Does it pay to care? Volunteering and employment opportunities

Abstract

We investigate whether volunteering has a causal effect on individual employment opportunities. To this end, a field experiment is conducted in which volunteering activities are randomly assigned to fictitious job applications sent to genuine vacancies in Belgium. We find that volunteers are 7.3 percentage points more likely to get a positive reaction to their job applications. The volunteering premium is higher for females but invariant with respect to the number of engagements.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    One exception is the finding of a decrease in current earnings by 1.7% for volunteers in the subgroup of workers in the private sector in France (Prouteau and Wolff 2006).

  2. 2.

    Based on the ESS6 data mentioned in the introduction, the level of volunteering in Belgium is slightly above the average level across all respondents in Europe. More concretely, 27.0% of the surveyed Belgians in the ESS6 data reported having undertaken volunteer work during the previous 6 months (see Fig. 1).

  3. 3.

    Throughout this article, with the ‘surplus of volunteering’, we refer to job candidates’ higher probability of positive callback due to volunteer work disclosed in their résumés.

  4. 4.

    For instance, age discrimination is tested by Riach and Rich (2007) in the occupation of waiter only, by Albert et al. (2011) in the occupations of seller and waiter only and by Ahmed et al. (2012) in the occupation of clerk (in accountancy, administration or sales) only.

  5. 5.

    ISCED stands for ‘International Standard Classification of Education’. ISCED 3 refers to upper secondary education (i.e. more specialised education that typically begins at age 15 or 16 years preparing; it prepares pupils for tertiary education, provides them with skills relevant to employment or does both. Examples of tested occupations at this level are administrative clerk, call center employee, commercial clerk, demonstrator, executive clerk, representative and (tele-)seller. ISCED 5 refers to the first stage of tertiary education (i.e. programmes with an educational content more advanced than those offered at ISCED level 3 and ISCED level 4 (post-secondary non-tertiary education), which might be academically or practically oriented). Examples of tested occupations at this level are (assistant) accountant, consultant in marketing and publicity, consultant in finance, consultant in recruitment and selection, customer declaration officer and executive assistant human resources.

  6. 6.

    In parallel with this field experiment, an analogous experiment was conducted with Turkish names to investigate whether volunteering might reduce ethnic labour market discrimination (Baert and Vujić 2016).

  7. 7.

    As mentioned earlier, 23.4% of all European and 27.0% of all Belgian respondents in the ESS6 reported that they were involved in volunteer work. When focussing only on the subpopulation of interest for our study, i.e. youth respondents, the corresponding percentage is 24.0% for the 15- to 24-year-olds both in Europe and Belgium. So, volunteer work is more or less as common for young people as for adults.

  8. 8.

    This sports was chosen due to its high representation of both females and males.

  9. 9.

    By presenting both outcomes, we pursue to be as complementary to the literature as possible. A substantial proportion of correspondence studies only provide statistics on positive callback in a broad sense (Albert et al. 2011; Jacquemet and Yannelis 2012; Kaas and Manger 2012; Patacchini et al. 2015), while another substantial proportion only focuses on interview rates (Ahmed et al. 2012; Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004; Eriksson and Rooth 2014; Kroft et al. 2013; Riach and Rich 2007). Some recent contributions present both outcome measures, as we do (Baert et al. 2016a; Baert et al. 2016b; Lahey 2008; Neumark et al. 2015).

  10. 10.

    Broken down by the four categories of positive callback mentioned at the end of Sect. 2.3, the volunteering candidates got, besides an interview invitation in 11.1% of the cases (32 vacancies), a proposal of an alternative position in 1.4% of the cases (4 vacancies), an inquiry to provide the employer with more information in 3.5% of the cases (10 vacancies) and a general inquiry to contact the employer in 6.9% of the cases (20 vacancies). The control candidate got, besides an interview invitation in 8.3% of the cases (24 vacancies), a proposal of an alternative position in 0.3% of the cases (1 vacancy), an inquiry to provide the employer with more information in 2.4% of the cases (7 vacancies) and a general inquiry to contact the employer in 4.5% of the cases (13 vacancies).

  11. 11.

    Stated otherwise, volunteers are 46.7% (≈ 0.229/0.156) more likely to get positive callback in a broad sense and 33.3% (≈ 0.111/0.083) more likely to get positive callback in a strict sense compared to non-volunteers.

  12. 12.

    In addition, breaking down our data by the gender of the candidates indicates that Belgian employers prefer female workers in the tested occupations. This might be related to the fact that these occupations are female-dominated. Because typically female characteristics are perceived as particularly productive in traditionally female occupations, hiring outcomes are expected to be more in favour of women in these female-dominated occupations (Baert et al. 2016a; Booth and Leigh 2010; Weichselbaumer 2004).

  13. 13.

    An important caveat in this respect is that we might have lacked statistical power to reject unequal treatment for the subsamples of vacancies in which the treated candidate revealed only one volunteering activity (96 vacancies) or three volunteering activities (48 vacancies).

  14. 14.

    In case one (two; three) engagement(s) is (are) mentioned, the probability for each particular type to be included in the résumé is 33.3% (66.7; 100.0%).

  15. 15.

    While the size of our sample is substantially lower than the size of the data gathered in some recent large-scale correspondence experiments in the USA such as Kroft et al. (2013) and Neumark et al. (2015), it is at least comparable to many other recent (and well-published) field experiments included in the review study of Baert (2017). In addition, a post hoc power analysis shows that based on the variation in our dataset, we were able to distinguish rather small effects from zero effects. For instance, an increase of the positive callback rate in a broad sense with 4.7 (≈ 1.96 × 0.024 × 100) percentage points could have been rejected at the 5% significance level.

  16. 16.

    For instance, subtracting the male positive callback difference of 1.4 percentage points from the female positive callback difference of 13.2 shown in panel A of Table 2 yields 11.8.

  17. 17.

    Traditionally, the rate of volunteer participation has been found to be higher in the public and non-profit sector than in the private sector (Bandiera 2014; Prouteau and Wolff 2006; Rotolo and Wilson 2006). It remains unclear whether this phenomenon is because prosocial employees are attracted to the societal goals of non-commercial organisations and, ipso facto, sort themselves into these organisations, or whether employers in the public and non-profit sector are more likely than for-profit employers to rely on intrinsically (socially) motivated employees because of their unique organisational needs, with a strong desire for the generation of social benefits (Anderson et al. 2004; Bandiera et al. 2011; Baron and Hannan 2002; Francois and Vlassopoulos 2008; Jacobsen et al. 2011; Kolstad and Lindkvist 2013; Leete 2000; Schneider 1987).

  18. 18.

    In these models, the variables without an interaction with volunteering are saturated (as they are constant at the vacancy level).

  19. 19.

    The outcome variable of this model is 2 in cases in which the candidate is immediately invited to a job interview, 1 in cases in which she/he receives any other (broad-sense) positive reaction and 0 in cases in which she/he receives no positive reaction at all.

  20. 20.

    Day and Devlin (1997) and Dittrich and Mey (2015) show, indeed, that women in Canada and Germany spend more time performing volunteer work at religious organisations or organisations that help the poor or the elderly, whereas men are more active in recreational organisations and service clubs, such as the Rotary Club. Exploratory analyses by Day and Devlin (1997) indicate that the latter types of volunteering are more rewarded in the labour market.

  21. 21.

    In addition, volunteering might be related to personality traits such as emotional stability, extraversion and openness, as mentioned in Sect. 1.

References

  1. Ahmed AM, Andersson L, Hammarstedt M (2012) Does age matter for employability? A field experiment on ageism in the Swedish labour market. Appl Econ Lett 19(4):403–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2011.581199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albert A, Escot L, Fernández-Cornejo JA (2011) A field experiment to study sex and age discrimination in the Madrid labour market. Int J Hum Resour Manag 22(2):351–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.540160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson N, Lievens F, Van Dam K, Ryan AM (2004) Future perspectives on employee selection: key directions for future research and practice. Appl Psychol 53(4):487–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00183.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arrow KJ (1973) The theory of discrimination. In: Ashenfelter O, Rees A (eds) Discrimination in labor markets. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baert, S. (2017): Hiring discrimination: an overview of (almost) all correspondence experiments since 2005. IZA Discussion Papers, 10738

  6. Baert S, Cockx B, Gheyle N, Vandamme C (2015) Is there less discrimination in occupations where recruitment is difficult? ILR Rev 68(3):467–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793915570873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baert S, De Pauw A-S, Deschacht N (2016a) Do employer preferences contribute to sticky floors? ILR Rev 69(3):714–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793915625213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baert S, Norga J, Thuy Y, Van Hecke M (2016b) Getting Grey hairs in the labour market. A realistic experiment on age discrimination. J Econ Psychol 57:86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baert S, Rotsaert O, Verhaest D, Omey E (2016c) Student employment and later labour market success: no evidence for higher employment chances. Kyklos 69(3):401–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baert S, Vujić S (2016) Immigrant volunteering: a way out of labour market discrimination? Econ Lett 146:95–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.07.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bandiera, O. (2014) Incentives for Public Service Delivery. Keynote lecture at the Annual Conference of the European Association of Labour Economists of 2014

  12. Bandiera O, Barankay I, Rasul I (2011) Field experiments with firms. J Econ Perspect 25(3):63–82. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.3.63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baron JN, Hannan MT (2002) Organizational blueprints for success in high-tech start-ups: lessons from the Stanford project on emerging companies. Calif Manag Rev 44:7–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol 44(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Becker GS (1957) The economics of discrimination. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  16. Becker GS (1964) Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Becker GS (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Econ J 75(299):493–517. https://doi.org/10.2307/2228949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bekkers R (2005) Participation in voluntary associations: relations with resources, personality, and political values. Polit Psychol 26(3):439–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00425.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bertrand M, Mullainathan S (2004) Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am Econ Rev 94(4):991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Besley T, Ghatak M (2005) Competition and incentives with motivated agents. Am Econ Rev 95(3):616–636. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Binder M, Freytag A (2013) Volunteering, subjective well-being and public policy. J Econ Psychol 34:97–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Booth AL, Leigh A (2010) Do employers discriminate by gender? A fieldexperiment in female-dominated occupations. Econ Lett 107(2):236–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.01.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Borghans L, terWeel B, Weinberg BA (2008) Interpersonal styles and labour market outcomes. J Hum Resour 43:815–858

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carpenter JP, Myers CK (2010) Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, reputation, and incentives. J Public Econ 94(11-12):911–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cozzi, G., Mantovan, N., Sauer, R. M. (in press): Does it pay to work for free? Wage Returns and Gender Differences in the Market for Volunteers Oxford Bulletin of Economics and StatisticsDOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12183, 79, 6, 1018, 1045

  26. Day KM, Devlin RA (1997) Can volunteer work help explain the male-female earnings gap? Appl Econ 29(6):707–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/000368497326642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Day KM, Devlin RA (1998) The payoff to work without pay: volunteer work as an investment in human capital. Can J Econ 31(5):1179–1191. https://doi.org/10.2307/136465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dittrich M, Mey B (2015) Gender differences in volunteer activities: evidence from German survey data. Econ Bull 35:349–360

    Google Scholar 

  29. Elshaug C, Metzer J (2001) Personality and volunteering: a review of the literature. J Soc Psychol 141(6):752–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Eriksson S, Rooth D-O (2014) Do employers use unemployment as a sorting criterion when hiring? Evidence from a field experiment. Am Econ Rev 104(3):1014–1039. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.3.1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fortin NM (2008) The gender wage gap among young adults in the United States: the importance of money versus people. J Hum Resour 43:884–918

    Google Scholar 

  32. Francois P, Vlassopoulos M (2008) Pro-social motivation and the delivery of social services. CESifo Econ Stud 54(1):22–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifn002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gregg P, Grout PA, Ratcliffe A, Smith S, Windmeijer F (2011) How important is pro-social behaviour in the delivery of public services? J Public Econ 95(7-8):758–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hackl F, Halla M, Pruckner GJ (2007) Volunteering and income—the fallacy of the good Samaritan? Kyklos 60(1):77–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2007.00360.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Heineck G (2011) Does it pay to be nice? Personality and earnings in the United Kingdom. ILR Rev 64(5):1020–1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979391106400509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jacobsen K, Eika K, Helland L, Lind J, Nyborg K (2011) Are nurses more altruistic than real estate brokers? J Econ Psychol 32(5):818–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jacquemet N, Yannelis C (2012) Indiscriminate discrimination: a correspondence test for ethnic homophily in the Chicago labor market. Labour Econ 19(6):824–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2012.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kaas L, Manger C (2012) Ethnic discrimination in Germany’s labour market: a field experiment. Ger Econ Rev 13(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0475.2011.00538.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kolstad JR, Lindkvist I (2013) Pro-social preferences and self-selection into the public health sector: evidence from an economic experiment. Health Policy Plan 28(3):320–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czs063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kroft K, Lange F, Notowidigdo MJ (2013) Duration dependence and labor market conditions: evidence from a field experiment. Q J Econ 128(3):1123–1167. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjt015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lagarde M, Blaauw D (2014) Pro-social preferences and self-selection into jobs: evidence from south African nurses. J Econ Behav Organ 107:136–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lahey JN (2008) Age, women, and hiring: an experimental study. J Hum Resour 43:30–56

    Google Scholar 

  44. Leete L (2000) Wage equity and employee motivation in nonprofit and for-profit organizations. J Econ Behav Organ 43(4):423–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00129-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meier S, Stutzer A (2008) Is volunteering rewarding in itself? Economica 75:39–59

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mincer J (1958) Investment in human capital and the personal income distribution. J Polit Econ 66(4):281–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/258055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Neumark, D., Burn, I., Button, P. (2015): Is it harder for older workers to find jobs? New and improved evidence from a field experiment. NBER Working Paper Series, 21669

  48. OECD (2015) Skills for social progress. OECD, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264226159-en

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Pager D (2007) The use of field experiments for studies of employment discrimination: contributions, critiques, and directions for the future. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 609(1):104–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206294796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Patacchini E, Ragusa G, Zenou Y (2015) Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in Europe: homosexuality and physical appearance. J Popul Econ 28(4):1045–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-014-0533-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Prouteau L, Wolff F-C (2006) Does volunteer work pay off in the labor market? J Socio-Econ 35(6):992–1013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Riach PA, Rich J (2002) Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. Econ J 112:480–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Riach, P. A., Rich, J. (2007): An experimental investigation of age discrimination in the Spanish labour market. IZA Discussion Papers, 2654

  54. Rotolo T, Wilson J (2006) Employment sector and volunteering: the contribution of nonprofit and public sector workers to the volunteer labour force. Soc Sci Q 47:21–40

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sauer RM (2015) Does it pay for women to volunteer? Int Econ Rev 56(2):537–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/iere.12114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Schneider B (1987) The people make the place. Pers Psychol 40(3):437–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tett RP, Jackson DN, Rothstein M (1991) Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review. Pers Psychol 44:703–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Uysal SD, Pohlmeier W (2011) Unemployment duration and personality. J Econ Psychol 32(6):980–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Weichselbaumer D (2004) Is it sex or personality? The impact of sex stereotypes on discriminationin applicant selection. East Econ J 30:159–186

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wilson, J., Mantovan, N., Sauer, R. M. (2017): Volunteer work as a self-developmental strategy in an age of precarious employment. Mimeo

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Koen Van De Velde and Morgane Vercruysse for their excellent research assistance. In addition, we are grateful to editor Erdal Tekin, three anonymous reviewers and the participants of the WM workshop at the University of Lille, the 2017 Royal Economic Society Annual Conference, the 31st Annual Conference of the European Society for Population Economics and the 29th conference of the European Association of Labour Economists for their valuable comments to earlier versions of the manuscript and for their constructive suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stijn Baert.

Ethics declarations

This research was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Committee of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration of Ghent University at its meeting of 9 July 2013.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Erdal Tekin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baert, S., Vujić, S. Does it pay to care? Volunteering and employment opportunities. J Popul Econ 31, 819–836 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-017-0682-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Volunteering
  • Labour market
  • Statistical discrimination
  • Experiments

JEL

  • C93
  • D64
  • J24
  • J71