Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This study theoretically and empirically examines altruistic and joyof-giving motivations underlying contributions to charitable activities. The theoretical analysis shows that in an economy with an infinitely large number of donors, impurely altruistic preferences lead to either asymptotically zero or complete crowd-out. The paper then establishes conditions on preferences that are sufficient to yield zero crowd-out in the limit. These conditions are fairly weak and quite plausible. An empirical representation of the model is estimated using a new 1986-92 panel of donations and government funding from the United States to 125 international relief and development organizations. Besides directly linking sources of public and private support, the econometric analysis controls for unobserved institution-specific factors, institution-specific changes in leadership, year-to-year changes in need, and expenditures by related organizations. The estimates show little evidence of crowd-out from either direct public or related private Earlier versions of this paper titled "An Empirical Test of Altruistic and Joy-of-Giving Motivations in Charitable Behavior" were presented at the 1995 American Economic Association meetings in Washington, D.C., and the 1995 meetings of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action in Cleveland. We thank Jennjou Chen, Hongshu Han, Dan Henry, Tammy Kolbe, Rob Poulton, Randy Sherrod, and Yinghui Zhu for excellent research assistance and Rick Bond, Tom Gresik, Norm Swanson, Al Slivinski, Rich Steinberg, the editor, and an anonymous referee as well as seminar participants at George Washington, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, Indiana, and Penn State for helpful comments and discussions. We also wish to thank staff at the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (University College London-Brussels) and the U.S. Agency for International Development for providing various data and answering questions. sources. Thus, at the margin, donations to these organizations appear to be motivated solely by joy-of-giving preferences. In addition to addressing the basic question of motives behind charitable giving, the results help explain the existing disparity between econometric and experimental crowd-out estimates. The University of Chicago Press

This research investigates the relative strength of two correlates of helping behavior: dispositional empathic concern and a moral principle to care about others. The empathy-helping and care-helping relationships are investigated using data from the General Social Survey, a nationally representative random sample of the U.S. adult population. Ten helping behaviors are investigated. The results show that the care-helping relationship is stronger than the empathy-helping relationship for most helping behaviors, and that the empathy-helping relationship is mediated by the principle of care. That dispositional empathic concern is mediated by the principle of care requires new theoretical interpretations of the empathyhelping relationship, and suggests new directions for research on helping behavior.

No abstract

This paper estimates the correlation between the generosity of parents and the generosity of their adult children using regression models of adult children’s charitable giving. New charitable giving data are collected in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and used to estimate the regression models. The regression models are estimated using a wide variety of techniques and specification tests, and the strength of the intergenerational giving correlations are compared with intergenerational correlations in income, wealth, and consumption expenditure from the same sample using the same set of controls. We find the religious giving of parents and children to be strongly correlated, as strongly correlated as are their income and wealth. The correlation in the secular giving (e.g., giving to the United Way, educational institutions, for poverty relief) of parents and children is smaller, similar in magnitude to the intergenerational correlation in consumption. Parents’ religious giving is positively associated with children’s secular giving, but in a more limited sense. Overall, the results are consistent with generosity emerging at least in part from the influence of parental charitable behavior. In contrast to intergenerational models in which parental generosity towards their children can undo government transfer policy (Ricardian equivalence), these results suggest that parental generosity towards charitable organizations might reinforce government policies, such as tax incentives aimed at encouraging voluntary transfers.

The effects that such factors as wages, welfare policies and access to physicians, family planning clinics and abortion providers have on abortion rates and birthrates are examined in analyses based on 1978-1988 state-level data and longitudinal regression techniques. The incidence of abortion is found to be lower in states where access to providers is reduced and state policies are restrictive. Calculations indicate that decreased access may have accounted for about one-quarter of the 5% decline in abortion rates between 1988 and 1992. In addition, birthrates are elevated where the costs of contraception are higher because access to obstetrician-gynecologists and family planning services is reduced. Economic resources such as higher wages for men and women and generous welfare benefits are significantly and consistently related to increased birthrates; however, even a 10% cut in public assistance benefits would result in only one birth fewer for every 212 women on welfare. Economic factors showed no consistent relationship with abortion rates.