State restrictions on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have become increasingly pervasive across the globe. Although this crackdown has been shown to have a negative impact on public funding flows, we know little about how it affects private philanthropy. How does information about crackdown abroad, as well as organizational attributes of nonprofits, affect individual donors’ willingness to donate internationally? Using a survey experiment, we find that learning about repressive NGO environments increases generosity in that already-likely donors are willing to donate substantially more to legally besieged nonprofits. This generosity persists when mediated by two organizational-level heuristics: NGO issue areas and main funding sources. We discuss the implications of our results on how nonprofits can use different framing appeals to increase fundraising at a time when traditional public donor funding to such organizations is decreasing.
BekkersR.WiepkingP. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927
BishopK. (2017). Standing firm: Women and trans-led organisations respond to closing civic space for civil society. Mama Cash and Urgent Action Fund.
5.
BloodgoodE.Tremblay-BoireJ. (2016). Does government funding depoliticize non-governmental organizations? Examining evidence from Europe. European Political Science Review, 9(3), 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773915000430
BushS. S. (2015). The taming of democracy assistance: Why democracy promotion does not confront dictators. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107706934
8.
CarothersT. (2015). The closing space challenge: How are funders responding?Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
9.
CasaleD.BaumannA. (2015). Who gives to international causes? A sociodemographic analysis of US donors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 98–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013507141
10.
ChaudhryS. (2016). The assault on democracy assistance: Explaining state repression of NGOs [PhD thesis]. Yale University.
CrosonR.ShangJ. (2011). How social norms, price, and scrutiny influence donation behavior: Evidence from four natural field experiments. In OppenheimerD. M.OlivolaC. Y. (Eds.), The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 65–80). Taylor & Francis.
15.
DeMatteeA. J. (2018). Toward a coherent framework: A typology and conceptualization of CSO regulatory regimes. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 9(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2018-0011
16.
DesaiR. M.KharasH. (2018). What motivates private foreign aid? Evidence from internet-based microlending. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqy023
DietrichS. (2013). Bypass or engage? Explaining donor delivery tactics in foreign aid allocation. International Studies Quarterly, 57(4), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12041
19.
DietrichS.WrightJ. (2015). Foreign aid allocation tactics and democratic change in Africa. Journal of Politics, 77(1), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1086/678976
20.
DupuyK.PrakashA. (2018). Do donors reduce bilateral aid to countries with restrictive NGO laws? A panel study, 1993–2012. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017737384
21.
DupuyK.RonJ.PrakashA. (2015). Who survived? Ethiopia’s regulatory crackdown on foreign-funded NGOs. Review of International Political Economy, 22(2), 419–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2014.903854
22.
DupuyK.RonJ.PrakashA. (2016). Hands off my regime! Governments’ restrictions on foreign aid to non-governmental organizations in poor and middle-income countries. World Development, 84, 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.02.001
23.
FenglerW.KharasH. (2010). Overview: Delivering aid differently. In FenglerW.KharasH. (Eds.), Delivering aid differently: Lessons from the field (pp. 1–41). Brookings Institution Press.
HeissA. (2017). Amicable contempt: The strategic balance between dictators and international NGOs [PhD thesis]. Duke University.
28.
HerzogP. S.YangS. (2018). Social networks and charitable giving: Trusting, doing, asking, and alter primacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017746021
29.
HeutelG. (2014). Crowding out and crowding in of private donations and government grants. Public Finance Review, 42(2), 143–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142112447525
30.
HossainB.LambL. (2017). Associational capital and adult charitable giving: A Canadian examination. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(5), 963–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017703707
31.
IUPUI Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. (2017). Giving USA 2017: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2016. Giving USA.
32.
KnowlesS.SullivanT. (2017). Does charity begin at home or overseas?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(5), 944–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017703710
33.
McEntireK. J.LeibyM.KrainM. (2015). Human rights organizations as agents of change: An experimental examination of framing and micromobilization. American Political Science Review, 109(3), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055415000295
MilnerH. V.TingleyD. H. (2010). The political economy of US foreign aid: American legislators and the domestic politics of aid. Economics & Politics, 22(2), 200–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0343.2009.00356.x
RajanS. S.PinkG. H.DowW. H. (2009). Sociodemographic and personality characteristics of Canadian donors contributing to international charity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008316056
38.
RyazanovA. A.ChristenfeldN. J. (2018). On the limited role of efficiency in charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(5), 939–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018773899
39.
SloanM. F. (2009). The effects of nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008316470
40.
SlovicP. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.
41.
SpiresA. J. (2020). Regulation as political control: China’s first charity law and its implications for civil society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(3), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019883939
StroupS. S. (2012). Borders among activists: International NGOs in the United States, Britain, and France. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801464256
44.
SzperR.PrakashA. (2011). Charity watchdogs and the limits of information-based regulation. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(1), 112–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9156-2
45.
Tremblay-BoireJ.PrakashA. (2017). Will you trust me?: How individual American donors respond to informational signals regarding local and global humanitarian charities. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9782-4
46.
US Trust. (2014). High net worth philanthropy. US Trust, The Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.
47.
WiepkingP. (2007). The philanthropic poor: In search of explanations for the relative generosity of lower income households. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(4), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-007-9049-1
48.
WiepkingP. (2010). Democrats support international relief and the upper class donates to art? How opportunity, incentives and confidence affect donations to different types of charitable organizations. Social Science Research, 39(6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.005
49.
WiepkingP.BekkersR. (2010). Does who decides really matter? Causes and consequences of personal financial management in the case of larger and structural charitable donations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 240–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-010-9124-x
50.
WiepkingP.MaasI. (2009). Resources that make you generous: Effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 87(4), 1973–1995. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0191
51.
YuJ.ShenY.LiY. (2020). Understanding the effect of central government funding on the service and advocacy roles of nonprofit organizations in China: A cross-regional comparison. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019892085
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
