Advertisement

Whether and How Much to Give: Uncovering the Contrasting Determinants of the Decisions of Whether and How Much to Give to Charity with Two-Stage Alternatives to the Prevailing Tobit Model

  • Erik Petrovski
Orignal Paper

Abstract

Charitable giving involves two seemingly distinct decisions: whether to give and how much to give. However, many researchers methodologically assume that these decisions are one and the same. The present study supports the argument that this is an incorrect assumption that is likely to generate misleading conclusions, in part, since the second decision is much more financial in nature than the first. The argument that charitable giving entails two distinct decisions is validated by empirically dismissing the prevailing Tobit model, which assumes a single decision, in favor of less restrictive two-stage approaches: Cragg’s model and the Heckman model. Most importantly, it is shown that only by adopting a two-stage approach may it be uncovered that common determinants of charitable giving such as income and gender affect the two decisions at hand very differently. Data comes from a high-quality 2012 Danish survey and administrative registers.

Keywords

Charitable giving Tobit Cragg Heckman Income Gender 

Résumé

Les dons de bienfaisance impliquent deux décisions de toute apparence distinctes : donner ou non et combien. Plusieurs chercheurs présument cependant, sur une base méthodologique, que ces décisions sont identiques. La présente étude appuie l’argument que cette supposition est incorrecte et qu’elle mènera vraisemblablement à des conclusions trompeuses, en partie parce que la seconde décision est de nature beaucoup plus financière que la première. L’argument voulant que les dons de bienfaisance impliquent deux décisions distinctes est validé par le rejet empirique du modèle Tobit dominant, qui tient compte d’une seule décision, pour favoriser des approches en deux phases moins contraignantes : le modèle de Cragg et le modèle Heckman. Il est surtout démontré que ce n’est qu’en adoptant une approche en deux phases que les déterminants courants des dons de bienfaisance, dont le revenu et le sexe, influencent très différemment les deux décisions en question. Les données proviennent d’une enquête danoise de 2012 et de registres administratifs de qualité supérieure.

Zusammenfassung

Das wohltätige Spenden beinhaltet zwei scheinbar unterschiedliche Entscheidungen: die Frage, ob man spenden soll und die Frage, wieviel man spenden soll. Allerdings gehen viele Forscher methodologisch davon aus, dass diese Fragen ein und dieselbe Entscheidung darstellen. Die vorliegende Studie unterstützt das Argument, dass diese Annahme falsch ist und wahrscheinlich zu irreführenden Schlussfolgerungen führt; zum Teil weil die zweite Entscheidung im Vergleich zur ersten Entscheidung mehr finanzieller Art ist. Das Argument, dass das wohltätige Spenden zwei unterschiedliche Entscheidungen beinhaltet, wird durch eine empirische Ablehnung des vorherrschenden Tobit-Modells, das von einer einzigen Entscheidung ausgeht, zugunsten weniger restriktiver Zwei-Stufen-Ansätze bestätigt - dem Cragg-Modell und dem Heckman-Modell. Vor allem wird dargelegt, dass nur durch die Anwendung eines Zwei-Stufen-Ansatzes aufgedeckt werden kann, dass sich gemeinsame Determinanten für wohltätiges Spenden, z. B. Einkommen und Geschlecht, äußerst unterschiedlich auf die beiden Entscheidungen auswirken. Die Daten stammen aus einer qualitativ hochwertigen dänischen Umfrage von 2012 sowie aus Verwaltungsregistern.

Resumen

La donación benéfica implica dos decisiones aparentemente diferentes: si donar y cuánto donar. Sin embargo, muchos investigadores asumen metodológicamente que estas decisiones son una y la misma. El presente estudio apoya el argumento de que esto es un supuesto incorrecto que probablemente genere conclusiones engañosas, en parte, dado que la segunda decisión es mucho más financiera en naturaleza que la primera. El argumento de que la donación benéfica conlleva dos decisiones diferentes está validado descartando empíricamente el modelo Tobit predominante, que asume una única decisión, a favor de enfoques de dos etapas menos restrictivos: el modelo de Cragg y el modelo de Heckman. Lo que es más importante, se muestra que sólo mediante la adopción de un enfoque de dos etapas puede descubrirse que determinantes comunes de la donación benéfica, tales como los ingresos y el género, afectan a las dos decisiones en cuestión de manera muy diferente. Los datos proceden de una encuesta danesa de 2012 de elevada calidad y de los registros administrativos.

摘要

慈善捐赠涉及两个似乎独特的决定:是否捐赠和捐赠金额。然而,许多研究人员采用的方法假定这些决定是单个相同的决定。当前研究支持的论点是,这是一个不正确的假设,可能会作出误导性的结论,部分由于第二个决定比第一个更具财务性质。凭经验抛弃流行的杜宾模型(该模型假定单个决定),可以验证慈善捐赠包含两个独特决定的论点,倾向于限制较小的两阶段方法:克拉格模型和赫克曼模型。最重要的是,这表明仅可通过采用两阶段方法才能发现慈善捐赠的通用决定性因素,如收入和性别对这两个决定的影响极为不同。数据来自2012年的高质量丹麦调查和性质记录。

要約

慈善活動には、活動を提供するか否か、どの程度提供するかという2つの異なる決定が含まれている。しかし多くの研究者は、決定は一つであり同じであると方法論的に仮定している。本研究では、2番目の決定が最初のものより自然で経済的なために、誤った結論を構築する可能性があるという不適切な前提の議論を支持する。2つの異なる決定を伴う慈善活動では、経験的に現行のトビモデルで否定されることが確証されている。トビモデルは、クラッグのモデルとヘックマンモデルという制限の少ない2 段階アプローチを支持する単一の決定を前提としている。最も重要なのは、慈善活動の収入や性別などの一般的な決定要因が2つの決定に影響を与えることが明らかになるが、これは2 段階のアプローチを採用することによってのみ提示される。データは、質の高い2012デンマーク調査と行政登録に基づいている。

ملخص

العطاء الخيري ينطوي على قرارين من القرارات التي تبدو واضحة: إما تعطي وكم مبلغ العطاء. مع ذلك، العديد من الباحثين الذين يفترضوا منهجيا” أن هذين القرارين واحد ونفس الشيء. تدعم هذه الدراسة حجة أن هذا الإفتراض غير صحيح والتي من المرجح أن ينتج عنه إستنتاجات مضللة، في جزء منه، حيث أن القرار الثاني هو أكثر ماليا” في الطبيعة عن القرار الأول. يتم التحقق من صحة القول بأن العطاء ينطوي على قرارين متميزين برفض تجريبي نموذج (Tobit) السائد ، الذي يفترض وجود قرار واحد، لصالح نهج مرحلتين أقل تقييدا”: نموذج (Cragg) ونموذج (Heckman).الأهم من ذلك، فإنه يظهر أنه فقط من خلال إعتماد نهج المرحلتين يمكن أن يكشف أن العوامل المشتركة في العطاء الخيري مثل الدخل والجنس يؤثر على القرارين اللذان في متناول اليد بشكل مختلف جدا.” البيانات تأتي من إستطلاع الرأي عالي الجودة الدنماركي عام 2012، والسجلات الإدارية.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study is supported by a donation from the Realdania Foundation. The author would furthermore like to acknowledge the helpful input from Ph.D. Candidate Hans-Peter Y. Qvist in connection with this study. Any errors are my own.

Funding

This study was, in part, made possible by a contribution from the Realdania Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amankwaa, B., & Devlin, R. A. (2016). Visible Minorities and Majority Giving. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1–22.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. (2006). Philanthropy. In L. A. Gerard-Varet, S.-C. Kolm, & J. M. Ythier (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity (Vol. 2, pp. 1201–1269).Google Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides and why does it matter? The Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auten, G. E., Sieg, H., & Clotfelter, C. T. (2002). Charitable giving, income, and taxes: An analysis of panel data. The American Economic Review, 92(1), 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and prosocial behavior. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bekkers, R. (2004). Giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. (H. B. G. Ganzeboom & N. D. De Graaf, Supervisors). Utrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Bekkers, R., & Schuyt, T. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74–96.Google Scholar
  9. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2010). 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
  10. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving Part One: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.Google Scholar
  11. Brand, J. E. (2010). Civic returns to higher education: A note on heterogeneous effects. Social Forces, 89(2), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, E., & Ferris, J. M. (2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, E., Mesch, D. J., & Hayat, A. D. (2016). Life expectancy and the search for a bag lady effect in charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke, W. J. (2009). Fitting and interpreting Cragg’s tobit alternative using Stata. The Stata Journal, 9(4), 584–592.Google Scholar
  15. Burnham, K. P & Anderson, D. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed., pp. 1–515). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Chang, W.-C. (2006). Determinants of donations. The Developing Economies, 43(2), 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cragg, J. G. (1971). Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica, 39(5), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Evers, A., & Gesthuizen, M. (2011). The impact of generalized and institutional trust on donating to activist, leisure, and interest organizations: Individual and contextual effects. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 381–392.Google Scholar
  20. Forbes, K. F., & Zampelli, E. M. (2011). An assessment of alternative structural models of philanthropic behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1148–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forbes, K. F., & Zampelli, E. M. (2014). Volunteerism: The influences of social, religious, and human capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fridberg, T., & Henriksen, L. S. (2014). Udviklingen i Frivilligt Arbejde 2004–2012 (pp. 1–307). København: SFI – Det nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd.Google Scholar
  23. Graziano, William G., Habashi, Meara M., Sheese, Brad E., & Tobin, Renée M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person X situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. James, R. N., & Sharpe, D. L. (2007). The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 218–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, A., & Posnett, J. (1991). Charitable donations by UK households: Evidence from the family expenditure survey. Applied Economics, 23(2), 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim, S.-J., & Kou, X. (2014). Not all empathy is equal: How dispositional empathy affects charitable giving. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(4), 312–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kirchgässner, G. (1992). Towards a theory of low-cost decisions. European Journal of Political Economy, 8(2), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirchgässner, G. (2010). On minimal morals. European Journal of Political Economy, 26(3), 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kottasz, R. (2004). Differences in the donor behavior characteristics of young affluent males and females: Empirical evidence from Britain. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kou, X., Hayat, A. D., Mesch, D. J., & Osili, U. O. (2014). The global dynamics of gender and philanthropy in membership associations: A study of charitable giving by Lions Clubs international members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2 Suppl), 18S–38S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, L., Piliavin, J. A., & Call, V. (1999). Giving time, money, and blood: Similarities and differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(3), 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2), 157–180. doi: 10.1257/jep.25.2.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyons, M., & Nivison-Smith, I. (2016). Religion and giving in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McClelland, R. (2004). What is the Real relationship between income and charitable giving? Public Finance Review, 32(5), 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I., & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 342–355.Google Scholar
  39. Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. V. (2007). Who gives charitable donations for overseas development? Presented at the WeD International Conference.Google Scholar
  40. Naeem, S., & Zaman, A. (2015). Charity and gift exchange: Cultural effects. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 900–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Norton, E. C., Dow, W. H., & Do, Y. K. (2008). Specification tests for the sample selection and two-part models. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 8(4), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Puhani, P. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Qvist, H.-P. Y. (2015). Deltagelse i frivilligt arbejde og tidsforbrug på frivilligt arbejde [Participation in Volunteer Work and Time Use On Volunteer Work]. Dansk Sociologi, 26(2), 53–74.Google Scholar
  44. Roncek, D. W. (1992). Learning more from Tobit coefficients. American Sociological Review, 57(4), 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2007). Individual giving behaviour: A multi-disciplinary review. London: In The Nonprofit Marketing Companion.Google Scholar
  46. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, D. A., & Brame, R. (2003). Tobit models in social science research: Some limitations and a more general alternative. Sociological Methods & Research, 31(3), 364–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, V. H., Kehoe, M. R., & Cremer, M. E. (1995). The private provision of public goods: Altruism and voluntary giving. Journal of Public Economics, 58, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sokolowski, S. W. (1996). Show me the way to the next worthy deed: Towards a microstructural theory of volunteering and giving. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 7(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sunshine Hillygus, D. (2005). The missing link. Political Behavior, 27(1), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Taxhjelm, F. R. (2014). Pengegaver. In T. Fridberg & L. S. Henriksen (Eds.), Udviklingen i Frivilligt Arbejde 2004–2012. København: SFI – Det nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd.Google Scholar
  53. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Twenge, J. M., Ciarocco, N. J., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uslaner, E. M. (2001). Trust as a moral value (pp. 1–45). Presented at the Social Capital Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Exeter.Google Scholar
  56. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The Moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Uslaner, E. M. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33(6), 868–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Uslaner, E. M. (2008). Where you stand depends upon where your grandparents sat. The inheritability of generalized trust. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(4), 725–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vesterlund, L. (2006). Why do people give? In W. W. Powell & R. S. Steinberg (Eds.), The non-profit sector (pp. 1–20). New Haven: The Nonprofit Sector.Google Scholar
  60. Wang, L., & Graddy, E. (2008). Social capital, volunteering, and charitable giving. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiepking, P. (2007). The philanthropic poor: In search of explanations for the relative generosity of lower income households. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(4), 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part Two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2015). Giving in the Netherlands. In P. Wiepking & F. Handy (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 1–24). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiepking, P., & Breeze, B. (2011). Feeling poor, acting stingy: The effect of money perceptions on charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (2015). The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wiepking, P., & Maas, I. (2009). Resources that make you generous: Effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87(4), 1973–1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wittek, R., & Bekkers, R. (2015). Sociology of altruism and prosocial behavior. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 579–583). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  68. Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Wuthnow, R. (1995). Learning to care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Roskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations