首页> 外文学位 >Three essays on the economics of charitable giving: Implications for fundraising and public policy towards the non-profit sector.
【24h】

Three essays on the economics of charitable giving: Implications for fundraising and public policy towards the non-profit sector.

机译:关于慈善捐赠经济学的三篇文章:对非营利部门的筹款和公共政策的启示。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This dissertation consists of three essays on the economics of charitable giving. In the first essay, I investigate the effect of charitable solicitations on giving behavior. People are more likely to contribute to a charity when they are asked to. Although this so-called 'power of asking' is well-known among fundraisers, the existing literature does not pay much attention to the role of donation requests in charitable giving. I use a unique data set of charitable activity in the United States to estimate the causal effects of charitable solicitations on both the propensity to give and the amount of charitable contributions. In order to address the endogeneity of the donation requests due to non-random solicitation of charitable donors, I link this data set to IRS data on charitable organizations and propose identifying instruments. After controlling for the endogeneity, I find that donation requests increase the propensity to give by about nineteen percentage points for those who are asked to give. This effect is robust under different specifications and with different sets of instruments, and is much larger than the estimates from univariate models, which assume that charitable solicitations are exogenous. I argue that this result may be associated with donor fatigue. Furthermore, I document that some identifiable characteristics of individuals are associated with a higher probability of being solicited. In particular, income, age, education, and race play significant roles in explaining the selection of potential charitable donors.;In the second essay, I investigate the effect of gender differences and household bargaining on giving behavior. I replicate the study of Andreoni, Brown, and Rischall (2003) using a different data set - recently available Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) supplement on charitable giving - and provide several robustness checks to test the sensitivity of their results to inclusion of alternative control variables, possible selection bias problems, and endogeneity of the tax price of giving. First, focusing on single-person households, I document that males' and females' tendencies toward giving are significantly different, in particular, when different categories of giving are considered. Next, I investigate how this difference affects giving by married couples. Comparing households in which husband and wife make a joint decision on allocating money to charities with those in which wife or husband is the sole decisionmaker or couples make separate decisions reveals that bargaining over giving significantly increases the amount of charitable contributions, even after controlling for self-selection into different modes of household decisionmaking. Furthermore, I find that wives' preferences are mostly dominant in household bargaining over the amount of charitable gifts and that the bargaining increases giving by almost seven percent. This result not only highlights the positive effect of household bargaining over charitable gifts but also provides new evidence for the effects of assortative matching and other demographic characteristics on charitable giving.;The third essay develops a simple spatial model of fundraising in which charities select a target population to solicit donations. First, we show that in a competitive charity market without any intervention, the number of charities in the market and (or) overall net funds raised by charities may be sub-optimal. Next, we analyze whether a social planner can prevent such shortcomings and show that simple regulatory powers suffice to achieve socially optimal outcomes. This paper's contributions are both descriptive and normative. As a descriptive contribution, it introduces a model in which some donors are solicited by multiple charities, which results in excessive fundraising. As a normative contribution, in contrast to the previous literature, this model does not necessarily produce monopoly as the optimal market structure. We show that if fixed costs associated with establishing charities are sufficiently low, then the optimal market structure is not a monopoly. Given the importance of the trade-off between the volume and variety of charitable services, we argue that this result may be of particular interest to policy makers.
机译:本文由三篇关于慈善捐赠经济学的论文组成。在第一篇文章中,我研究了慈善募捐对给予行为的影响。人们被要求捐款时更有可能为慈善事业捐款。尽管这种所谓的“询问权”在筹款者中是众所周知的,但现有文献并没有过多关注捐赠请求在慈善捐赠中的作用。我使用美国独特的慈善活动数据集来估算慈善募捐对捐赠倾向和慈善捐款金额的因果关系。为了解决由于非随机地请求慈善捐赠者而导致的捐赠请求的内在性,我将此数据集与有关慈善组织的IRS数据联系起来,并提出了识别工具。在控制了内生性之后,我发现捐赠请求使被捐赠者的捐赠倾向增加了约十九个百分点。在不同的规格和使用不同的工具集的情况下,这种效果是可靠的,并且比单变量模型的估计要大得多,后者假设慈善募捐是外生的。我认为这个结果可能与供体疲劳有关。此外,我记录了个人的某些可识别特征与被请求的可能性更高。尤其是,收入,年龄,教育程度和种族在解释潜在慈善捐助者的选择方面起着重要作用。在第二篇文章中,我研究了性别差异和家庭讨价还价对捐赠行为的影响。我使用不同的数据集重复了Andreoni,Brown和Rischall(2003)的研究-最近获得的关于慈善捐赠的面板面板的收入动态面板研究(PSID)补充-并提供了几种健壮性检查以测试其结果对纳入的敏感性替代控制变量,可能的选择偏差问题以及给予的税收价格的内生性。首先,我着眼于单人家庭,我证明了男性和女性的捐赠倾向存在显着差异,特别是在考虑不同类别的捐赠时。接下来,我将研究这种差异如何影响已婚夫妇的奉献。将夫妻共同决定将钱分配给慈善机构的家庭与夫妻共同决定将钱分配给慈善机构的家庭进行比较,可以发现,即使在控制了自己之后,讨价还价的讨价还价会大大增加慈善捐款的数额。选择进入不同的家庭决策模式。此外,我发现妻子的喜好在家庭讨价还价中占主导地位,超过了慈善礼物的数量,讨价还价增加了近7%。这一结果不仅突显了家庭讨价还价对慈善捐赠的积极影响,而且为分类匹配和其他人口特征对慈善捐赠的影响提供了新的证据。第三篇论文建立了一个简单的筹款空间模型,其中慈善机构选择了目标人口募捐。首先,我们表明,在没有任何干预的竞争​​性慈善市场中,市场中的慈善机构数量和(或)慈善机构筹集的总体净资金可能不是最优的。接下来,我们分析社会计划者是否可以避免此类缺陷,并证明简单的监管权足以实现社会最佳结果。本文的贡献是描述性的和规范性的。作为描述性贡献,它引入了一个模型,其中多个慈善机构都向一些捐助者征求捐款,这导致了过多的筹款。作为规范性的贡献,与先前的文献相反,该模型不一定会产生垄断作为最优市场结构。我们表明,如果与建立慈善机构相关的固定成本足够低,那么最优市场结构就不会垄断。考虑到在慈善服务的数量和种类之间进行权衡的重要性,我们认为政策制定者可能会对这一结果特别感兴趣。

著录项

  • 作者

    Yoruk, Baris K.;

  • 作者单位

    Boston College.;

  • 授予单位 Boston College.;
  • 学科 Economics General.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2008
  • 页码 126 p.
  • 总页数 126
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号