Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Gender Differences in Charitable Giving in Great Britain

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

Abstract

The predominant part of the literature states that women are more likely to donate to charitable causes but men are more generous in terms of the amount given. The last result generally derives from the focus on mean amount given. This article examines gender differences in giving focusing on the distribution of amounts donated and the probability of giving using micro-data on individual giving to charitable causes for Great Britain. Results indicate that women are generally more generous than men also in terms of the amounts donated. Quantile regression analysis shows that this pattern is robust if we take into account gender differences in individual characteristics such as household structure, education, and income. The article also investigates differences in gender preferences for varying charitable causes. Results are presented separately for single and married people, highlighting the very different gender patterns of giving behaviour found in the two groups.

Résumé

La partie prédominante de la littérature déclare que les femmes sont plus à même de faire des dons aux causes charitables mais que les hommes sont plus généreux dans leurs dons. Le dernier résultat provient généralement se rapproche de la moyenne donnée. Cet article examine des différences de sexe quant à l'octroi en se concentrant sur la distribution des sommes octroyées et la probabilité de dons en utilisant des micro-données offertes aux causes charitables pour la Grande-Bretagne. Les résultats indiquent que les femmes sont généralement plus généreuses que les hommes, particulièrement en ce qui concerne les sommes versées. L'analyse de régression quantile montre que ce modèle est robuste si nous tenons compte de différences de genre dans les caractéristiques individuelles comme la structure du ménage, de l'éducation et lu revenu. Cet article examine également les différences de préférences de sexe quant à la variation ses causes charitables. Les résultats sont présentés séparément pour les personnes célibataires ou mariées, en mettant l’accent sur les modèles de genre de dons comportement trouvés dans les deux groupes.

Zusammenfassung

In der Literatur findet man überwiegend die Aussage, dass Frauen eher dazu geneigt sind, für wohltätige Zwecke zu spenden, Männer aber großzügigere Spenden leisten. Letzteres wird im allgemeinen von dem durchschnittlich gespendeten Betrag abgeleitet. Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Unterschiede zwischen Männern und Frauen hinsichtlich ihrer Spendenbereitschaft, indem er die Verteilung der Spendenbeträge und die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Spendenbereitschaft analysiert und sich dabei auf Mikrodaten zu individuellen Spenden für wohltätige Zwecke in Großbritannien stützt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Frauen auch im Hinblick auf den Spendenbetrag im allgemeinen großzügiger sind als Männer. Die Quantil-Regressionsanalyse zeigt, dass diese geschlechtsspezifischen Unterschiede auch dann bestehen bleiben, wenn man für individuelle Beurteilungsmerkmalen, wie z.B. Haushaltstruktur, Bildung und Einkommen, kontrolliert. Der Beitrag untersucht weiterhin Unterschiede zwischen Männern und Frauen hinsichtlich ihrer Prioritäten für verschiedene wohltätige Zwecke. Die Ergebnisse werden für ledige und verheiratete Personen jeweils separat dargestellt, da beide Gruppen äußerst unterschiedlichen Verhaltensmuster im Hinblick auf das Spendenverhalten aufweisen.

Resumen

La mayor parte de la bibliografía afirma que las mujeres son más dadas a donar a las causas benéficas pero que los hombres son más generosos en las cantidades donadas. el último resultado se deriva de un estudio centrado en las cantidades medias donadas. Este trabajo analiza las diferencias de sexo a la hora de hacer donaciones, y hace hincapié en la distribución de las cantidades donadas y la probabilidad de donar utilizando metadatos sobre las donaciones individuales a las causas caritativas de Gran Bretaña. Los resultados indican que las mujeres son, por lo general, más generosas que los hombres en lo que respecta a las cantidades donadas. El análisis de regresión cuantil demuestra que este patrón en robusto si tenemos en cuenta las diferencias de sexo en las características individuales, como la estructura doméstica, la educación y la renta. El trabajo también investiga las diferencias en las preferencias de sexo para distintas causas benéficas. Los resultados se han dividido en personas solteras y casadas, y ponen de relieve que los patrones de actitud ante las donaciones según el sexo de la persona son muy diferentes en los dos grupos.

摘要

大部分的文献资料都声称,女性更容易向慈善事业进行捐赠,但男性在捐赠的金额方面更为慷慨。 后面的这一结果,一般是从以捐赠金额为重点的研究中得出的。本文则采用了有关英国慈善事业个人捐赠的微观数据,以捐赠款项的分布情况和捐赠的可能性作为研究重点,对不同性别在捐赠方面表现的差异进行了考察。 我们的研究结果显示,在捐赠的金额方面,女性总体上也要比男性慷慨。我们的分位回归分析显示,如果我们将个体特征(诸如家庭结构、教育、收入情况等)的性别差异考虑在内的话,这个规律就更明显了。本文还对不同性别在选择慈善事业时表现出的不同喜好进行了调查。我们还分别针对单身人群和已婚人群列出调查结果,突出显示了在这两组人群中发现的、有关捐赠行为性别差异的规律。

ملخص

الجزء السائد من المؤلفات الأدبيه يعلن أن النساء على الأرجح أكثر تبرعاً للأسباب الخيريه ولكن الرجال أكثر كرم من ناحيه المبلغ المعطى . عموماً النتيجه الأخيره تم إستنتاجها بالتركيز على متوسط المبلغ المعطى . هذا البحث يفحص إختلافات الجنسين في العطاء و يتم التركيز على توزيع مبلغ العطاء وإحتمال العطاء بإستخدام البيانات الدقيقه لبريطانيا العظمى عن العطاء الفردي لأسباب خيريه. تدل النتائج عموماً على أن النساء أكثر كرماً من الرجال وأيضاً من حيث مبلغ العطاء . تحليل قوانتيل للتراجع (Quantile Regression Analysis ) يظهر أن هذا النمط متين إذا ما أخذنا في الإعتبار الإختلاف في الجنسين في الخصائص الفرديه مثل كيان الأسره ٬ التعليم و الدخل . البحث يحقق في الإختلافات بين الجنسين في التفضيلات لأسباب مختلفه خيريه . النتائج تم توضيحها بشكل منفصل للمتزوجين و العزاب ٬ تسليط الضوء على الأنماط المختلفه جداً في سلوك العطاء الذي وجد في المجموعتين.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In economic theory, the dictator game is a degenerate game in which Player 1 divides an endowment between the two players, and Player 2 passively receives what is offered. In apparent contradiction to the self-interested outcomes of many game-theoretic models of economic behaviour, Player 1 does not always play to maximize expected utility.

  2. Further details are available at www.statistics.gov.uk/about/services/omnibus

  3. Each survey cluster (which are postal sectors) contains 30 households and we allow for most of this clustering in our estimates of standard errors in our analysis (some clusters cannot be separately identified since IDs are not always unique across years).

  4. The Omnibus sample size was about 30% higher in 2004/5 compared to the subsequent 2 years. We apply weights to ensure that each month of data contributes equally to the pooled sample.

  5. The authors can provide on request information of the cleaning rules applied and the impact of different cleaning rules on results observed. Cleaning rules have no impact on gender differences in the observed donor percentages or on the median amounts given, but there is some impact on mean amounts per head and per donor.

  6. For example, £10 ranges from percentile 48–55 of the amount distribution of male donors and from percentile 45–53 for the amount distribution of female donors.

  7. The association between donors and gender is significant at the 1% level for all causes except mental health, other causes, environment, and arts causes.

  8. We use a logistic regression analysis with the dependent variable “giving to religious organizations” and control for background characteristics given above with the following variable specifications: age and age square, a dummy for living alone, dummies for educational attainments achieved (degree, A-levels, O-levels/GCSE, and other qualifications—base category no qualifications), proxies for wealth (number of cars per adult in household and home ownership), income (a dummy if the person has an individual income in the top quintile of the income distribution) and region (dummies for people living in Scotland and Wales with base category people living in England).

  9. These results derive from a similar logistic regression like that described in footnote 8; however, here the dependent variable was “giving to animal causes.” Details of regression results can be obtained from the authors. A regression analysis run separately for single women and single men showed that women were more likely to give to animal organizations if they were living alone. This was not true for men. For both, single men and women, higher age leads to a higher probability of giving to animal causes. For married men and women, age did not have any impact on giving to animal organizations. Married women were less likely to give to animal organizations if they had dependent children.

  10. This impact of income on giving conditional and unconditional on education is discussed in detail in Micklewright and Schnepf (forthcoming).

  11. In addition, we also controlled for differences in % donor between the nine survey rounds.

  12. The full regression results are available on request from the authors.

  13. The logistic regression model specifies the probability of giving, P, to be the function 1/(1 + exp[−B.X]) where X is a vector of explanatory variables and B is a vector of coefficients. The estimated coefficient for giving implies that for someone with a predicted probability of giving of 0.5 (about the sample average), the probability of giving increases by about b/4, whereby b is the coefficient of the variable (i.e., here gender).

  14. Where least squares regression optimizes the model according to the mean, quantile regression optimizes according to the quantile, such as the median. Koenker and Hallock (2001) provide a detailed discussion of this method.

  15. We also ran an ordinary least square (OLS) regression. As the dependent variable, we used the natural logarithm of the amount given by donors, which has a normal distribution. We then run Models 1 to 4 with the same independent variables as described above. The results match relatively closely to those of the quantile regression models for the median.

  16. It should be noted that this study was based in the USA. As such, we must be cautious in using this to make conclusions about giving in Great Britain. A similar study based in the UK would be of value.

References

  • Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides and why does it matter? The Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ner, A., Kong, F., & Putterman, L. (2003). Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 581–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1994). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behaviour. Economics Letters, 48, 287–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breeze, B., & Thornton, A. (2005). Raising a giving nation. The Citizenship Foundation report, www.g-nation.co.uk

  • Brennan, P., & Saxton, J. (2007). Who gives to charity? nfpSynergy Briefing, www.nfpsynergy.net/

  • CAF/NCVO (2006). UK Giving 2005/06. Available online: www.ncvo-vol.org.uk

  • Hotchkiss, J. L. (2003). Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Further evidence. Journal of Human Resources, 55(2), 519–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenker, R., & Hallock, K. F. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, S. J., Pollak, R. A., & Wales, T. J. (1997). Do husbands and wives pool their resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom child benefit. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(3), 463–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, S. (2005). Information on social comparison and price of giving: Gender differences in two field experiments. Paper presented to Georgia State University Conference “Experimental Public Economics.” Available online: http://isp-aysps.gsu.edu/academics/conferences/conf2005/presentation7.pdf

  • Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 565–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micklewright, J., & Schnepf, S. V. (2009). Who gives to overseas development? Journal of Social Policy, (forthcoming)

  • Taylor, M. A., & Shaw-Hardy, S. (Eds.) (2005). The transformative power of women’s philanthropy: New directions for philanthropic fundraising. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Wiepking, P., & Bekkers, R. (2005). Does who decides really matter? Causes and consequences of household financial decision making: Charitable donations as a case study. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Conference of the Association of Research on Nonprofit Associations and Voluntary Action, Chicago, USA. Available online: http://arnova.omnibooksonline.com/2006/data/papers/PA061103.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper builds on joint work with John Micklewright at the University of Southampton and research conducted at NCVO in collaboration with the Charities Aid Foundation (the UK Giving research programme). The paper has been in part supported by the ESRC project grant ‘Giving to Development’ (RES-155-25-0061), which forms part of the Non-Governmental Public Action Programme. We are grateful to Charles Lound of ONS for clarification of the survey stratification and clustering methodology and thank Tony Atkinson, participants of the NCVO/VSSN conference 2007 and two referees for suggestions and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylke V. Schnepf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Piper, G., Schnepf, S.V. Gender Differences in Charitable Giving in Great Britain. Voluntas 19, 103–124 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9057-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9057-9

Keywords

Navigation