Correlates of willingness to substitute declining government contributions to charitable organizations
René Bekkers
Arjen de Wit
Center for Philanthropic Studies
VU University Amsterdam
11 th ISTR Conference
Münster, Germany
July 22, 2014

1. How is the Dutch population responding to reductions in government support for nonprofit organizations?
2. How do responses to reductions in government support vary between causes and individual citizens?
3. Which mechanisms determine these responses?


Arjen de Wit conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of
‘crowding-out’ studies.

Effect sizes published in previous research were analyzed and related to study characteristics.

Effect sizes vary strongly between studies with sample composition and methods used.


Median effect size: -.17 = weak crowding out.

Analyses of tax records and lab experiments produce more crowding out than surveys and field experiments.

US studies find more crowding-out (-.23) than studies from Europe, which even find very weak crowding-in (.07).

Resources Change in contribution
Engagement Recruitment
Based on Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. & Brady, H.E. (1995).
Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American
Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

People give more when:
1.
They perceive a need need
2.
They are asked to give solicitation
3.
Costs are lower, benefits higher costs/benefits
4. People care about the recipients altruism
5.
Giving is rewarded socially reputation
6. Giving reinforces their self-image self-rewards
7.
Causes match their values values
8. Gifts are seen as more effective efficacy
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). ‘A Literature Review of Empirical
Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable
Giving’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5): 924-973.

1. How is the Dutch population responding to reductions in government support for nonprofit organizations?
2. How do responses to reductions in government support vary between causes and individual citizens?
3. Which mechanisms determine these responses?

• In the Giving in the Netherlands Panel
Survey 2012 we included a scenario experiment.
• 1,448 participants evaluated 3 scenarios, constructed randomly by combining information on hypothetical budget cut levels and sectors.
• Participants were reminded of their households’ contribution in the past year.

“With your household you donated €100 to health in the past year. If the government cuts 5% in this area, how would you react?”
Response categories:
• I will give the same as last year
• I am willing to give more
• I will also give less
[if more/less] What will be the new amount?

Average response across all
4,344 scenarios

1. How is the Dutch population responding to reductions in government support for nonprofit organizations?
2. How do responses to reductions in government support vary between causes and individual citizens?
3. Which mechanisms determine these responses?

1. How is the Dutch population responding to reductions in government support for nonprofit organizations?
2. How do responses to reductions in government support vary between causes and individual citizens?
3. Which mechanisms determine these responses?

2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
0,8
1
Higher education Top income quintile >3 solicitations in past two weeks
Amount donated in past year (ln)
Resources Recruitment Engagement
Odds ratios from logistic regression of willingness to contribute more after government cutback in at least one scenario (GINPS12, n=1,478; including controls for gender, age, income from wealth, home ownership, number of donation areas)

2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
Neither sizeable nor significant
1
0,8
Principle of care
Joy of giving Perception of need
Knowledge about need test
Social pressure
Values Need Reputation Efficacy
High charitable confidence
High confidence in government
Odds ratios from logistic regression of willingness to contribute more after government cutback in at least one scenario (GINPS12, n=1,478)

1. In the aggregate, the Dutch population is not changing donation behavior in response to reductions in government support for nonprofit organizations.
2. However, responses vary strongly between causes and individual citizens.
3. The key mechanisms determining these responses are prosocial values, solicitation, reputation, and efficacy.

• Those with more resources, receiving more solicitations and more generous donors are more likely to contribute more after government cutbacks.
• Those with a higher principle of care, more positive social norms on giving and charitable confidence are more likely to crowd-out.
• The principle of care is the only characteristic predicting the level of crowding-out.

VAST MAJORITY NOT RESPONSIVE TO
CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY
Resources influence willingness to contribute through engagement, not recruitment
Severity of budget cuts not related to the willingness to increase donations
Committed donors most willing to increase donations

• René Bekkers, r.bekkers@vu.nl
and Arjen de Wit, a.de.wit@vu.nl
• ‘Giving in the Netherlands’, Center for
Philanthropic Studies, Faculty of Social
Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, www.giving.nl