The Effects of Social Trust and Institutional Trust on Formal Volunteering and Charitable Giving in Japan

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This study is part of the growing literature on the effects on civic engagement of attitudinal predictors, such as trust, along with structural predictors. Drawing data from the 2005 Japanese General Social Survey, it examines the association between trust and the probabilities of formal volunteering and charitable giving. A bivariate probit analysis of the data suggests that trust, institutional trust in particular, matters more to predict giving than volunteering. Although the number of membership affiliations is positively and significantly associated with both types of civic engagement, the association between membership affiliations and formal volunteering is significantly greater. Implications of these and other findings are discussed for future studies linking trust to civic engagement in group-collectivist societies such as Japan.

Keywords

Social trust Institutional trust Volunteer work Monetary donations Japan 

Résumé

Cette étude s’inscrit dans le corpus grandissant de recherches sur les effets des prédicteurs attitudinaux, tels que la confiance, et des prédicteurs structurels sur l’engagement civique. Utilisant des données de l’Enquête Sociale Générale Japonaise de 2005, cette étude examine le lien entre la confiance et les probabilités de volontariat formel d’une part et de don charitable d’autre part. Une analyse probit bivariée des données suggère que la confiance, et en particulier la confiance institutionnelle, est prédicteur plus significatif pour le don que pour le bénévolat. Bien que le nombre d’affiliations en tant qu’adhérent d’un individu soit associé positivement et significativement aux deux types d’engagement civique, l’association entre affiliations et bénévolat formel est significativement plus importante. Les implications de ces résultats et d’autres sont discutées pour aider à de futures études liant la confiance à l’engagement civique dans des sociétés collectivistes de groupe telles que le Japon.

Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Studie ist Teil der zunehmenden Literatur zu den Auswirkungen persönlicher Einstellungen, zum Beispiel das Vertrauen, und struktureller Einflusswerte auf das Bürgerengagement. Die Studie untersucht die Verbindung zwischen dem Vertrauen und der Bereitschaft zu ehrenamtlicher Arbeit bzw. der Spendenbereitschaft für wohltätige Zwecke. Sie stützt sich dabei auf die Daten einer im Jahr 2005 in Japan durchgeführten allgemeinen sozialwissenschaftlichen Umfrage. Eine bivariate Probit-Analyse der Daten weist darauf hin, dass sich das Vertrauen, und insbesondere das institutionelle Vertrauen, stärker auf die Spendenbereitschaft auswirkt als auf die Bereitschaft zu ehrenamtlicher Arbeit. Zwar gibt es eine wesentliche, positive Verbindung zwischen der Anzahl bestehender Mitgliedschaften und den beiden Arten des Bürgerengagements, doch ist die Verknüpfung zwischen bestehenden Mitgliedschaften und formaler ehrenamtlicher Arbeit wesentlich enger. Es werden die Auswirkungen dieser und weiterer Ergebnisse auf zukünftige Studien diskutiert, bei denen das Vertrauen und das Bürgerengagement in kollektivistischen Gesellschaften wie Japan miteinander in Verbindung gebracht werden.

Resumen

El presente estudio forma parte del creciente material publicado sobre los efectos en el compromiso cívico de predictores de la actitud, tales como la confianza, junto con predictores estructurales. Extrayendo datos de la Encuesta Social General japonesa de 2005, se examina la asociación entre la confianza y las probabilidades de voluntariado formal y de donaciones benéficas. Un análisis probit bivariante de los datos sugiere que la confianza, la confianza institucional en particular, tiene más importancia para predecir las donaciones que el voluntariado. Aunque el número de afiliaciones como miembros está asociado positiva y significativamente a ambos tipos de compromiso cívico, la asociación entre las afiliaciones como miembros y el voluntariado formal es significativamente mayor. Se debaten las implicaciones de éstos y otros hallazgos para futuros estudios que vinculen la confianza al compromiso cívico en sociedades colectivistas de grupo, tales como Japón.

摘要

本研究调查了拉美裔人正式的志愿活动和影响其对志愿者决策的文化、社会和社区环境因素。 根据对美国这三个调查的数据分析,本研究发现参加宗教活动、文化背景和教育往往明显预测着拉美裔的正式志愿活动。参加宗教活动对拉美裔志愿活动产生的积极作用强于对非拉美裔志愿活动的作用。在这三个调查中,收入、社会资源和社区特征对拉美裔志愿活动产生的影响也不同。为儿童和青年人服务的民间组织与宗教组织是最受拉美裔志愿者欢迎的组织。

要約

本研究では、信用できる言動の予測と構造的な予測についての都市の公約への効果に関して、増加している文献の一部を取り扱う。2005年の日本の総合的社会調査のデータから、正式なボランティアと慈善事業における信用と可能性の関係について調査する。データの二変数のプロビット解析では、信用、特にボランティアの制度上の信用が与える予測が、ボランティアよりも慈善が重要であることを示している。会員の加入数は、両方のタイプの都市の公約に明確に関連づけられているが、会員の加入と正式なボランティアとの関連性は大きい。日本のようなグループ集産主義社会における都市の公約に結びつける将来的な研究については、これと他の調査結果より議論する。

ملخص

هذه الدراسة هي جزء من الأدب النامي على الآثار المترتبة على المشاركة المدنية للتنبؤ في المواقف، مثل الثقة، جنبا˝ إلى جنب مع التنبؤ الهيكلي. سحب بيانات من إستطلاع الرأي الإجتماعي العام الياباني لسنة 2005، إنه يبحث في العلاقة بين الثقة وإحتمالات التطوع الرسمي والعطاء الخيري. تحليل إحتمالية ثنائي المتغيرات للبيانات تشير إلى أن الثقة، والثقة المؤسسية على وجه الخصوص، أكثر أهمية للتنبؤ بالعطاءعن العمل التطوعي. على الرغم من أن عدد من إنتماءات العضوية إيجابي ويرتبط بشكل كبير مع كلا النوعين من المشاركة المدنية، الإرتباط بين إنتماءات العضوية و العمل التطوعي الرسمي هو أكبر بكثير. تمت مناقشة الآثار المترتبة على ذلك وغيرها من النتائج للدراسات المستقبلية التي تربط الثقة إلى المشاركة المدنية في مجموعة المجتمعات الجماعية مثل اليابان.

References

  1. Anheier, H. K., & Salamon, L. M. (1999). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Initial comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asahi Shimbun. (2011). Quake-hit districts cannot cope with influx of volunteers. Asahi Shimbun. April 30. Retrieved from http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201104300100.html.
  3. Becker, P. E., & Dhingra, P. H. (2001). Religious involvement and volunteering: Implications for civil society. Sociology of Religion, 62(3), 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekkers, R. (2009). Trust and volunteering: Selection or causation? Evidence from a four year panel study. Online document. www.fss.uu.nl/soc/homes/bekkers/trustandvolunteering.pdf.
  6. Bekkers, R., & Schuyt, T. N. M. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining the effect of religion on charitable giving and volunteering. Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74–96.Google Scholar
  7. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2006). To give or not to give, that is the question: How methodology is destiny in Dutch Giving Data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). Generosity and philanthropy: A literature review. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015507.
  9. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011a). 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. (2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving I: Religion, education, age, and socialization. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, A. (2005). Does social capital make you generous? Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 1–15.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. Caputo, R. K. (1997). Women as volunteers and activists. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 156–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chang, W.-C. (2005). Determinants of donations: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. The Developing Economies, 43(2), 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheung, C.-K., & Chan, C.-M. (2000). Social cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(2), 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driskell, R. L., Lyon, L., & Embry, E. (2008). Civic engagement and religious activities: Examining the influence of religious tradition and participation. Sociological Spectrum, 28(5), 578–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Durand, R. M., & Lambert, Z. V. (1988). Don’t know responses in surveys: Analyses and interpretational consequences. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658.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. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fujimoto, M. (1995). Urban shock, the Great Hanshin Quake. The Japan Time Special Report, The Japan Times. pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, S. (1994). Doing their share: Comparing patterns of help given by older and younger adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(3), 567–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Georgeou, N. (2006). Tense relations: The tradition of hoshi and emergence borantia in Japan. (Master thesis). Retrieved from University of Wollongong thesis collection at http://ro.uow.edu/theses/528.
  23. Georgeou, N. (2010). From hoshi to borantia: Transformations of volunteering in Japan and inmplications for foreign policy. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(4), 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gesthuizen, M., & Scheepers, P. (2012). Educational differences in volunteering in cross-national perspective: Individual and contextual explanations. Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gesthuizen, M., Van der Meer, T., & Scheepers, P. (2008). Education and dimensions of social capital: Do educational effects differ due to educational expansion and social security expenditure? European Sociological Review, 24(5), 617–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gittell, R., & Tebaldi, E. (2006). Charitable giving: Factors influencing giving in U.S. states. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 721–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graddy, E., & Lili Wang, L. (2009). Community foundation development and social capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 392–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Haddad, M. A. (2011). A state-in-society approach to the nonprofit sector: Welfare services in Japan. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(1), 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hardacre, H. (2004). Religion and civil society in contemporary Japan. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 32(2), 389–415.Google Scholar
  31. Havens, J. J., O’Herlihy, M. A., & Schervish, P. G. (2006). Charitable giving: How much, by whom, to what, and how? In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 542–567). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hodgkinson, V. A. (1995). Key factors influencing caring, involvement, and community. In P. G. Schervish, V. A. Hodgkinson, M. Gates, & Associates (Eds.), Care and community in modern society: Passing on the tradition of service to future generations (pp. 21–50). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 cultures. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Huang, J., van den Brink, H. M., & Groot, W. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effect of education on social capital. Economics of Education Review, 28(4), 454–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iannaccone, L. R. (1998). Introduction to the economics of religion. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 1465–1495.Google Scholar
  38. ICPSR. (2005). Japanese general social survey (#4702). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].Google Scholar
  39. Ikudome, H. (1996). New era of volunteerism. Pacific Friend: A Window on Japan, 24(1), 26–27.Google Scholar
  40. Inoguchi, T. (2002). Broadening the basis of social capital in Japan. In D. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 359–392). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Irwin, K. (2009). Prosocial behavior across cultures: The effects of institutional versus generalized trust. In S. R. Thye & E. Lawler (Eds.), Altruism and prosocial behavior in groups (Advances in group processes, vol. 26) (pp. 165–198). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jackson, E., Bachmeier, M., Wood, J. R., & Craft, C. (1995). Volunteering and charitable giving: Do religious and associational ties promote helping behavior? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones, K. S. (2006). Giving and volunteering as distinct forms of civic engagement: The role of community integration and personal resources in formal helping. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kandori, M. (1992). Social norms and community enforcement. Review of Economic Studies, 59(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koschmann, J. V. (2009). Authority and the individual. In W. M. Tsutsui (Ed.), A companion to Japanese history (pp. 511–527). Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Kwak, N., Shah, D. V., & Holbert, R. L. (2004). Connecting, trusting, and participating: The direct and interactive effects of social associations. Political Research Quarterly, 57(4), 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Matsunaga, Y. (2007). To give, or not to give; to volunteer, or not to volunteer, that is the question: Evidence on Japanese philanthropic behavior revealed by the JGSS-2005 data set. Nihon-ban General Social Surveys Kenkyu Ronbunshu (Japanese General Social Surveys monographs), 6, 69–82. Osaka: Osaka University of Commerce.Google Scholar
  48. McPherson, J. M., & Rotolo, T. (1996). Testing a dynamic model of social composition: Diversity and change in voluntary groups. American Sociological Review, 61(2), 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Mesch, D. J. (2010). Women give 2010: New research about women and giving. Indianapolis, IN: Women’s Philanthropy Institute, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.Google Scholar
  51. Miller, A. S., & Mitamura, T. (2003). Are surveys on trust trustworthy? Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(1), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mobius, M., & Szeidl, A. (2007). Trust and social collateral. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 13126.Google Scholar
  53. Nakano, L. Y. (2000). Volunteering as a lifestyle choice: Negotiating self-identities in Japan. Ethnology, 39(2), 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nihei, N. (2003). Rethinking of the problem of complicity between volunteer activities and neo-liberalism. Shakaigaku Hyoron/Japanese Sociological Review, 56(2), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Noguchi, H., & Shimizutani, S. (2005). Nonprofit and for-profit providers in Japan as at-home care industry: Evidence on quality of service and household choice. Economics Bulletin, 9(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  56. Ogawa, A. (2004). Invited by the state: Institutionalizing volunteer subjectivity in contemporary Japan. Asian Anthropology, 3, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ogawa, A. (2009). The failure of civil society? The third sector and the state in contemporary Japan. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ogawa, A. (2011). The new prominence of the civil sector in Japan. In T. C. Bestor & V. L. Bestor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Japanese culture and society (pp. 186–197). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Omura, T., & Foster, J. (2009). Donors’ decision-making process on charitable giving: Case studies in Japan (pp. 233–255 ). Conference Proceedings. Honolulu: Hawaii International Conference on Business.Google Scholar
  60. Park, J. Z., & Smith, C. (2000). To whom much has been given…: Religious capital and community voluntarism among churchgoing Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pekkanen, R., & Tsujinaka, Y. (2008). Neighbourhood associations and the demographic challenge. In F. Coulmas, H. Conrad, A. Schad-Seifert, & G. Vogt (Eds.), The demographic challenge: A handbook about Japan (pp. 707–720). Leiden, the Netherlands: BRILL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pew research center. (2007). Americans and social trust: Who, where and why. A social trends report. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/414/americans-and-social-trust-who-where-and-why.
  63. Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.Google Scholar
  64. Rossi, A. S. (2001). Domains and dimensions of social responsibility: A sociodemographic profile. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community (pp. 97–134). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Salamon, L. M., Hems, L. C., & Salamon, K. C. (2000). The nonprofit sector: For what and for whom? Working Papers of Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project.Google Scholar
  66. Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the UK charity sector: the impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmid, H. (2001). Neighborhood self-management: experiments in civil society. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shaw, R., & Goda, K. (2004). From disaster to sustainable civil society: The Kobe experience. Disasters, 28(1), 16–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith, L. M. (1975). Women as volunteers: The double subsidy. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 4(3), 119–136.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, J. R., & McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sønderskov, K. M. (2011). Does generalized social trust lead to associational membership? Unravelling a bowl of well-tossed spaghetti. European Sociological Review, 27(4), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Staub, E. (1995). How people learn to care. In P. G. Schervish, V. A. Hodgkinson, M. Gates, & Associates (Eds.), Care and community in modern society: Passing on the tradition of service to future generations (pp. 51–67). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  74. Tan, J. H. W., & Vogel, C. (2008). Religion and trust: Experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(6), 832–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Taniguchi, H. (2010). Who are volunteers in Japan? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taniguchi, H. (2012). The influence of generalized trust on volunteering in Japan. Online First: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.Google Scholar
  77. Taniguchi, H., & Thomas, L. D. (2011). The influences of religious attitudes on volunteering. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tanioka, I., Nitta, M., Iwai, N., & Yasuda, T. (2005). Japanese general social survey, 2005. Osaka: Office of Japanese General Social Survey, Osaka University of Commerce. ICPSR 4703.Google Scholar
  79. Tasuki, S. (2000). The Kobe earthquake and the resistance of volunteering in Japan. Department of Sociology Studies, 87, 185–196.Google Scholar
  80. Tokuda, Y., & Inoguchi, T. (2008). Interpersonal mistrust and unhappiness among Japanese people. Social Indicators Research, 89(2), 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. Wiepking, P. (2010). Democrats support international relief and the upper class donates to art? How opportunity, incentives and confidence affect donations to different types of charitable organizations. Social Science Research, 39(6), 1073–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wiepking, P., & Maas, I. (2008). Resources that make you generous: Effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Philanthropic Studies, Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  85. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson, (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 176–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wuthnow, R. (2002). Bridging the privileged and the marginalized? In D. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 59–102). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations