Social Capital, Volunteering, and Charitable Giving

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper explores the impact of social capital—measured by social trust and social networks—on individual charitable giving to religious and secular organizations. Using United States data from the national sample of the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, we find that social trust, bridging social network, and civic engagement increase the amount of giving to both religious and secular causes. In contrast, organizational activism only affects secular giving. Volunteering activity, and human and financial capital indicators positively affect both religious and secular giving. Finally, those who are happy about their lives and those who are religious give more to religious causes, but these factors do not affect secular giving. We find evidence of important differences in the determinants of religious and secular giving, suggesting the need to distinguish these two types of charitable giving in future work.

Keywords

Social capital Volunteering Religious giving Secular giving United States 

Résumé

Cet article examine l'impact du capital social - évalué en fonction du trust social et des réseaux sociaux - sur l’octroi charitable de personnes offrant leur soutien aux organisations religieuses et laïques. En utilisant les données disponibles aux États-Unis sur le sondage national, résultant de l'enquête de banc d’essai de la communauté du capital social, nous constatons que le trust social, les réseaux sociaux, et l’engagement civique accroît le montant des dons aux causes religieuses et laïques. Par opposition, l’activisme organisationnel ne profite qu’aux dons laïques. L’activité du volontariat et les indicateurs du capital humain et financier affectent positivement à la fois les dons religieux et laïques. En fin de compte, tous ceux et toutes celles qui sont heureux dans leur vie et tous ceux et toutes celles qui sont religieux offrent davantage au causes religieuses, mais ces facteurs n’affectent pas les dons aux causes laïques. Nous avons la preuve de différences importantes qui déterminent les dons religieux et laïques, ce qui permet de suggérer le besoin de distinguer deux types de contributions dans recherche à l’avenir.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Auswirkung von sozialem Kapital - gemessen an sozialem Vertrauen und sozialen Netzwerken - auf die individuelle Bereitschaft zu wohltätigen Spenden an religiöse und nicht kirchliche Organisationen. Unter Bezugnahme auf U.S.-amerikanische Daten aus der landesweiten Stichprobe im Rahmen einer in 2000 von Bürgerstiftungen durchgeführten Umfrage zum Sozialkapital (2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey) stellen wir fest, dass soziales Vertrauen, die Überbrückung des sozialen Netzwerks und Bürgerengagement die Spendenbereitschaft für religiöse und nicht kirchliche Zwecke erhöhen. Dagegen wirkt sich organisatorisches Engagement lediglich auf nicht kirchliche Spendenbereitschaft aus. Ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten sowie Human- und Finanzkapitalindikatoren wirken sich sowohl auf religiöse als auch nicht kirchliche Spenden positiv aus. Und letztlich spenden glückliche und religiöse Menschen mehr für religiöse Zwecke, während diese Faktoren bei Spenden für nicht kirchliche Zwecke keine Rolle spielen. Wir sehen Anhaltspunkte für wesentliche Unterschiede zwischen den Bestimmungsaktoren religiöse und nicht kirchliche Spenden, was auf eine notwendige Unterscheidung dieser beiden Spendenarten bei zukünftigen Untersuchungen hinweist.

Resumen

Este trabajo analiza la influencia del capital social, ―medido por trusts y redes sociales― en las donaciones de caridad que hacen las personas a organizaciones religiosas y seculares. Utilizando datos sobre Estados Unidos tomados de una muestra nacional de la encuesta de referencia comunitaria de capital social 2000 (Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey), hemos descubierto que el trust social, la red social y el compromiso cívico incrementan la cantidad de donaciones a obras tanto religiosas como seculares. En contraste, el activismo de las organizaciones solo afecta a las donaciones seculares. Las actividades de voluntariado y los indicadores humanos y de capital social tienen un efecto positivo tanto en las donaciones religiosas como seculares. Por último, aquellos que están contentos con sus vidas y las personas creyentes dan más a las causas religiosas, factores éstos que no afectan a las donaciones seculares. Hemos hallado pruebas de la existencia de importantes diferencias en los factores que determinan las donaciones seculares, lo que apunta a la necesidad de distinguir entre estos dos tipos de donaciones para futuros trabajos.

摘要

篇报告研究了社会资本——由社会信任度和社会网络衡量——对于向宗教和非宗教机构进行个人慈善捐赠的影响。利用来自于2000年全美“社区社会资本基准”调查案例的数据,我们发现社会信任度,建立社会网络和公民责任感能促进对宗教和非宗教事业的捐赠。相比之下,组织积极行动只能影响非宗教捐赠。志愿行为,及人类和财政资本指数对宗教和非宗教捐献有着积极影响。最后,那些生活快乐和信仰宗教的人们向宗教事业捐赠更多,但这些因素不影响非宗教捐赠。我们发现了宗教和非宗教捐赠取决因素的差异,这表明在未来的研究中需要区分这两种慈善捐赠。

要約

本論文では、宗教団体および非宗教団体に対する個人のボランティア活動の提供における、社会的信用および社会的なネットワークから判断される社会資本への影響について論じる。2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey(社会資本共同体の標準調査)の米国のデータのサンプルから、社会的信用、社会的ネットワークへの架け橋、市民の関与により、宗教的要因および非宗教的要因への提供が増加することがわかった。一方、 組織的な行動主義は世俗的な提供にのみ影響する。ボランティア 活動と財政的な資本インディケータは明らかに宗教的かつ世俗的な提供に影響する。最終的に、自分の人生に満足し、宗教的な要因にとらわれずに宗教的な提供を行う者に対しては、これらの要素は世俗的な提供に影響しない。宗教的かつ世俗的な提供の決定要因には明らかに重要な違いがあることが明らかになったが、今後の研究においては、この2つのタイプの慈善提供を区別する必要性を示していく。

ملخص

هذا البحث يستكشف تأثير رأس المال الإجتماعي – تم قياسه بالثقه الإجتماعيه و الشبكات الإجتماعيه – من شخص خيري يعطي لمنظمات دينيه وعلمانيه . بإستخدام معلومات الولايات المتحده الأمريكيه من عينه قوميه لدراسه نموذجيه لعام 2000 للرأس المال الإجتماعي للمجتمع٬ وجدنا أن الثقه الإجتماعيه ٬ ربط الشبكه الإجتماعيه ٬ المشاركه المدنيه يزيد كميه العطاء لأسباب دينيه و علمانيه . على النقيض ٬ الفعاليه التنظيميه تؤثر فقط على المنحه العلمانيه . النشاط التطوعي٬ و مؤشرات الرأس المال البشري و المالي تؤثر إيجابيا? في العطاء الديني و العلماني . أخيرا? ٬ أولئك الذين هم سعداء في حياتهم و الذين هم متدينون يعطون أكثر لأسباب دينيه ٬ هذه العوامل لا تؤثر على العطاء العلماني . و نجد أدله على الإختلافات الهامه في محددات العطاء الديني و العلماني ٬ مما يشير إلى الحاجه للتمييز بين هذين النوعين من العطاء الخيري في العمل المقبل .

References

  1. American Association of Fundraising Counsel (2005). Giving USA 2005. Glenview, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donation to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides, and why does it matter? Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekkers, R. (2004). Giving and volunteering in the Netherlands: Sociological and psychological perspectives. Available online: http://www.fss.uu.nl/soc/homes/bekkers/diss.pdf. Accessed 4 Sept 2006.
  7. Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letter, 48, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, A. (2005). Does social capital make you generous? Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, E., & Lankford, H. (1992). Gifts of money and gifts of time: Estimating the effects of tax prices and available time. Journal of Public Economics, 47(3), 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, E., & Ferris, J. (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
  11. Charities Aid Foundation (2006) International comparisons of charitable giving. Available online: http://www.cafonline.org/Default.aspx?page=12183. Accessed 6 Oct 2007.
  12. Clotfelter, C. T. (1985). Federal tax policy and charitable giving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (for National Bureau of Economic Research).Google Scholar
  13. Clotfelter, C. T. (1997). The economics of giving. In J. W. Barry & B. V. Manno (Eds.), Giving better, giving smarter (pp. 31–55), Washington, DC: National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal.Google Scholar
  14. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goss, K. A. (1999). Volunteering and the long civic generation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 378–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (1999). Education and social capital. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. W7121. Available online: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=165129. Accessed 5 May 2006.
  18. Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hodgkinson, V. A., & Weitzman, M. S. (1996). Giving and volunteering in the United States, 1996. Washington, D.C: Independent Sector.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 712–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Independent Sector. (1999). Giving and volunteering in the United States. Available online: http://www.independentsector.org/GandV/default.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2006.
  22. Independent Sector. (2004). A nation of givers: Regional patterns in American giving and volunteering. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, E. F., Bachmeier, M. D., Wood, J. R., & Craft, E. A. (1995). Volunteering and charitable giving: Do religious and associational ties promote helping behavior? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Glass, R. (1999a). Social capital and self-rated health: A contextual analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1491–1498.Google Scholar
  25. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Martin, M. W. (1994). Virtuous giving: Philanthropy, voluntary service, and caring. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effect of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 565–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Narayan, D., & Cassidy, M. (2001). A dimensional approach to measuring social capital: Development and validation of a social capital inventory. Current Sociology, 49(2), 59–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Center for Charitable Statistics (2007). Number of nonprofit organizations in the United States, 1996-2006. Available online: http://www.nccsdataweb.urban.org/PubApps/profile1.php?state=US. Accessed 20 Feb 2008.
  30. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Osili, U. O., & Du, D. (2005). Immigrant assimilation and charitable giving. New Directions and Philanthropic Fundraising, 48, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Neill, M., & Silverman, C. (2002). Varieties of religious and charitable experience. Paper presented at the ARNOVA conference, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  33. Oztas, N. (2004). Neighborhood network structure of social capital: A multilevel analysis of the Los Angeles experiment. Thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  34. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.Google Scholar
  35. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., Nantti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: American’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  38. Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1995). Charitable giving by individuals: A study of attitudes and practice. Human Relations, 48(6), 685–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reece, W. S., & Zieschang, K. D. (1985). Consistent estimation of the impact of tax deductibility on the level of charitable contributions. Econometrica, 53, 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, B., Shue, S., Vest, J. L., & Villarreal, J. (1999). Philanthropy in communities of color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schervish, P. G. (1997). Inclination, obligation, and association: What we know and what we need to learn about donor motivation. In D. F. Burlingame (Ed.), Critical issues in fund raising (pp. 110–138). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  42. Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. H. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas, 8(3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tobin, J. (1958). Estimation for relationships with limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolpert, J. (1997). The demographics of giving patterns. In D. F. Burlingame (Ed.), Critical issues in fund raising (pp. 75–80). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Taubman Center for Public Policy and American InstitutionsBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.School of Policy, Planning, and DevelopmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations