In this article, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals’ giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals’ propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multilevel analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy.
AbrahamK. G.HelmsS.PresserS. (2009). How social processes distort measurement: The impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of volunteer work in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 1129–1165.
2.
AdelmanC.BarnettJ. N.RussellK. (2015). Index of Philanthropic Freedom 2015. Hudson Institute.
3.
ArielyD.BrachaA.MeierS. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555.
4.
BakijaJ.HeimB. T. (2011). How does charitable giving respond to incentives and income? New estimates from panel data. National Tax Journal, 64(2), 615–650.
5.
BarmanE. (2007). An institutional approach to donor control: From dyadic ties to a field-level analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1416–1457.
6.
BarmanE. (2017). The social bases of philanthropy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 271–290.
7.
The Beautiful Foundation. (2006). Giving Korea 2006.
8.
BekkersR. H. F. P.SchuytT. N. M. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining the effect of religion on charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74–96.
9.
BekkersR. H. F. P.SchuytT. N. M.GouwenbergB. M. (Eds.). (2017). Geven in Nederland [Giving in the Netherlands]. Lenthe Publishers.
10.
BekkersR. H. F. P.WiepkingP. (2006). To give or not to give, that is the question: How methodology is destiny in Dutch giving data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 533–540.
11.
BekkersR. H. F. P.WiepkingP. (2011a). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973.
12.
BekkersR. H. F. P.WiepkingP. (2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.
13.
BennettM. R.EinolfC. J. (2017). Religion, altruism, and helping strangers: A multilevel analysis of 126 countries. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(2), 323–341.
14.
BreenO. B.DunnA.SidelM. (Eds.). (2016). Regulatory waves. Comparative perspectives on state regulation and self regulation policies in the nonprofit sector. Cambridge University Press.
15.
BreezeB. (2017). The new fundraisers: Who organises charitable giving in contemporary society?Policy Press.
16.
BreezeB.ScaifeW. (2015). Encouraging generosity: The practice and organization of fund-raising across nations. In WiepkingP.HandyF. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy (pp. 570–596). Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
CagneyP.RossB. (2013). Global fundraising: How the world is changing the rules of philanthropy. John Wiley.
18.
Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. (2004). Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participating 2004. Statistics Canada.
19.
Centre for Studies of Civil Society and Nonprofit Sector. (2010). Population survey. Centre for Studies of Civil Society and the Nonprofit Sector of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.
20.
Charities Aid Foundation. (2016). Donation states. An international comparison of the tax treatment of donations.
21.
Charities Aid Foundation. (2017). World giving index 2017. A global view of giving trends.
22.
De WitA.BekkersR. H. F. P. (2017). Government support and charitable donations: A meta-analysis of the crowding-out hypothesis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 301–319.
23.
De WitA.NeumayrM.HandyF.WiepkingP. (2018). Do government expenditures shift private philanthropic donations to particular fields of welfare? Evidence from cross-country data. European Sociological Review, 34(1), 6–21.
24.
DuquetteN. J. (2016). Do tax incentives affect charitable contributions? Evidence from public charities’ reported revenues. Journal of Public Economics, 137, 51–69.
25.
EinolfC. J. (2017). Cross-national differences in charitable giving in the west and the world. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 472–491.
26.
ElffM.HeisigJ. P.SchaefferM.ShikanoS. (2016). No need to turn Bayesian in multilevel analysis with few clusters: How frequentist methods provide unbiased estimates and accurate inference. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/z65s4/
27.
Encuesta Nacional De Filantropía. (2005). Encuesta Nacional De Filantropía (ENAFI) [National Survey on Philanthropy] 2005. Project on Philanthropy and Civil Society, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México.
28.
European Social Survey. (2002). European Social Survey, wave I [Computer file]. Norwegian Social Science Data Services.
29.
EU Russia Civil Society Forum. (2017). 2017 report on the state of civil society in the EU and Russia.
30.
GalaskiewiczJ.BurtR. S. (1991). Interorganization contagion in corporate philanthropy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 88–105.
31.
GalaskiewiczJ.WassermanS. (1989). Mimetic processes within an interorganizational field: An empirical test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(3), 454–479.
32.
Gallup. (2018). The Gallup World Poll.
33.
GiddensA. (2004). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.
34.
Giving USA. (2016). Giving USA 2016: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2015. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUI Indiana University.
35.
HandyF. (2000). How we beg: The analysis of direct mail appeals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(3), 439–454.
36.
Haski-LeventhalD.KatzH.Yogev-KerenH. (2011). Philanthropy in Israel 2008: Pattern of volunteering, giving and organ donations. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
37.
HealyK. (2006). Last best gifts: Altruism and the market for human blood and organs. University of Chicago Press.
38.
HeutelG. (2014). Crowding out and crowding in of private donations and government grants. Public Finance Review, 42(2), 143–175.
39.
HoggE. (2017). What regulation, who pays? Public attitudes to charity regulation in England and Wales. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(1), 72–88.
40.
HoolwerfB.SchuytT. N. M. (2017). Giving in Europe. The state of research on giving in 20 European countries. European Research Network on Philanthropy.
41.
Household Budget Survey. (2005). Household Budget Survey, 2005 [Machine-readable datafile]. Irish Social Science Data Archive. www.ucd.ie/issda
42.
HuM.GuoC. (2016). Fundraising policy reform and its impact on nonprofits in China: A view from the trenches. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 7(2), 213–236.
43.
HuckS.RasulI. (2010). Transactions costs in charitable giving: Evidence from two field experiments. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 10(1), 1–35.
44.
IngramP.ClayK. (2000). The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 525–546.
45.
Japan Fundraising Association. (2010). KifuHakusho 2010 [Giving Japan 2010]. Nihon Keidanren Suppan.
46.
JohnsonE. J.GoldsteinD. (2003). Medicine. Do defaults save lives?Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.
47.
KaminskaO.LynnP. (2017). Survey-based cross-country comparisons where countries vary in sample design: Issues and solutions. Journal of Official Statistics, 33(1), 123–136.
48.
KievitR. A.FrankenhuisW. E.WaldorpL. J.BorsboomD. (2013). Simpson’s paradox in psychological science: A practical guide. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 513.
49.
KingmaB. (1989). An accurate measurement of the crowd-out effect, income effect and price effect for charitable contributions. Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1197–1207.
50.
KnowlesS.ServátkaM. (2015). Transaction costs, the opportunity cost of time and procrastination in charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 125, 54–63.
51.
LowN.ButtS.EllisP.Davis SmithJ. (2007). Helping out: A national survey of volunteering and charitable giving. National Centre for Social Research.
52.
LuJ. (2016). The philanthropic consequence of government grants to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(4), 381–400.
53.
LyonsM.PasseyA. (2007). Giving Australia, individual and household survey 2005 [Computer file]. Australian Social Science Data Archive, The Australian National University.
54.
MairJ.HehenbergerL. (2014). Front-stage and backstage convening: The transition from opposition to mutualistic coexistence in organizational philanthropy. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1174–1200.
55.
MarxB. M. (2015). Has regulation of charitable foundations thrown the baby out with the bath water?Journal of Public Economics, 129, 63–76.
56.
MirabellaR. M.GemelliG.MalcolmM.BergerG. (2007). Nonprofit and philanthropic studies: International overview of the field in Africa, Canada, Latin America, Asia, the Pacific, and Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 110S–135S.
57.
MirabellaR. M.WishN. B. (2001). University-based educational programs in the management of nonprofit organizations: An updated census of US programs. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(1), 30–41.
58.
MosleyJ. E.GalaskiewiczJ. J. (2010). The role of foundations in shaping social welfare policy and services: The case of welfare reform. In AnheierH.HammackD. (Eds.), American foundations: Roles and contributions (pp. 182–204). Brookings Institution Press.
59.
NeumayrM.HandyF. (2019). Charitable giving: What influences donors’ choice among different causes?Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 783–799.
60.
NeumayrM.SchoberC. (2009). Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsbefragung zum Spendenverhalten in Österreich [Findings on giving in Austria from a representative population survey]. Vienna University of Economics and Business.
61.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
62.
NorthD. C. (1992). Transaction costs, institutions, and economic performance (pp. 13–15). ICS Press.
PennerstorferA.NeumayrM. (2017). Examining the association of welfare state expenditure, non-profit regimes and charitable giving. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(2), 532–555.
66.
PessiA. B.GrönlundH. (2008). Auttaminen [Machine-readable datafile]. University of Helsinki.
67.
Pew Research Center. (2012). Table: Religious composition by country, in percentages.
68.
Philanthropy Age. (2016). Arab giving survey 2016. Philanthropy in the GCC.
69.
ReichR. (2006). Philanthropy and its uneasy relation to equality. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, 26(3/4), 17–26.
70.
RobinsonW. S. (2009). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. International Journal of Epidemiology, 38(2), 337–341.
71.
RooneyP.SteinbergK.SchervishP. G. (2004). Methodology is destiny: The effect of survey prompts on reported levels of giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 628–654.
72.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector. I: The question of definitions. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3(2), 125–151.
73.
SalamonL. M.SokolowskiS. W.HaddockM. A. (2017). Explaining civil society development. A social origins approach. John Hopkins University Press.
74.
SargeantA. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215–238.
75.
Saunders-HastingsE. (2018). Plutocratic philanthropy. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 149–161.
76.
SchervishP. G.HavensJ. J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8(3), 235–226.
77.
SchlegelmilchB. B.LoveA.DiamantopoulosA. (1997). Responses to different charity appeals: The impact of donor characteristics on the amount of donations. European Journal of Marketing, 31(8), 548–560.
78.
SchuppJ. (2009). 25 Jahre Sozio—Oekonomisches Panel—Ein Infrastrukturprojekt Der Empirischen Sozial-Und Wirtschaftsforschung in Deutschland [25 Years Socio-Economic Panel – An Infrastructure Project for Empirical and Scientific Practice in Germany]. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie [Journal for Sociology], 38(5), 350–357.
79.
ScottW. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. SAGE.
80.
SimpsonB.WillerR. (2015). Beyond altruism: Sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 43–63.
81.
SokolowskiS. W. (2013). Effects of government support of nonprofit institutions on aggregate private philanthropy: Evidence from 40 countries. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 359–381.
82.
Stadelmann-SteffenI.FreitagM. (2011). Making civil society work: Models of democracy and their impact on civic engagement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 526–551.
83.
StraussJ.WitoelarF.SikokiB.WattieA. M. (2009). The fourth wave of the Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS4): Overview and field report. RAND Corporation.
84.
Taiwan Social Change Survey. (2009). Taiwan Social Change Survey. Questionnaire II, phase 5, wave 5. Center for Survey Research, Academia Sinica.
85.
Te GrotenhuisM.EisingaR.SubramanianS. V. (2011). Robinson’s ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals: Methodological corrections. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(4), 1123–1125.
86.
TukeyJ. (1962). The future of data analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33(1), 1–67.
P.VandorN.TraxlerR.MillnerM.Meyer (Eds.). (2017). Civil society in Eastern Europe: Challenges and opportunities. Este Stiftung.
90.
WagnerG. G.FrickJ. R.SchuppJ.AngerS.GiesselmannM.GoebelJ.SpießC. K. (2010). German Socio-economic Panel Study (SOEP), data of the years 1984–2010 (Data File Version 27) https://www.diw.de/en/diw_01.c.395791.en/soep_v27_1.html
91.
WiepkingP. (2009). Giving France [Machine-readable data file]. Philanthropic Studies, VU University.
92.
WiepkingP.BekkersR. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245.
93.
WiepkingP.BekkersR. H. F. P.SchuytT. N. M.GouwenbergB. M. (2006). Giving in the Netherlands Panel Study 2005 [Machine-readable data file]. Philanthropic Studies, VU University.
94.
P.WiepkingF.Handy (Eds.). (2015). The Palgrave handbook of global philanthropy. Palgrave Macmillan.
95.
WiepkingP.HandyF. (2016a). Documentation Individual International Philanthropy Database (IIPD). A comparative study of global giving. Erasmus University Rotterdam.
96.
WiepkingP.HandyF. (2016b). Individual International Philanthropy Database, version 1 [Machine-readable data file]. Erasmus University Rotterdam.
97.
WiepkingP.MaasI. (2009). Resources that make you generous: Effects of social and human resources on charitable giving. Social Forces, 86(4), 1973–1996.
98.
WilhelmM. O. (2005). The Center on Philanthropy Panel Study [Machine-readable data file]. Atlantic Philanthropies.
99.
WollebækD.SivesindK. H. (2010). Fra Folkebevegelse Til Filantropi? Frivillig Innsats i Norge 1997–2009 [From popular movement to philanthropy? Volunteering in Norway 1997-2009]. Senter for forskning på sivilsamfunn og frivillig sektor.
100.
WuthnowR. (1991). Acts of compassion: Caring for others and helping ourselves. Princeton University Press.
101.
YörükB. K. (2009). How responsive are charitable donors to requests to give?Journal of Public Economics, 93(9), 1111–1117.
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.
