Skip to main content
Log in

Determinants of Individual Giving Behavior in Urban India

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This article has been updated

Abstract

This paper, based on a primary sample survey over 1925 earning individuals in the cities of Kolkata, Cuttack and Bengaluru, examines how the individual and household characteristics influence the acts of giving in urban India. The regression results indicate income, family size and property ownership affecting likelihood and extent of giving. Likelihood to give is more with females, though males tend to donate more. There exists threshold income beyond which likelihood to donate is less. Characteristics like age, education, dependency ratio and marital status influence certain acts of giving. As the opportunity cost of non-cash giving increases with the rise in income, cash donations substitute non-cash giving. There also prevails complementarity in the acts of giving. On behavioral front, in addition to work–life balance and pledging, the notion of rational choice seems to be gaining ground.

Résumé

Le présent article, fondé sur une plus grande enquête-échantillon portant sur 1 925 personnes salariées des villes de Calcutta, Cuttack et Bangaluru, examine comment des caractéristiques personnelles et des ménages influencent les gestes de charité observés dans les villes de l’Inde. Les résultats régressifs démontrent que le revenu, la taille des familles et la propriété foncière influencent la probabilité que ces gestes soient accomplis et leur portée. La probabilité est plus grande chez les femmes, tandis que les hommes ont tendance à donner plus. Il existe un seuil de revenu au-delà duquel cette probabilité diminue. Des caractéristiques comme l’âge, l’éducation, le rapport de dépendance et l’état matrimonial influencent certains gestes de charité. Alors que les occasions de faire des dons non monétaires augmentent avec la hausse du revenu, les dons en argent remplacent les dons non monétaires. Il y a aussi complémentarité des dons de charité. Sur le plan comportemental, en plus de la conciliation travail-vie et de la mise en gage, la notion de rationalité des choix semble gagner du terrain.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag, beruhend auf einer primären Stichprobenerhebung, an der 1925 Personen mit einem Einkommen in den Städten Kalkutta, Cuttack und Bengaluru teilnahmen, untersucht, wie die Merkmale von Personen und Haushalten das Spendenverhalten in indischen Städten beeinflussen. Die Regressionsergebnisse zeigen, dass sich Einkommen, Familiengröße und Immobilieneigentum auf die Wahrscheinlichkeit und den Umfang von Spenden auswirken. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit zu spenden ist unter Frauen höher, während Männer in der Regel jedoch mehr spenden. Es gibt eine Einkommensschwelle, außerhalb derer die Wahrscheinlichkeit zu spenden geringer ist. Merkmale wie Alter, Bildung, Abhängigkeitsquotient und Familienstand nehmen Einfluss auf bestimmte Spenden. Aufgrund des Anstiegs der Opportunitätskosten für bargeldlose Spenden bei steigendem Einkommen werden bargeldlose Spenden durch Bargeldspenden ersetzt. Bei den Spenden überwiegt die Komplementarität. Bezüglich des Verhaltens scheint neben dem Gleichgewicht zwischen Arbeit und Privatleben und der Abgabe von Versprechen das Konzept der rationalen Wahl an Boden zu gewinnen.

Resumen

El presente documento, basado en una encuesta por muestreo primaria de 1 925 individuos con ingresos en las ciudades de Kolkata, Cuttack y Bengaluru, examina cómo las características del individuo y del hogar influyen en los actos de dar en la India urbana. Los resultados de la regresión indican que los ingresos, el tamaño de la familia y la posesión de propiedades afectan a la probabilidad y la amplitud de dar. La probabilidad de dar es superior en las mujeres, aunque los hombres tienden a donar más. Existe un umbral de ingresos más allá del cual la probabilidad de dar es menor. Características como la edad, la educación, la tasa de dependencia y la situación marital influyen en determinados actos de dar. A medida que el coste de oportunidad de no dar dinero en metálico aumenta con el aumento de los ingresos, las donaciones en metálico sustituyen a no dar dinero en metálico. También prevalece la complementariedad en los actos de dar. En el frente comportamental, además del equilibrio entre el trabajo y la vida familiar y el compromiso, la noción de elección racional parece estar ganando terreno.

Chinese

根据对加尔各答(Kolkata)、克塔克(Cuttack)与班加罗尔(Bengaluru)等城市的1925名有收入个体进行初始样本调查,本论文探讨个体与家庭特征是如何影响印度城市中的捐赠行为的。回归分析结果显示,收入、家庭规模与财产所有权对捐赠的可能性与程度产生影响。尽管男性往往捐献更多,但是捐赠可能性与女性关联性更高。存在阈限收入,超过该阈限的,捐献的可能性就更低。诸如年龄、教育背景、抚养比率与婚姻状况等特征对某些捐赠行为产生影响。随着非现金捐赠机会成本的增加,现金捐赠取代非现金捐赠。捐赠行为中的补足性(complementarity)也很常见。在行为方面,除了工作与生活平衡以及保证,合理选择的观念似乎越来越重要。

Arabic

هذا البحث، يستند على إستطلاع رأي عينة أولية من 1925 كسب الأفراد في مدن كلكتا، كوتاك وبنجالور، يفحص كيف تؤثر الخصائص الفردية والأسرية على أعمال العطاء في الهند الحضرية. تشير نتائج الإنحدار إلى الدخل حجم الأسرة وملكية العقارات التي تؤثر على إحتمال ومدى العطاء. من المرجح أن العطاء أكثر مع الإناث، على الرغم من أن الذكور تميل إلى التبرع أكثر. هناك توجد بداية الدخل التي تتجاوز إحتمال أن التبرع يكون أقل. تؤثر خصائص مثل العمر ، التعليم ، نسبة الإعالة والحالة الاجتماعية التي تؤثرعلى بعض أعمال العطاء. مع زيادة تكلفة الفرصة البديلة الغير نقدية مع إرتفاع الدخل، فإن التبرعات النقدية تحل محل الغير نقدي. هناك أيضا يسود التكامل في أعمال العطاء. على الجبهة السلوكية، بالإضافة إلى التوازن بين العمل وتوازن الحياة والتعهد، يبدو أن فكرة الإختيار العقلاني تكتسب القاعدة الأساسية.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 20 July 2019

    The PDF version of this article was reformatted to a larger trim size.

References

  • Ahluwalia, I. J., Munjee, N., Mor, N., Vijayanunni, M., Mankad, S., Lall, R., & Sankaran, H. (2011). Report on Indian urban infrastructure and services. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, New Delhi. Online at http://icrier.org/pdf/FinalReport-hpec.pdf on August 1, 2015.

  • Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal,100(401), 464–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. (2001). The economics of philanthropy. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral science (pp. 11369–11376). London: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J. (2004). Philanthropy. University of Wisconsin. Online at http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~jandreon/WorkingPapers/Philanthropy.pdf.

  • Andreoni, J., Gale, W. G., Scholz, J. K., & Straub, J. (1996). Charitable contributions of time and money. In University of WisconsinMadison working paper.

  • Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2003). Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fund-raising? American Economic Review,93(3), 792–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2009). Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior. In Harvard Business School Marketing Unit working paper, 10–012.

  • Asia Development Bank. (2002). Investing in ourselves: Giving and fund raising in India. Online at http://www.adb.org/documents/books/Investing_In_Ourselves/IND/default.asp.

  • Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,32(4), 596–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). Generosity and philanthropy. A literature review. Utrecht: University of Utrecht, ICS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Belfield, C. R., & Beney, A. P. (2000). What determines alumni generosity? Evidence for the UK. Education Economics,8(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bukhari, A. (2013). Emerging market countries: Philanthropy in India today. Alliance Magazine, 18(2). Online at http://www.alliancemagazine.org/feature/philanthropy-in-india-today/.

  • Cantegreil, M., Chanana, D., & Kattumuri, R. (2013). Revealing Indian philanthropy. London: Alliance Publishing Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charities Aid Foundation (CAF). (2015). CAF World Giving Index 2015: A global view of giving trends. Online at https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2015-publications/world-giving-index-2015.

  • Christensen, R. K., Nesbit, R., & Agypt, B. (2015). To give or not to give employee responses to workplace giving campaigns over time. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015619704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T. (1997). The economics of giving. Giving better, giving smarter. In Working papers of the national commission on philanthropy and civic renewal, pp. 31–55.

  • Cotterill, S., John, P., & Richardson, L. (2013). The impact of a pledge request and the promise of publicity: A randomized controlled trial of charitable donations. Social Science Quarterly,94(1), 200–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, A., Goel, D., & Khanna, S. (2015). Bad Karma or Discrimination? Male-Female Wage Gaps among Salaried Workers in India (No. 9485). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

  • Evans, C. A., Evans, G. R., & Mayo, L. (2017). Charitable giving as a luxury good and the philanthropic sphere of influence. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, L. (2000). Restructuring the new middle class in liberalizing India. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East,20(1), 88–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fridell, G., & Konings, M. (2013). Age of icons: Exploring philanthrocapitalism in the contemporary world. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Muñoz, T. (2010). Incentives in religious performance: A stochastic dominance approach. Judgment and Decision Making,5(2), 176–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giving USA (2015). Giving USA annual report, 2015. Online at The Giving Institute website: http://www.givinginstitute.org/?page=GUSAAnnualReport.

  • GOI. (2014). Report of the expert group to review the methodology for measurement of poverty (Planning Commission, June, 2014). Online at http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/pov_rep0707.pdf.

  • Government of India (GOI). (2004). A review of Charities Administration in India citation. The Planning Commission, September, 2004. Online at http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/sereport/ser/stdy_cai.pdf.

  • Government of India (GOI), Planning Commission. (2011b). Mid-term appraisal of the eleventh five year plan. Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.

  • Government of India, Census of India (GOI) (2011a). Provisional population totals, urban agglomerations and cities. Online at http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/India2/1.%20Data%20Highlight.pdf.

  • Havens, J. J., O’Herlihy, M. A., & Schervish, P. G. (2006). Charitable giving: How much, by whom, to what, and how. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook,2, 542–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. (2011). Being and becoming donors: How children and young people engage with charities. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Edinburgh. Online at https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/5968.

  • Hoge, R. (1994). Introduction: The problem of understanding church giving. Review of Religious Research,36(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrung, W. B. (2004). After-life consumption and charitable giving. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,63(3), 731–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Monetary Fund. (2014). World Economic Outlook Database. October, 2014. Online at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weoselco.aspx?g=2001&sg=All+countries.

  • Jencks, C. (1987). Who gives to what? In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 321–339). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konow, J., & Earley, J. (2008). The hedonistic paradox: Is homo economicus happier? Journal of Public Economics,92(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsoyiannis, A. (1977). Theory of econometrics: An introductory exposition of econometric methods. Hong Kong: Macmillan Press Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. K., & Chang, C. T. (2008). Intrinsic or extrinsic? Determinants affecting donation behaviors. International Journal of Educational Advancement,8(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, R., Morrissey, C., & Mundey, P. (2008). Religious giving: a comprehensive review of the literature. In Report for the John Templeton Foundation Generosity Planning Project.

  • McGregor-Lowndes, M., Flack, T., Scaife, W., Wiepking, P., & Crittall, M. (2014). Giving and volunteering in Australia 2014: Environmental scan/literature review. Online at http://eprints.qut.edu.au/79593/1/Giving-and-Volunteering-in-Australia-2014-Environmental-Scan-and-Literature-Review-2.pdf.

  • Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Chin, W., & Steinberg, K. S. (2002). Race and gender differences in philanthropy: Indiana as a test case. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising,2002(37), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandi, S., & Gamkhar, S. (2013). Urban challenges in India: A review of recent policy measures. Habitat International,39, 55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath, V. (1987). Dāna: Gift system in ancient India (c. 600 BC–c. AD 300): A socio-economic perspective. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2006). World population prospects: The 2006 revision volume III: Analytical report. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

  • Nesbit, R., Christensen, R. K., & Gossett, L. M. (2012). Charitable giving in the public workplace: A framework for understanding employees’ philanthropic performance. Public Performance & Management Review,35(3), 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philanthropy New Zealand, (2014). Giving New Zealand: Philanthropic Funding 2014: Online at http://www.philanthropy.org.nz/sites/all/files/Giving%20New%20Zealand%202014.pdf.

  • Pyne, D. A. (2010). A model of religion and death. The Journal of Socio-Economics,39(1), 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Schervish, P. G. (2001). A methodological comparison of giving surveys: Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,30(3), 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sankhe, S., Vittal, I., Dobbs, R., Mohan, A., Gulati, A., Ablett, J., Gupta, S., Kim, A., Paul, S., Sanghvi, A., & Sethy,G. (2010). India’s urban awakening: Building inclusive cities sustaining economic growth. McKinsey Global Institute. Online at http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/urban-awakening-in-india.

  • Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management,15(4), 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, A. (2010). An overview of philanthropy in India. Indian Philanthropy Forum,1(19), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, A., Ayilavarapu, D., & Bhagwati, A. (2015). India Philanthropy Report 2015. Online at Bain & Company: http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/india-philanthropy-report-2015.aspx.

  • Sheth, A., & Singhal, M. (2011). India Philanthropy Report 2011. Bain & Company.

  • Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,42(2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toppe, C. M., Kirsch, A. D., & Michel, J. (2002). Giving & Volunteering in the United States, 2001: Findings from a National Survey. Independent Sector.

  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2013). Human Development Report. Online at http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/income-gini-coefficient.

  • Vesterlund, L. (2006). Why do people give. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook,2, 168–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viswanath, P., & Dadrawala, N. (2004). Philanthropy and equity: The case of India. Global Equity Initiative, Harvard University.

  • Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. The Journal of Psychology,133(6), 656–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology,26(1), 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yen, S. T. (2002). An econometric analysis of household donations in the USA. Applied Economics Letters,9(13), 837–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi under SANDHI, an initiative by Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Narayan Chandra Nayak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sen, A., Chatterjee, R.S., Nayak, N.C. et al. Determinants of Individual Giving Behavior in Urban India. Voluntas 31, 271–285 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9913-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9913-6

Keywords

Navigation