This article discusses voluntary contributions to health education in Peru, using a new experimental setup to identify voluntary contributions to local public goods. The experiment enables individuals to contribute to a health education meeting facilitated by an NGO, which they know will only be organized if the cumulative investment level exceeds a certain threshold value. In contrast to expectations of aid distributors, individuals contributed a substantial amount of money, despite the supposed long-term nature of the benefits. The result suggests that donor paternalism, undermining the agency of beneficiaries to exercise control over funds, is not always necessary to guarantee investment in local public goods. We explore multiple interpretations, suggesting that “unaccounted for” short-term benefits from participation as well as liquidity and paternalistic altruism add to explaining the relatively high investment. More in general, the article shows the potential for using experimental research methods in the area of nonprofit management.
AndreoniJ. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving?Economic Journal, 100, 464-477.
2.
AndreoniJ. (1998). Toward a theory of charitable fund-raising. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1186-1213.
3.
AttanasioO.FitzsimonsE.GomezA.GutierrezI. M.MehirC. (2010). Children’s schooling and work in the presence of a conditional cash transfer program in rural Colombia. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58, 181-210.
4.
BanerjeeA.DufloE.GlennersterR.KothariD. (2010). Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: Clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives. British Medical Journal, 340, c2220.
5.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2007, November). Generosity and philanthropy: A literature review. Paper Presented at the Civil Society Congress, Chicago.
6.
BohmP. (1972). Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review, 3(2), 111-130.
7.
BorghiJ.JanS. (2008). Measuring the benefit of health promotion programmes: Application of the contingent valuation method. Health Policy, 87, 235-248.
8.
Brown-KruseJ.HummelsD. (1993). Gender effects in laboratory public goods contribution: Do individuals put their money where their mouth is?Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 22, 255-257.
9.
CardenasJ. (2004). Norms from outside and from inside: An experimental analysis on the governance of local ecosystems. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 229-241.
10.
CardenasJ.CarpenterJ. (2008). Behavioural development economics: Lessons from field labs in the developing world. Journal of Development Studies, 44, 311-338.
11.
CarvalhoL. S. (2008). Poverty and time preferences (Rand Working Paper WR-759). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
12.
ClarkeF. C.LaurieN. (2000). Gender, age, and exclusion: A challenge to community organisations in Lima, Peru. Gender and Development, 8(2), 80-89.
13.
CooperR.DeJongD. V.ForsytheR.RossT. W. (1996). Cooperation without reputation: Experimental evidence from Prisoner’s Dilemma Games. Games and Economic Behaviour, 12, 187-218.
14.
CrosonR.MarksM. (2000). Step returns in threshold public goods: A meta- and experimental analysis. Experimental Economics, 2, 239-259.
15.
DrèzeJ.KingdonG. G. (2001). School participation in rural India. Review of Development Economics, 5(1), 1-24.
16.
DufloE.KremerM.RobinsonJ. (2008). How high are rates of return to fertilizer? Evidence from field experiments in Kenya. American Economic Review, 98, 482-488.
17.
DufloE.KremerM.RobinsonJ. (2009). Nudging farmers to use fertilizer: Evidence from Kenya (NBER Working Paper 15131). Cambridge.
18.
FehrE.GächterS. (2001). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 559-581.
19.
FrederickS.LoewensteinG.O’DonoghueT. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 351-401.
20.
GertlerP.BoyceS. (2001). An experiment in incentive-based welfare: The impact of PROGESA on health in Mexico. Unpublished ManuscriptUniversity of California, Berkeley.
21.
HarrisonG. W.ListJ. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009-1055.
22.
HoddinottJ. (2002). Participation and poverty reduction: An analytical framework and overview of the issues. Journal of African Economies, 11, 146-168.
23.
HoffmannV.BarrettC.JustD. R. (2009). Do free goods stick to poor households? Experimental evidence on insecticide treated mosquito nets. World Development, 37, 607-617.
24.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. (2005). Villa El Salvador: Perfil sociodemográfico de las poblaciones en riesgo [Villa El Salvador: Socio-demographic profile of populations at risk]. Lima, Peru: Author.
25.
IsaacR. M.SchmidtzD.WalkerJ. (1989). The assurance problem in laboratory markets. Public Choice, 62, 217-236.
26.
JacobssonF.JohannessonM.BorgquistL. (2007). Is altruism paternalistic?Economic Journal, 117, 761-781.
27.
KilbyP. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World Development, 34, 951-963.
28.
KremerM.MiguelE. (2007). The illusion of sustainability. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 1007-1065.
29.
LaibsonD. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 443-477.
30.
LedyardJ. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In KagelJ.RothA. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111-194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
MansuriG.RaoV. (2003). Community-based and -driven development: A critical review. World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), 1-39.
32.
MullainathanS. (2004). Psychology and development economics. Unpublished Manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
33.
OlkenB. (2008). Direct democracy and local public goods: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review, 104, 243-267.
34.
OstranderS. A. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 356-372.
35.
RauchdoblerJ.SausgruberR.TyranJ.-R. (2009, December). Voting on thresholds for public goods: Experimental evidence (Discussion Paper 09-27). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen, Department of Economics.
36.
RheeM.SissokoM.PerryS.McFarlandW.ParsonnetJ.DoumboO. (2005). Use of insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) following a malaria education intervention in Piron, Mali: A control trial with systematic allocation of households. Malaria Journal, 35(4), 1-9.
37.
RiddellR. C. (2007). Does foreign aid really work?Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
38.
RondeauD.ListJ. (2008). Matching and challenge gifts to charity: Evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Experimental Economics, 11, 253-267.
39.
RondeauD.SchulzeW. D.PoeG. L. (1999). Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. Journal of Public Economics, 72, 455-470.
40.
StifelD. H.AldermanH. (2006). The “glass of milk” subsidy program and malnutrition in Peru. World Bank Economic Review, 20, 421-448.
41.
SwidlerA.WatkinsS. C. (2009). “Teach a man to fish”: The sustainability doctrine and its social consequences. World Development, 37, 1182-1196.
42.
TanakaT.CamererC.NguyenQ. (2006). Poverty, politics, and preferences: Field experiments and survey data from Vietnam. Los Angeles, CA: New Economics Papers.
43.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism. American Economic Review, 93, 174-179.
44.
United Nations Population Fund & Microcredit Summit Campaign. (2009). Financing healthier lives: Empowering women through integration of microfinance and health education. New York, NY: Author.
45.
WydickB. (2008). Games in economic development. New York, NY; Cambridge University Press.
