Income Volatility and Wealth: The Effect on Charitable Giving

Abstract

Charitable giving in the United States provides a major source of funding for nonprofit organizations, but it is also a highly variable source of funding. A possible explanation for the substantial variability in giving lies in the measurement of income. In addition to permanent and transitory income, this article introduces the variability of income as a factor affecting charitable donations. The variability of income increases with the level of household income and varies by the source of income. In distinguishing types of income the authors are also able to shed some light on decision making by married couples. The effect of changes in permanent household income on charitable giving is significantly larger than that of transitory household income. Greater variability in the flow of annual household income has a negative effect on total giving. In addition, the authors find some significant differences in the impact on giving between the husband's and wife's earnings.

A Large Scale Test of the Effect of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior

“…Prosociality describes a large variety of behaviors that benefit others [59][60][61]. Yet, in the nonpsychological literature that contradicted the proposition that social class negatively influences prosociality, the most dominant way of assessing prosocial behavior was via the likelihood, amount, and percentage of charitable giving [8,9,39,42,45] or volunteering [11]. The psychological literature, on the contrary, based its propositions on many different prosocial acts such as the allocation of points in various economic games [1,3,62] or helping behavior in a laboratory situation [1,2].…”

“…On the one hand, research outside the field of psychology has not been in line with this psychological perspective [8][9][10][11]. On the other hand, some methodological weaknesses in this psychological research lower its generalizability and conclusiveness.…”

A Model of Donor Behaviour in the Czech Republic

“…• Rodinný stav Na rozdíly v dárcovství z hlediska rodinného stavu se zaměřuje řada výzkumů [viz Hasens, 2006;Hrung, 2004;Rooney et al, 2005;Mesch et al, 2006;James, Sharpe et al, 2007;Hughes a Luksetich, 2007;Wiepking a Maas, 2009;Marx a Carter, 2014]. Cílem výzkumů Andreoniho a jeho kolegů [Andreoni, Brown a Rischal, 2003] bylo zjistit, zda se v manželství lidé rozhodují stejně jako osoby svobodné, rozvedené či ovdovělé, nebo zda se jedná spíše o společné rozhodnutí.…”

Museum finances: challenges beyond economic crises

“…As earned income may be mentioned ticket sales and entrance fees, museum shop sales, restaurant and café sales, licenses, and rental and deposition fees. (1) Tax deduction or tax relief regulations for donations and sponsorship, as does the levels of indirect and direct public support to the sector vary significantly across countries (Hughes and Luksetich 1999;Schuster 1999;Leclair and Gordon 2000;Negussie 2006;McIsaac 2007;Hughes and Luksetich 2008;Rushton 2008). Overall public and private support to the museum sector has increased in the last decades, apart from a period in the early 1990s (Bises and Padovano 2004;Bodo and Spada 2004;Selwood 2001;Månsson 2008), and it is clear that both reductions in support to the sector as well as increases are politically guided (Moen 1997).…”

“…Donors are important for museums in particular in a long term perspective, but their behaviours or preferences are difficult to predict. The attractiveness of donation to a museum depends on many factors, such as tax regulations, household income levels, and personal interests (Brooks 2007;Smith 2007;Hughes and Luksetich 2008). Friends associations and volunteers are important stakeholders and resources for museums, as they specifically work for the promotion and benefit of the museum of which they are friends.…”