Cross-National Differences in Charitable Giving in the West and the World

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Most theories of cross-national variation in charitable giving have been tested only on samples of countries of Western European culture; this paper applies these theories to 114 countries, including 93 non-Western countries, using data from the Gallup World Poll. It finds strong support for economic and political theories of cross-national variation in charitable giving and partial support for religious and cultural theories. Theories effectively predict variation in giving in middle income non-Western countries but poorly predict variation in low-income non-Western countries. This suggests that economic development, not cultural or religious differences, separate non-Western countries from Western ones in patterns of giving behavior.

Keywords

Charitable giving Civil society Economic development Democracy Modernization 

Résumé

La plupart des théories sur les écarts entre les dons de bienfaisance de divers pays ont été comparées à des échantillons de pays à culture ouest-européenne. Cet article applique ces théories à 114 nations, dont 93 non occidentales, à l’aide de données du sondage Gallup mondial. Il y décèle un fort appui pour les théories économiques et politiques d’écarts entre les dons de bienfaisance de divers pays et un appui partiel envers les théories religieuses et culturelles. Les théories prévoient efficacement les écarts entre les dons fournis par des pays non occidentaux à revenu moyen, tandis que les prédictions sont médiocres pour les pays non occidentaux à faible revenu. Cela suggère que le développement économique, et non les différences culturelles ou religieuses, distingue le comportement des pays non occidentaux des nations occidentales en matière de don de bienfaisance.

Zusammenfassung

Die Mehrzahl der Theorien zu länderübergreifenden Unterschieden bei gemeinnützigen Spenden wurde nur anhand von Stichproben aus Ländern mit westeuropäischer Kultur getestet. Dieser Beitrag wendet die Theorien auf 114 Länder, einschließlich 93 nicht-westlicher Länder, an, wobei Daten aus der Gallup World Poll zugrunde gelegt werden. Man sieht deutliche Belege für die ökonomischen und politischen Theorien zu länderübergreifenden Unterschieden bei gemeinnützigen Spenden und eine teilweise Bestätigung der religiösen und kulturellen Theorien. Die Theorien prognostizieren effektiv die Unterschiede im Spendenverhalten in nicht-westlichen Ländern mit mittlerem Einkommen, geben jedoch eine mangelhafte Prognose zu den Unterschieden in nicht-westlichen Ländern mit geringem Einkommen ab. Dies lässt darauf schließen, dass die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung, und nicht die kulturellen oder religiösen Differenzen, nicht-westliche von westlichen Ländern im Bezug auf das Spendenverhalten unterscheiden.

Resumen

La mayoría de las teorías de variación transnacional en la donación benéfica han sido probadas solamente en muestras de países con cultura europea occidental; el presente documento aplica estas teorías a 114 países, incluidos 83 países no occidentales, utilizando datos de la Encuesta Mundial Gallup. Se encuentra un fuerte soporte para las teorías económicas y políticas de variación transnacional en la donación benéfica y un soporte parcial para las teorías religiosas y culturales. Las teorías predicen de manera efectiva la variación en la donación en el caso de ingresos medios en países no occidentales pero predicen pésimamente la variación en países no occidentales con bajos ingresos. Esto sugiere que el desarrollo económico y no las diferencias culturales o religiosas, separan a los países no occidentales de los occidentales en los patrones de comportamiento a la hora de realizar donaciones.

要約

仅使用西欧国家文化的样本测试了有关慈善捐赠跨境差异的大部分理论;使用来自盖洛普世界民意调查的数据,本文将这些理论应用到114个国家,包括93个非西方国家。研究发现,慈善捐赠跨境差异的经济和政治理论存在极大关联性,而宗教和文化理论仅存在部分关联性。这些理论有效地预测非西方国家中等收入人群的捐赠差异,但很差预测非西方国家低收入人群的差异。结果表明,经济发展而不是文化或宗教差异导致非西方国家与西方国家的捐赠行为存在不同。

摘要

慈善活動に関する国際比較変化のほとんどの理論は、西欧文化の国々のサンプルでのみ実践されている。本論文ではワールド・ギャラップ世論調査のデータを使用して、非西欧諸国93ケ国を含む114ケ国の国々にこの理論を適用する。慈善活動に関する国際比較変化の経済的および政治的な理論に対する強い支持と宗教と文化理論の部分的な支援を調査する。理論は非西欧諸国における中間所得の変化を効果的に予測するが、非西欧諸国における低所得の変化を効果的に予測はしない。行動パターンから西欧諸国と非西欧諸国を切り離して、経済発展のない文化や宗教の違いを示唆する。

ملخص

قد تم اختبار معظم نظريات التباين عبر الوطنية في الأعمال الخيرية فقط على عينات من دول الثقافة الأوروبية الغربية. يطبق هذا البحث هذه النظريات على114 بلد، بما في ذلك93 دولة غير غربية، وذلك بإستخدام بيانات من إستطلاع الرأي العالمي (Gallup). وجدت دعم قوي للنظريات الإقتصادية والسياسية للتغييرعبر الوطنية في الأعمال الخيرية ودعم جزئي لنظريات دينية وثقافية. تتنبأ النظريات على نحو فعال الإختلاف في العطاء في البلدان المتوسطة الدخل غير الغربية لكن تتوقع بطريقة سيئة الإختلاف في البلدان ذات الدخل المنخفض غير الغربية. هذا يشير إلى أن التنمية الإقتصادية، ليست إختلافات ثقافية أو دينية، و يفصل دول غير غربية من دول غربية في أنماط سلوك العطاء.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Funding

This research was not funded.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S., & Wacziarg, R. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. J., & Paskeviciute, A. (2006). How ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity influence the prospects for civil society: A comparative study of citizenship behavior. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 783–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archimbault, E. (2009). The third sector in Europe: Does it exhibit a converging movement? In B. Enjolras & K. H. Sivesind (Eds.), Civil society in comparative perspective (pp. 105–134). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  4. Bailer, S., Bodenstein, T., & Heinrich, V. F. (2012). Explaining the strength of civil society: Evidence from cross-sectional data. International Political Science Review, 34(3), 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhat, P. I., Gopalan, S., & Dongre, Y. (2010). Philanthropy and Religion, Hinduism. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 1167–1172). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Butcher, J., & Sordo, S. (2016). Giving Mexico: Giving by individuals. VOLUNTAS, 27, 322–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curtis, J. E., Baer, D. E., & Grabb, E. G. (2001). Nations of joiners: Explaining voluntary association membership in democratic societies. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 783–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Tocqueville, A. (2004 [1840]). Democracy in America (A. Goldhammer, Trans.) New York: Library of America.Google Scholar
  10. Denoon, G. S. H. (2010). Philanthropy and religion, Buddhism. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 1159–1162). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Einolf, C. J. (2011). The link between religion and helping others: The role of values, ideas, and language. Sociology of Religion, 72(4), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Einolf, C. J. (2015). The social origins of the nonprofit sector and charitable giving. In F. Handy & P. Wiepking (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 509–529). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Everatt, D., Habib, A., Maharaj, B., & Nyar, A. (2005). Patterns of giving in South Africa. VOLUNTAS, 16, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grönlund, H., & Pessi, A. B. (2015). The influence of religion on philanthropy across nations. In F. Handy & P. Wiepking (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 558–569). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guruge, A. W. P., & Bond, G. D. (1998). Generosity and service in Therevada Buddhism. In W. F. Ilchman, S. Katz, & E. L. Queen (Eds.), Philanthropy in the world’s traditions (pp. 79–96). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hadenius, A., & Uggla, F. (1996). Making civil society work, promoting democratic development: What can states and donors do? World Development, 24(10), 1621–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hasan, S. (2010). Philanthropy and religion, Islam. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 1172–1175). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, M. (2012). The relationship between volunteering and charitable giving: Review of evidence. London: Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy. Downloaded May 25, 2016, from http://www.cgap.org.uk/uploads/Working%20Papers/WP%20volunteering%20and%20charitable%20giving%20MH.pdf.
  19. Housen, T., Hopkins, S., & Earnest, J. (2013). A systematic review on the impact of internal remittances on poverty and consumption in developing countries: Implications for policy. Population, Space, and Place, 19, 610–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard, M. (2003). The weakness of civil society in post-communist Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James, E. (1987). The nonprofit sector in comparative perspective. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 397–415). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Juergensmeyer, M., & McMahon, D. M. (1998). Hindu philanthropy and civil society. In W. F. Ilchman, S. Katz, & E. L. Queen (Eds.), Philanthropy in the world’s traditions (pp. 263–278). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kääriäinen, J., & Lehtonen, H. (2006). The variety of social capital in welfare state regimes—A comparative study of 21 countries. European Societies, 8, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kabalo, P. (2010). Philanthropy and religion, Judaism. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International encyclopedia of civil society (pp. 1175–1181). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2015). The Worldwide Governance Indicators Project [database]. Retrieved from http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home.
  27. Kawamura, L. S. (1998). The Mahayana Buddhist foundation for philanthropic practice. In W. F. Ilchman, S. Katz, & E. L. Queen (Eds.), Philanthropy in the world’s traditions (pp. 97–108). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kochuyt, T. (2009). God, gifts, and poor people: On charity in Islam. Social Compass, 56(1), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koslowski, G. C. (1998). Religious authority, reform, and philanthropy in the contemporary Muslim world. In W. F. Ilchman, S. Katz, & E. L. Queen (Eds.), Philanthropy in the world’s traditions (pp. 279–308). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lim, C., & MacGregor, C. A. (2012). Religion and volunteering in context: Disentangling the contextual effects of religion on voluntary behavior. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 747–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nguyen, P. A. (2015). The influence of government support for the nonprofit sector on philanthropy across nations. In F. Handy & P. Wiepking (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 530–539). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Parboteeah, K., Cullen, J., & Lim, L. (2004). Formal volunteering: A cross-national test. Journal of World Business, 39, 431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Penslar, D. J. (1998). The origins of modern Jewish philanthropy. In W. F. Ilchman, S. Katz, & E. L. Queen (Eds.), Philanthropy in the world’s traditions (pp. 197–214). Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ragin, C. C. (1998). Comments on “Social origins of civil society. VOLUNTAS, 9, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sokolowski, S. W. (2013). Effects of government support on nonprofit institutions from aggregate private philanthropy: Evidence from 40 countries. VOLUNTAS, 24, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS, 9, 213–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Oorschot, W., & Arts, W. (2005). The social capital of European welfare states: The crowding out hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Oorschot, W., & Finsveen, E. (2010). Does the welfare state reduce inequalities in people’s social capital? International Journal of Sociology and Social policy, 30(3/4), 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Veenhoven, R. (2015). World database of happiness [Data file]. Retrieved from http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/.
  42. Wiepking, P., Bekkers, R., & Osili, U. (2014). Examining the association of religious context with giving to non-profit organizations. European Sociological Review, 30(5), 640–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (2015). Explanations for cross-national differences in philanthropy. In F. Handy & P. Wiepking (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 9–24). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiesbrod, B. A. (1977). The voluntary non-profit sector. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePaul University School of Public ServiceChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations