Reflections upon charitable giving: A comparison of individuals from business, ‘manual’ and professional backgrounds

Abstract

This paper compares three groups of individuals in their beliefs about charitable giving. Focusing upon their preferences for different kinds of needy recipients, the paper compares the views of 49 people from (a) business, (b) professional and (c) 'manual' backgrounds. Their justifications of need provided the basis for comparisons on the basic themes of emotional response to requests for funds, to local versus overseas aid and to the relative roles of charity and state provision. It is argued that distinctions between the groups show the need to examine specific beliefs as well as generally held ideologies about charity. In addition, a further comparison of the groups is used to argue that they exemplify differences in the actual form of the gift relationship. These differences in form show the importance of examining charitable giving within specific social contexts, as well as with reference to the various ways of raising funds.

Generosity and Philanthropy: A Literature Review

“…E.g., people are less prepared to sponsor welfare recipients when they know the recipients are unwilling to engage in paid work (Fong 2007). Refusals to give to the homeless are often explained in these terms (Radley & Kennedy 1992), as are refusals to give to poverty relief in developing countries (Bennett & Kottasz 2000;Taormina et al 1988). Denial of responsibility is less likely to occur when the fate of victims is perceived as beyond people"s control (Lerner & Simmons 1966), at least among politically liberal individuals (Skitka et al 2002).…”

“…Denial of responsibility is less likely to occur when the fate of victims is perceived as beyond people"s control (Lerner & Simmons 1966), at least among politically liberal individuals (Skitka et al 2002). Survey data reveal that awareness of need is not associated with giving when potential donors attribute responsibility to government (Eschholz & Van Slyke 2002;Polonsky et al 2002;Radley & Kennedy 1992).…”

“…Survey studies reveal that when people perceive that their contribution does not make a difference, they are less likely to give (Arumi et al 2005;Diamond & Kashyap 1997;Radley & Kennedy 1992;Smith & McSweeney 2007). These findings may be the result of reverse causality and/or justification.…”

Charity begins at home? Setting a future research agenda for national identity and charitable ethnocentrism

“…For example, in Australia, negative attitudes towards offering ODA to Indonesia were partly motivated by fears that it may one day pose a military threat (Hull, 1988). It has also been argued that countries are perceived less worthy of donations if political leaders in said countries are seen as the cause of the problem (Radley & Kennedy, 1992) or if the country was perceived powerful and wealthy enough to resolve problems itself (Stevenson & Manning, 2010). For example, the UK's recent decision to cut ODA to India followed intense media criticism for allocating resources to a country that funded its own space programme (Riley-Smith, 2016).…”

L’actualité de l’« Essai sur le don »

“…« [Il y a] une connexion profonde entre le don et l'identité du donneur » (Silber, 2000, p. 141 ;voir aussi Pulcini, 2001). Radley et Kennedy (1992) arrivent à la même conclusion après avoir comparé les comportements de trois groupes sociaux différents (entrepreneurs, professionnels et ouvriers) face à la philanthropie: les dons de charité témoignent à la fois de l'identité que s'attribuent les donneurs en tant que groupe et de l'identité qu'ils attribuent aux receveurs en tant que groupe. Mais l'aide au tiers-monde pourrait tout autant mettre en évidence ce phénomène, avec ses dimensions négatives.…”