Skip to main content

An Exploratory Analysis of Cross-National Variations in Prosocial Behaviors

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Numerous past studies explore factors that drive prosocial behaviors. Most studies focus on individual and organizational factors; there is less research exploring cross-national variations in prosocial behaviors. This study addresses this gap and analyzes cross-national variations in prosocial behaviors utilizing a 117-country dataset from the Charities Aid Foundation World Giving Index to estimate Tobit models explaining cross-national variations in donating money, volunteering time, and helping a stranger. We find evidence that economic, political, and to a lesser extent, cultural theories play a role in explaining cross-national variations in prosocial behaviors.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Notes

  1. These prosocial behaviors comprise three pillars of voluntary action according to Putnam 2000 and Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995. Other types of prosocial behaviors are viewed as complementary to these three, and are less commonly studied.

  2. An exception is Suzuki (2020), who examined volunteering time, and found lower levels of government spending to be positively associated with volunteering.

  3. Wiepking and Handy (2015) also propose two additional characteristics of the nonprofit sector that may impact prosocial behavior: regulation of the nonprofit sector, and level of fundraising professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Data limitations do not allow us to include country-level indicators for regulation of the nonprofit sector or level of fundraising professionalism in our models. However, for recent research on the institutional context for philanthropy, see Wiepking et al., 2021.

  4. Due to space limitations, the correlation matrix in not included here, but is available upon request.

  5. The seven questions in the index include:

    (1) Does the country have a tax system in place? (Possible points: 0).

    (2) If yes to 1, then does the country provide tax exemption for non-profits? (Possible points: 2).

    (3) If yes to 2, then does the country provide reporting requirements for non-profits? (Possible points: 1).

    (4) If yes to 3, then are those reporting requirements sensitive to the size of organizations? (Possible points: 1).

    (5) If yes to 1, are there tax incentives in place to encourage philanthropy? (Possible points: 6).

    (6) If yes to 5, then do individuals and corporations have different incentives? (Possible points: 0).

    (7) Finally, does there exist an “estate tax” exempt or some equivalent mechanism that encourages the creation of donor institutions? (Possible points: 1).

  6. It is also important to acknowledge that all data and methods have strengths and weaknesses, and the work of Wiepking et al (2021) and De Wit et al. (2018) must also be interpreted with caution due to the low number of countries in the data set (19), differences in data collection across countries, and influence of certain countries.

References

  • 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 

  • Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2011). Is crowding out due entirely to fundraising? Evidence from a panel of charities. Journal of Public Economics, 95(5–6), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anheier, H., & Salamon, L. (2006). 4 The Nonprofit Sector in Comparative Perspective. The Nonprofit Sector (pp. 89–114). New Haven: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300153439-007

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bailer, S., Bodenstein, T., & Heinrich, V. F. (2012). Explaining the strength of civil society: Evidence from cross-sectional data. International Political Science Review, 34(3), 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, J., & Tanner, S. (1999). Patterns in household giving: Evidence from U.K. data. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021477922789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R. (2016). Regional differences in philanthropy. In J. Harrow, T. Jung, & S. Phillips (Eds.), Routledge companion to philanthropy (pp. 124–138). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, M., & Einolf, C. (2017). Religion, altruism, and helping strangers: A multilevel analysis of 126 countries. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(2), 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgonovi, F. (2006). Do public grants to American theatres crowd out private donations? Public Choice, 126, 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, A. C. (2000). Public subsidies and charitable giving: Crowding out, crowding in, or both? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(3), 451–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, J. D. (2001). The marketing of philanthropy and the charitable contributions deduction. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.253058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, J. E., Baer, D. E., & Grabb, E. G. (2001). Nations of joiners: Explaining voluntary association membership in democratic societies. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 783–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, A., & Bekkers, R. (2017). Government support and charitable donations: A meta-analysis of the crowding-out hypothesis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, A., Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2020). Crowding-out or crowding-in. Financing Nonprofit Organizations. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429265419-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, A., Neumayer, M., Handy, F., & Wiepking, P. (2018). Do government expenditures shift private philanthropic donations to particular fields of welfare? Evidence from cross-country data. European Sociological Review, 34(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcx086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehne, A., Friedrich, P., Nam, C. W., & Parsche, R. (2008). Taxation of nonprofit associations in an international comparison. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 709–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einolf, C. J. (2011). The link between religion and helping others: The role of values, ideas, and language. Sociology of Religion, 72(4), 435–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einolf, C. J. (2015). The Social Origins of the Nonprofit Sector and Charitable Giving. In P. Wiepking & F. Handy (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Global Philanthropy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137341532_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Einolf, C. J. (2017). Cross-national differences in charitable giving in the west and the world. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 472–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, A., & Uggla, F. (1996). Making civil society work, promoting democratic development: What can states and donors do? World Development, 24(10), 1621–1639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835. https://doi.org/10.2307/796089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, E. (2017). What regulation, who pays? public attitudes to charity regulation in England and Wales. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017728365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, B., & Lamb, L. (2014). An assessment of the impact of tax incentives relative to socio-economic characteristics on charitable giving in Canada. International Review of Applied Economics, 29(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., & Rasul, I. (2010). Transactions costs in charitable giving evidence from two field experiments. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis Policy. https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.2494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaariainen, J., & Lehtonen, H. (2006). The variety of social capital in welfare state regimes—A comparative study of 21 countries. European Societies, 8, 27–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. H., & Kim, S. E. (2018). What accounts for the variations in nonprofit growth? A cross-national panel study. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(3), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9752-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingma, B. (1997). Public good theories of the non-profit sector: Weisbrod revisited. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8(2), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, S., & Servátka, M. (2015). Transaction costs, the opportunity cost of time and procrastination in charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 125, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koele, I. (2007). International taxation of philanthropy. Utrecht University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krawczyk, K., Wooddell, M., & Dias, A. (2017). Charitable giving in arts and culture nonprofits: The impact of organizational characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), 817–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C. (2013). Little’s test of missing completely at random. The Stata Journal, 13(4), 795–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C., & MacGregor, C. A. (2012). Religion and volunteering in context: Disentangling the contextual effects of religion on voluntary behavior. American Sociological Review, 77(5), 747–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H., & Lo, K. (2012). Tax incentives and charitable contributions: The evidence from censored quantile regression. Pacific Economic Review, 17(4), 535–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. (2016). The philanthropic consequence of government grants to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(4), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luria, G., Cnaan, R. A., & Boehm, A. (2015). National culture and prosocial behaviors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(5), 1041–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014554456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, P. A. (2015). The influence of government support for the nonprofit sector on philanthropy across nations. In F. Handy & P. Wiepking (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 530–539). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets. Journal of Public Economics, 75(2), 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parboteeah, K. P., Cullen, J. B., & Lim, L. (2004). Formal volunteering: A cross-national test. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, P., Reith, N. E., & Glanville, J. L. (2014). Volunteering and the dimensions of religiosity: A cross-national analysis. Review of Religious Research, 56(4), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-014-0169-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennerstorfer, A., & Neumayr, M. (2017). Examining the association of welfare state expenditure, non-profit regimes and charitable giving. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 532–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9739-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1998). Comments on ‘‘social origins of civil society. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9, 261–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9, 213–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, W. S., & Haddock, M. A. (2017). Explaining civil society development: A social origins approach. John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, K. (2020). Government retrenchment and citizen participation in volunteering: a cross-national analysis of OECD countries. Public Policy and Administration, 35(3), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718796097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oorschot, W., & Finsveen, E. (2010). Does the welfare state reduce inequalities in people’s social capital? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30(3/4), 182–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (1978). The voluntary nonprofit sector: An economic analysis. Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (1991). The health care quadrilemma: An essay on technological change, insurance, quality of care, and cost containment. Journal of Economic Literature, 29(2), 523–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A., & Dominguez, N. D. (1986). Demand for collective goods in private nonprofit markets: Can fundraising expenditures help overcome free-rider behavior? Journal of Public Economics, 30, 83–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiepking, P., & Handy, F. (2015). The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiepking, P., Bekkers, R., & Osili, U. (2014). Examining the association of religious context with giving to non-profit organizations. European Sociological Review, 30(5), 640–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiepking, P., Handy, F., Park, S., Neumayr, M., Bekkers, R., Breeze, B., de Wit, A., Einolf, C. J., Gricevic, Z., Scaife, W., Bethmann, S., Breen, O. B., Kang, C., Katz, H., Krasnopolskaya, I., Layton, M. D., Mersianova, I., Lo, K.-T., Osili, U., & Yang, Y. (2021). Global philanthropy: Does institutional context matter for charitable giving? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(4), 697–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021989444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, K. (2015). Who Gives? The Determinants of Charitable Giving, Volunteering, and Their Relationship. University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Auburn University, 7080 Haley Center, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Kelly Krawczyk & Brian Ezeonu

  2. Ford Foundation, PO Box 2368, Lagos, Nigeria

    Dabesaki Mac-Ikemenjima

Authors
  1. Kelly Krawczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Ezeonu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dabesaki Mac-Ikemenjima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Krawczyk.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krawczyk, K., Ezeonu, B. & Mac-Ikemenjima, D. An Exploratory Analysis of Cross-National Variations in Prosocial Behaviors. Voluntas (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00525-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00525-z

Keywords

  • Prosocial behavior
  • Donating money
  • Volunteering
  • Helping a stranger
  • Social origins theory