International Tax and Public Finance

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 975–996 | Cite as

Does charitable gambling crowd out charitable donations? Using matching to analyze a policy reform

Article

Abstract

The impact of charitable lotteries on charitable donations depends on the motives of charitable donations, and is thus more an empirical question. Utilizing the propensity score matching method to overcome sample selection bias, this study estimates the effect of lotto outlays on direct charitable donations based on Taiwan’s experience of introducing a lottery in 2002. We find that people’s lottery spending neither crowds out nor crowds in charitable donations after the control group for lottery players is matched by propensity scores. The evidence thus suggests that people are more concerned about how they make their donations.

Keywords

Charitable donation Charitable lottery Crowding-out Altruism Conspicuous giving Propensity score matching 

JEL Classification

C21 D12 D64 H31 

References

  1. Aaker, J., & Akutsu, S. (2009). Why do people give? The role of identity in giving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 267–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J. (1988). Privately provided public goods in a large economy: the limits of altruism. Journal of Public Economics, 35, 57–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of ‘warm-glow’ giving. Economic Journal, 100, 464–477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J. (2001). Economics of philanthropy. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 11369–11376). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7–8), 1605–1623. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apinunmahakul, A., & Devlin, R. A. (2004). Charitable giving and charitable gambling: an empirical investigation. National Tax Journal, 57(1), 67–88. Google Scholar
  7. Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal, 2(4), 358–377. Google Scholar
  8. Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & Varian, H. (1986). On the private provision of public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 29, 25–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borg, M. O., Mason, P. M., & Shapiro, S. L. (1991). The economic consequence of state lotteries. New York: Praeger. Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, A. (2002). Charitable giving in transition economies: evidence from Russia. National Tax Journal, 55(4), 743–753. Google Scholar
  11. Brown, E., & Lankford, H. (1992). Gifts of money and gifts of time. Journal of Public Economics, 47(3), 321–341. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clotfelter, C. T. (1985). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clotfelter, C. T., & Cook, P. (1987). Implicit taxation in lottery finance. National Tax Journal, 40, 533–546. Google Scholar
  14. Clotfelter, C. T., & Cook, P. (1990). On the economics of state lotteries. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(4), 105–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deaton, A. (1985). Panel data from time series of cross sections. Journal of Econometrics, 30, 109–126. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deaton, A. (1997). The analysis of household surveys. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2011). Conspicuous generosity. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1131–1143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glazer, A., & Konrad, K. A. (1996). A signaling explanation for charity. The American Economic Review, 86(4), 1019–1028. Google Scholar
  19. Gulley, D., & Scott, F. (1989). Lottery effects on pari-mutuel tax revenues. National Tax Journal, 42, 89–93. Google Scholar
  20. Harbaugh, W. T. (1998). The prestige motive for making charitable transfers. AEA Papers and Proceedings, 88(2), 277–282. Google Scholar
  21. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605–654. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 65, 261–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kearney, M. S. (2005). State lotteries and consumer behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 2269–2299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html. This version 3.1.5.
  25. Lin, E. S., & Wu, S.-Y. (2007). Lottery expenses and charitable contributions—Taiwan’s experience. Applied Economics, 39, 2241–2251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moffitt, R. (1993). Identification and estimation of dynamic models with a time series of repeated cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics, 59, 99–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peacock, M. S. (2000). Charity ends with the lottery: it ain’t what you give, it’s the way that you give it. New Economy, 7(2), 120–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Randolph, W. (1995). Dynamic income, progressive taxes and the timing of charitable giving. Journal of Political Economy, 103(4), 709–738. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ravallion, M. (2007). Evaluating anti-poverty programs. In P. T. Schultz & J. A. Strauss (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (Vol. 4, pp. 3787–3846). Google Scholar
  30. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin Donald, B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sawkins, J. W., & Dickie, V. A. (2002). National lottery participation and expenditure: preliminary results using a two stage modeling approach. Applied Economics Letters, 9(12), 769–773. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scott, F., & Garen, J. (1994). Probability of purchase, amount of purchase, and the demographic incidence of the lottery tax. Journal of Public Economics, 54, 121–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Soetevent, A. R. (2005). Anonymity in giving in a natural context—a field experiment in 30 churches. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 2301–2323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations