of neoliberalism. Other movements of this period – particularly the labor, farmer, student, indigenous, and black liberation movements, as a well as a nascent democracy movement – did take on domestic structural adjustment programs in the United States, confronting the logics of neoliberalism through anti-corporate and anti-austerity campaigns. But the global justice movement and its master frame described the problem somewhat differently.

Altogether, the mobilizations against the WTO, MAI, IMF, World Bank, and FTAA where schools of struggle where activists developed a critique of neoliberalism that would come to resonate with subsequent movements. Seattle 1999 made a global turn in movement politics visible, a turn through which subaltern groups momentarily halted their retreat in the face of neoliberalism. Subsequent movements clearly incorporated aspects of an anti-neoliberal frame and even built on it in some cases. After Seattle, the antiwar, immigrant rights, occupy, Black Lives Matter, and climate justice movements all grappled with neoliberalism. Unfortunately, as Gramsci (1971, 276) famously observed, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Indeed, the incapacity of these movements to reverse the tide of neoliberalism left fertile ground for the rise of rightists and fascists who had their own critiques of “the Globalists” and the “giant sucking sound” that fed into the rise of Donald Trump who capitalized on “American carnage” dealt at the hands of neoliberal globalization.

Social movement framing can serve to contest hegemonic ideas and examine disputes between groups within a movement, which can be conceptualized as battles for hegemony. The global justice movement contributed a master frame for an emergent historic bloc that seeks to turn the tide against the neoliberal offensive, and possibly even transcend the capitalist system that generated the power relations, mechanisms, and tendencies that made the ascendance of neoliberalism possible.

References

50 Years is Enough Network. 2002. 50 Years is Enough Platform. Retrieved September 13, 2012. www.thirdworldtraveler.com/50Years_Enough/50Years_Platform.html. 

Adams, Jason. 2000, March 16. Interview by Jeremy Simer. WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October, 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Adams.pdf

Adler, Glenn, and James H. Mittelman. 2004. Reconstituting ‘common-sense’ knowledge: representations of globalization Protests.” International Relations 18 89-211. 

Altheide, David L. 1987. Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology 10(1):65–77.

Altheide, David L., and Christopher J. Schneider. 2012. Qualitative Media Analysis. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications

Art and Revolution. 1999. “Global Resistance.” Retrieved October 22, 1999 http://www.agitprop.org/artandrevolution/wto/gloal.html. Printout from the personal archive of Michael Dreiling. 

AFL-CIO. 1999b. “Resolution 6: New Rules for the Global Economy” AFL-CIO 23^rd Biennial Convention-Resolution Book One. Retrieved September 7^, 2012. http://web.archive.org/web/20000613042207/http://www.aflcio.org/conventi.... Internet Archive.

Ayres, Jeffrey M. 1999. From the streets to the internet: the cyber-diffusion of contention.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 56(1):132–43.

Ayres, Jeffrey M. 2004. Framing collective action against neoliberalism: the case of the "anti-globalization" movement.” Journal of World-Systems Research 10:11-34. 

Ayres, J., & MacDonald, L. 2009. Contentious Politics in North America: National Protest and Transnational Collaboration under Continental Integration (1st ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Barlow, Andrew L. 2003. Between Fear and Hope: Globalization and Race in the United States. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Benford, R. D. 1993. “Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Social Forces, 71(3), 677–701.

Benford, Robert D, and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-639.

Bocanegra, Miguel. 2000. May 30, Interview by Monica Ghosh, WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/bocanegra(ghosh).pdf

Buttel, Frederick H., and Kenneth A. Gould. 2004. Global social movement(s) at the crossroads: some observations on the trajectory of the anti-corporate globalization movement.” Journal of World-Systems Research 10(1):37–66.

Cabasco, Lydia. 2000, August 15, Interview by Monica Ghosh, WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/cabasco(ghosh).pdf

Carroll, William K, and R. S Ratner. 1996. Master framing and cross-movement networking in contemporary social movements.” The Sociological Quarterly 37(4):601-625.

Clawson, Dan and Mary Ann Clawson. 1999. What has happened to the US Labor Movement? union decline and renewal.” Annual Review of Sociology 25(1):95–119.

Cox, Laurence, and Alf Gunvald Nilsen. 2014. We Make Our Own History: Marxism and Social Movements in the Twilight of Neoliberalism. London: Pluto Press

Della Porta, Donatella and Sidney G. Tarrow. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Danaher, Kevin. 2000, February 15^. Interview by Miguel Bocanegra, WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/danaher.pdf

Dohrs, Larry. 2000. October 10, Interview by Miguel Bocanegra, WTO History Project, University of Washington, Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Dohrs.pdf

Dolan, Mike. 1999. November 10, Interview by Steven Pfaff and Gillian Murphy. WTO History Project, University of Washington. http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Dolan-Pfaff Murphy.pdf 

Dreiling, Micheal and Derek Darves. 2016, Agents of Neoliberal Globalization: Corporate Networks, State Structures and Trade Policy. 

Evans, P. 2008. Is an Alternative Globalization Possible? Politics and Society, 36(2), 271–305. 

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

Fisher, Dana R., Kevin Stanley, David Berman, and Gina Neff. 2005. How Do Organizations Matter? Mobilization and Support for Participants at Five Globalization Protests. Social Problems 52(1):102–21.

Gamson, W.A. .1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Global Exchange. 1999. “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the WTO.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-005. 

Global Exchange. 1999b. “Why the World Bank Must Be Reformed” Retrieved April 1, 2012 from web.archive.org/web/19991011231251/http://globalexchange.org

/economy/rulemakers/reformworldbank.html. Internet Archive

Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York: International Publishers Co.

Hadden, Jennifer, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Spillover or spillout? The global justice movement in the United States after 9/11.” Mobilization: An International Journal 12(4):359-376.

Hardnack, Chris. 2019. “Gramsci and Goffman United at Last: Toward a Counterhegemonic Framing Approach to Movement Research.” Interface 12(1): 200-2015

Hirsch, Barry T. and Macpherson, David A., (2013).Union Membership and Coverage Database from the CPS, downloaded 10/30/2013 from http://www.unionstats.com/

Hosseini, S. A. H. (2009). Alternative Globalizations: An Integrative Approach to Studying Dissident Knowledge in the Global Justice Movement (1st ed.). T & F Books UK.

International Forum on Globalization. 1999. “Economic Globalization and the Role of the World Trade Organization.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-005. Box 1, Folder 56, Invitation. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington.

Jessop, Bob. 2007. State Power: a Strategic-relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity.

Jubilee 2000/USA. 1998. “Structural Adjustment Programs.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-005. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington. 

Jubilee 2000 Northwest Coalition. 1999. [Untitled Call for Procession] Global Justice Movement Archival Center. University of Idaho Retrieved March 30, 2012.http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/gjmarchive/pdf/Images%20to%20upload/WTO%2...

Kiely, Ray. 2005. The Clash Of Globalisations: Neo-Liberalism, The Third Way And Anti-Globalisation. First Edition. Leiden ; Boston: Brill Academic Pub.

King County Labor Council. 1999. “The Transnational Corporate Agenda for Workers & Unions.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-003 Box 1, Folder 69, Ephemora. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington.

Korzeniewicz, Roberto Patricio and Timothy Patrick Moran. 2009. Unveiling Inequality: A World-Historical Perspective. Russell Sage Foundation.

Kumar, Deepa. 2008. Outside the Box: Corporate Media, Globalization, and the UPS Strike. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Marchand, Marianne H. and Anne Sisson Runyan. 2000. Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances. Psychology Press.

Manski, Ben and John E. Peck. 2006. “Corporatisation: An internal clash of civilisations.” Public Services Yearbook, 2005/2006, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam. 

McBride, Stephen 2009. The political economy of neoliberalism in North America", in Jeffrey Ayres and Laura Macdonald eds. Contentious Politics in North America: National Protest and Transnational Collaboration Under Continental Integration, London: Palgrave, 2009) 16-34

Menotti, Victor. 2000, October 27, Interview by Jeremy Simer. WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Menotti.pdf

Mertes, Tom. 2004. A Movement of Movements: Is Another World Possible? London: Verso

Milkman, Ruth. 2006. L.A. Story : Immigrant Workers and the Future of the US Labor Movement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mobilization for Global Justice. 2000a. “Mobilization Media Center, Convergence Sites Open.” April 7, 2000. World Trade Organization, 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection, 1998-2000. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington. Accession No. 5177-005

Mobilization for Global Justice. 2000b. “Shut Down the IMF/WorldBank.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-005. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington. 

Mobilization for Global Justice 2000c. “Action guide.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-005. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington.

Mobilization for Global Justice. 2000d. “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the IMF.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-005. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington.

People for Fair Trade/ NO2WTO. 1999. What does the WTO Mean for Workers? World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. 5177-003/3-8-11 Seattle: Washington. 

Podobnik, Bruce, and Bruce Podobnik and Thomas Reifer. 2009. Transforming Globalization: Challenges and Opportunities in the Post 9/11 Era. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Public Citizen. 1999. “WTO Trades Away Labor and Human Rights.” World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. Accession No. 5177-005. Box 4. Folder 16. University of Washington Archives, Seattle, Washington.

Reese, E., Smith, J., Byrd, S., & Smythe, E. (2011). Handbook on World Social Forum Activism. Boulder: Paradigm Pub.

Seligman, Dan. 2000, August 17. Interview by April Eaton. WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Seligman.pdf

Shan, Han. 2000. Interview by Jeremy Simer, June 1, 2000. WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/shan.pdf

Sierra Club 1999. The World Trade Organization: Globalization without Representation. World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest Collection 1993-2000. 5177-003/15/3 Seattle: Washington.

Silver, Beverly J. 2003. Forces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization Since 1870. Cambridge University Press.

Simer, Jeremy. 2000, June 1. Interview by Gilian Murphy. WTO History Project, University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/simer.pdf 

Slater, Anne. 2000, December 12. Interview by Gillian Murphy. WTO History Project. University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/slater.pdf

Smith, Jackie. 2008. Social Movements for Global Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smith, Jackie, and Dawn Wiest. 2012. Social Movements in the World-System: The Politics of Crisis and Transformation. Russell Sage Foundation.

Snow, David A., and Robert D. Benford. 2000. “Clarifying the Relationship Between Framing and Ideology.” Mobilization 5(1):55–60.

Tope, Daniel and David Jacobs. 2009. The politics of union decline. American Sociological Review. 74: 842-864. 

Wallace, Michael, Andrew S. Fullerton, and Mustafa E. Gurbuz. 2009. Union organizing effort and success in the US, 1948-2004.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 27(1):13–34.

Wilder, Verlene. 2000, May 5. Interview by Jeremy Simer, WTO History Project, University of Washington. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/interviews/Wilder.pdf

Wilson, William Julius. 1997. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. 1st edition. New York, NY: Vintage.

Working Group on the WTO / MAI. 1999. Citizens’ Guide to the World Trade Organization: Everything You Need to Know for Fair Trade. https://www.citizen.org/documents/wto-book.pdf Retrieved 04/03/12.

WTO History Project. 2011. Portions available online: http://depts.washington.edu/wtohist/, and through the Manuscripts, Special Collections, and University Archives at the University of Washington.