Why do people volunteer? Obviously it must be because they find some satisfaction in it. But they may be forced to do it (say, by peer pressure or because it improves one's CV), yet one can still argue they appreciate the volunteering because they find a benefit in it: without it, there would be adverse consequences. It thus seems unavoidable to find a positive relation between volunteering and happiness, unless one is able to tease out the circumstances of volunteering. Add to this the endogeneity issue that people may be volunteering because they want to spread their happiness, or because they enjoy good circumstances that allow them to work without pay.
Martin Binder and Andreas Freytag use the British Household Panel Survey to study whether volunteering makes happy. I am not sure their reduced-form estimates are able to capture the subtleties I mentioned in my first paragraph with propensity score matching. I find more promising their inclusion of personality traits to take care of selection bias in volunteering, although personality cannot completely be ruled as exogenous. Also, their quantiles regressions can potentially highlight some heterogeneity that can be useful for our understanding of the relationship. In the end, they find that volunteering makes people happy, no surprise here, and more so the longer they volunteer. The quantile regression, however, reveals that the happiest individuals do not derive happiness from volunteering, presumably they are happy for other reasons. The least happy ones do enjoy volunteering much more. I wonder whether this comes from some decreasing marginal utility of volunteering, and whether this ties in with the fact that the poor are more generous, as discussed before.
Showing posts with label altruism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label altruism. Show all posts
Named matching donor are best to elicit more donations
US universities care a lot about donations, as much of their operations are financed by endowment revenue. Foundations also spend considerable resources trying to build this endowment. Hence, it is no surprise that there is a steady stream of research on how to best elicit donations, especially from private universities. One of the big issues they face is to generate the first dollar in donation (which costs several dollars), after that it is usually much easier to get more donations.
Dean Karlan and John List find through experimentation that matching donors are particularly effective in enticing other donations, especially where they are named and recognizable. The latter effect is even stronger for new donors. The challenge now is to find the matching donor. The experiment was performed with the Gates Foundation, I doubt many other potential matching donors can be found to have such high appeal. The experiment may have been too extreme to draw reliable conclusions.
Dean Karlan and John List find through experimentation that matching donors are particularly effective in enticing other donations, especially where they are named and recognizable. The latter effect is even stronger for new donors. The challenge now is to find the matching donor. The experiment was performed with the Gates Foundation, I doubt many other potential matching donors can be found to have such high appeal. The experiment may have been too extreme to draw reliable conclusions.
Why are the poor more generous?
Poor people are more generous than rich people when giving to charities. Their donations to churches are proportionally also higher. That seems rather puzzling, as the marginal utility of consumption is higher for a poor person, to she should be less willing to give something away. Of course, you could also argue that this person is poor because she is giving away too much. But there should be a better explanation.
Julio Rotemberg offers one. He bases his model on the fact that people like making donations to causes they can identify with: they are OK with making anonymous donations in such a case because it helps like-minded people, and they like it when others agree with them, and are thus willing to help them. The model yields multiple equilibria, some in which the rich give the bulk of donations, others where the poor do. This can help rationalize why the proportion donors varies so much from one country to another, and so independently from the size of the welfare state. Some parameter values lead to people donating in the hope it will encourage others to do so. These equilibria should be dismissed, according to results I recently discussed. The model also seems to build on the fact that there is little crowding out of private charity from public funds, which I doubt according to recent evidence I discussed here. But the model predicts nicely that there is a strong incentive for charities to differentiate themselves to capture donations, even if this not increase total donations.
Julio Rotemberg offers one. He bases his model on the fact that people like making donations to causes they can identify with: they are OK with making anonymous donations in such a case because it helps like-minded people, and they like it when others agree with them, and are thus willing to help them. The model yields multiple equilibria, some in which the rich give the bulk of donations, others where the poor do. This can help rationalize why the proportion donors varies so much from one country to another, and so independently from the size of the welfare state. Some parameter values lead to people donating in the hope it will encourage others to do so. These equilibria should be dismissed, according to results I recently discussed. The model also seems to build on the fact that there is little crowding out of private charity from public funds, which I doubt according to recent evidence I discussed here. But the model predicts nicely that there is a strong incentive for charities to differentiate themselves to capture donations, even if this not increase total donations.
The deadweight loss of gift certificates
Giving gifts in kind induces large deadweight losses, as I discussed in one of my very first blog posts. The basic idea is that people do not value their gifts as much as they would be willing to spend on, or at least that they would have spent the cost of the gift in a Pareto-improving way. If instead of receiving a gift in kind one obtains a gift card, the added flexibility should give us a small to negligible deadweight loss. I would compare this to an incomplete market that can get close to complete, in well-being, with very few securities like government bonds.
Flóra Felsö and Adriaan Soetevent study spending habits of gift certificate recipients. They find that the vast majority is not really constrained by having to buy at a particular merchant and only alter a little bit the timing of their purchases. One in seven (more among females), though, considers the gift certificate separately from the budget constraint and buys something one could not afford. While these people are happy about it, there is obviously still a loss in well-being. Indeed, if they want this purchase so much, they would have bought it from the "normal" funds. All in all, the deadweight loss from gift certificates does not seem important.
Flóra Felsö and Adriaan Soetevent study spending habits of gift certificate recipients. They find that the vast majority is not really constrained by having to buy at a particular merchant and only alter a little bit the timing of their purchases. One in seven (more among females), though, considers the gift certificate separately from the budget constraint and buys something one could not afford. While these people are happy about it, there is obviously still a loss in well-being. Indeed, if they want this purchase so much, they would have bought it from the "normal" funds. All in all, the deadweight loss from gift certificates does not seem important.
Egoistic giving
Why do people give to charity? It could be because they care about others. It could be for tax reasons. It could be to offload some guilt. It could be to improve one's standing in society. It could be to encourage others to do the same. Or it could be a combination of all the above. In a more fundamental way, the question is whether philanthropy is egoistic or altruistic.
To address this, Dean Karlan and Margaret McConnell examines donors to Yale University. During a telephone campaign, some potential donors were told about the opportunity of being recognized as donor in the college's newsletter. They responded by giving more frequently (+3%) and more (+14%) than the control group. Variations in the amount necessary to be listed did not yield significant effects, though. One can conclude from this that people donate at least in part to elevate their status and/or to encourage others to give.
To disentangle to two, Karlan and McConnell use a better controlled environment, the laboratory. They work with undergraduates to see whether the latter are willing to part with US$5 to help fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In some rounds, donors are announced, but no difference in giving is noticed by varying the timing of the announcements. One can thus conclude that giving to encourage others to give is not an important factor, even with such small amounts.
To address this, Dean Karlan and Margaret McConnell examines donors to Yale University. During a telephone campaign, some potential donors were told about the opportunity of being recognized as donor in the college's newsletter. They responded by giving more frequently (+3%) and more (+14%) than the control group. Variations in the amount necessary to be listed did not yield significant effects, though. One can conclude from this that people donate at least in part to elevate their status and/or to encourage others to give.
To disentangle to two, Karlan and McConnell use a better controlled environment, the laboratory. They work with undergraduates to see whether the latter are willing to part with US$5 to help fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. In some rounds, donors are announced, but no difference in giving is noticed by varying the timing of the announcements. One can thus conclude that giving to encourage others to give is not an important factor, even with such small amounts.
How to best increase organ donations
There is currently an increasing shortage of organs available for transplantation. This is due to a reduction in traffic fatalities, the main provider of healthy organs, and an exploding demand from patients. An economist would say here that there is a classic case of rationing because the price is too low (at zero) and one should let patients pay for organs. But as this is viewed as unethical, we will have to live with rationing and waiting lists, unless one can bring more people to donate organs. This brings up the question why people donate, and in particular why there is altruism. This question is still puzzling, as altruism may emerge from a combination of sense of duty, coaxing, reciprocity, tradition, social pressure, and others.
Juan Cabasés and María Errea try to sort this out by focusing on blood and living organ donation. They model the decision process of the potential donor that in particular factors in some negative effect of donation. Then they administer a questionnaire and test their theory. The survey allows to highlight the attitude towards donating, which in theory corresponds in part to the degree of altruism. But it appears the perceived cost of donating is much more important, as well as information about the need for donations. This shows that in order to encourage more donations, information campaigns may be quite effective, and maybe rationing or a proper market would not be necessary.
Addendum: I forgot to mention a caveat the authors neglect: The survey is administered to staff of an university. Such employees, I believe, are more altruistic than average.
Juan Cabasés and María Errea try to sort this out by focusing on blood and living organ donation. They model the decision process of the potential donor that in particular factors in some negative effect of donation. Then they administer a questionnaire and test their theory. The survey allows to highlight the attitude towards donating, which in theory corresponds in part to the degree of altruism. But it appears the perceived cost of donating is much more important, as well as information about the need for donations. This shows that in order to encourage more donations, information campaigns may be quite effective, and maybe rationing or a proper market would not be necessary.
Addendum: I forgot to mention a caveat the authors neglect: The survey is administered to staff of an university. Such employees, I believe, are more altruistic than average.
Are we born altruistic?
Greed has been put forward a one the main reasons for the current crisis, yet there is plenty of evidence for altruistic behavior around us. In fact, plenty of experiments have shown that people are willing to share with complete strangers, because of some sense of fairness. There is also evidence, reported here recently, that altruism can differ quite a bit across populations. This raises the question of why altruism differs across people.
Kirsten Häger performs some experiments on seven to ten year olds in Germany and comes to an interesting conclusion: altruism is more prevalent among the older children, which would lead us to think that altruism is acquired. From casual observation on playgrounds, it is certainly so that toddlers are very egoistic and need to be reminded to share with others. Over the years, this idea seem to stick with them.
But if education is important for altruism, the there should be some explanatory power in socio-economic indicators, yet there seem to be none according to Häger. It then altruism not acquired after all, but rather something hard-coded that reveals itself as one grows up? Or is it something that one acquires not from one's direct environment (family and school), but from a larger environment? That would explain differences across societies.
Kirsten Häger performs some experiments on seven to ten year olds in Germany and comes to an interesting conclusion: altruism is more prevalent among the older children, which would lead us to think that altruism is acquired. From casual observation on playgrounds, it is certainly so that toddlers are very egoistic and need to be reminded to share with others. Over the years, this idea seem to stick with them.
But if education is important for altruism, the there should be some explanatory power in socio-economic indicators, yet there seem to be none according to Häger. It then altruism not acquired after all, but rather something hard-coded that reveals itself as one grows up? Or is it something that one acquires not from one's direct environment (family and school), but from a larger environment? That would explain differences across societies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)