Theory and research methodology for comparative research on philanthropy in Europe René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands 16 June 2015 WU Wien 1

Research Questions Which is the most generous country in Europe and why? 1.How large are differences in philanthropy (incidence, amounts, causes) between nations in Europe? 2.How can these differences be explained? 16 June 2015 WU Wien 2

Philanthropy: private contributions to public goods SourceChannelDestination DonorOrganizationCause Money, timeServices Households, individuals, corporations Churches, charities, foundations Groups, Ideals 16 June 2015 WU Wien 3

16 June 2015WU Wien 4 Map available at

Steps we need to take to answer these questions A.Identify potential data sources available B.Assess their reliability and validity C.Identify black holes and uncharted territories D.Repair problems with existing data E.Collect new data 16 June 2015 WU Wien 5

What can you hear today? 1.The take away. 2.Basic figures. 3.Excursion 1: theories. 4.“Methodology is destiny.” 5.Excursion 2: particular figures. 6.Implications for new and published research. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 6

1. The takeaway: we’re in big trouble. How many people report donations to various causes varies from one dataset to another. Even differences in giving within the same country vary from one dataset to another. Finally, differences between countries are explained by different variables in the two datasets. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 7

A. What we have… Lots of data on volunteering, but much less on charitable giving Several datasets on giving using ▫ Different definitions of philanthropy ▫ Different questionnaire modules to measure philanthropy ▫ Different survey methods 16 June 2015 WU Wien 8

16 June 2015 WU Wien 9 2. Basic figures

16 June 2015WU Wien 10

Prospects for Data Access Tax data: employ different legal definitions, thresholds make small donations invisible, privacy issues limit access Survey data on corporate philanthropy are difficult to gather; annual reports available only for larger corporations Foundations even more difficult to get access to Getting survey data on households is least problematic  let’s do this! 16 June 2015 WU Wien 11

3. Why may countries differ? A.Because of population composition differences: some countries are populated with more generous citizens. (Who gives?) B.Because of country differences: some countries make citizens living there more generous. (When do people give?) 16 June 2015 WU Wien 12

‘Theories’: clusters of variables Political: ‘Worlds of Welfare Capitalism’, democracy, civic engagement, inequality Economic: ‘Crowding-out’, price of giving, wealth Cultural: religious traditions, social norms Legal: freedom for nonprofit organizations Psychological: trust, guilt, perceived need Communication: news consumption Thermoclimatic: adversity in weather 16 June 2015 WU Wien 13

16 June 2015WU Wien 14

Mechanisms driving philanthropy 1.Awareness of need 2.Being asked to give 3.Costs and benefits (material) 4.Altruism: how much others are giving 5.Reputation: social pressure and rewards 6.Psychological costs and rewards 7.Values 8.Efficacy 16 June 2015 WU Wien 15

B. Reliability and validity of surveys with questions on giving The European Social Survey 2002 (ESS) The Eurobarometer 62.2 (EB) The Gallup World Poll (GWP) The Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS) 16 June 2015 WU Wien 16

4. “Methodology is Destiny” The Gold Standard: the ‘Method + Area Module’ (e.g., GINPS) Incomplete coverage: ‘Area’ (ESS2002, EB 62.2) Severely limited: (Very) ‘Short’ Shorter questionnaires yield (strong) underestimates of giving volume, and bias parameter estimates Source: Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2006). ‘To Give or Not to Give…That’s the Question’. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3): 533‐ June 2015 WU Wien 17

European Social Survey 16 June 2015 WU Wien 18 E1-12 a) CARD 43 For each of the voluntary organisations I will now mention, please use this card to tell me whether any of these things apply to you now or in the last 12 months, and, if so, which. E1-12 b) Do you have personal friends within this organisation? a)CODE ALL THAT APPLY FOR EACH ORGANISATION b) NoneMemberPartici pated Donated money Volun- teered Personal friends? E1.…Firstly, a sports club or club for out- door activities? YesNoDKDK E2… an organisation for cultural or hobby activities?

Donors per sector (%, ESS) NLUS a religious or church organization19 humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants205 environmental protection, peace or animal rights235 science, education, or teachers and parents25 cultural or hobby activities43 sports club or club for outdoor activities84 social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women34 political party25 trade union21 business, professional, or farmers’ organization12 consumer or automobile organization21 any other voluntary organization42 Donates money to at least one sector June 2015WU Wien 19

Donors per sector in the Netherlands (%) ESSGINPS a religious or church organization1939 humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants2021 environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights23(7) healthNA13 science, education, or teachers and parents22 cultural or hobby activities42 sports club or club for outdoor activities85 social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women310 political party2NA trade union2NA business, professional, or farmers’ organization1NA consumer or automobile organization2NA any other voluntary organization44 Donates money to at least one sector June 2015WU Wien 20

Donations to political parties in the ESS Direct Q Matrix No 88% Yes 12% No 97% Yes 3% June 2015WU Wien 21 Cross tabulation of ESS direct question on political giving and marking ‘donated’ for ‘political party’ in the matrix question (US+NL)

Correlates of giving ESSGINPS Age Age>651.59**0.64* Secondary education1.71**1.07 Tertiary education3.84**1.35 Big city ** Suburb Catholic1.25(*)2.18** Protestant2.02**2.27** Other Christian Other religion Church attendance (times per year)1.01**1.01 Generalized social trust1.19**1.33** Right wing political self-placement * Volunteering3.15**1.55** 16 June 2015 WU Wien 22

Correlates of giving ESSGINPS Age Age>651.82**0.80 Secondary education1.60**1.05 Tertiary education3.50**1.30 Big city ** Suburb0.79(*)0.75(*) Generalized social trust1.20**1.34** Right wing political self-placement1.25*1.50** Volunteered last year3.33**1.76** 16 June 2015 WU Wien 23 Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05)

Donors per sector in the Netherlands (%) EBGINPS a religious or church organization2939 humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants4121 environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights40(7) Patients organization [and health]30[13] Education (arts, culture)132 Recreational organization [and sports]205 Leisure organization for the elderly3NA Rights for the elderly3NA political party5NA trade union4NA business, professional, or farmers’ organization1NA consumer or automobile organization2NA any other voluntary organization74 Donates money to at least one sector June 2015 WU Wien 24

Correlates of giving EBGINPS Big city0.60*0.55** Suburb (*) Age **1.13 Age>652.66**0.80 Secondary education1.85**1.05 Tertiary education Generalized social trust1.21*1.34** Right wing political self-placement ** Volunteered last year3.33***1.76** 16 June 2015 WU Wien 25 Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05) WU Wien

C. What we don’t know… How much is donated to charity? Corporate giving, foundation giving, bequest giving, lotteries How do countries differ in the composition of philanthropy? How do countries differ in the characteristics of donors? Where do all these country differences come from? 16 June 2015 WU Wien 26

4. Methodology is destiny #2 To disentangle population composition and country level components of variance, ‘multilevel models’ have become increasingly popular. The typical finding in multilevel analyses is that ‘contextual influences’ are fairly small, usually explaining only 5 to 10 percent of the variance. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 27

An illustration An example is the correlation of.77 between voter turnout and the proportion of blood donors in municipalities in the Netherlands (Bekkers & Veldhuizen, 2008). A subsequent multilevel analysis (Veldhuizen & Bekkers, 2011), however, showed that only 6.5% of the variance in blood donation at the individual level is due to the characteristics of the municipality; 93.5% of the variance was due to population composition. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 28

Why do countries differ? EBESS Individual level variablesYES Country level variablesNOYESNOYES Country level variance3.27%5.45%3.27%9.97% Secondary education1.321**1.305** ** % Secondary education0.031**25.744* Generalized trust ** Mean Generalized trust2.096**1.098 NS Observations16,279 32,905 Countries17 16 June WU Wien

5. Particular figures: pieces of the puzzle 16 June 2015 WU Wien 30 % of the population giving to charity Tax burden in % of GDP

31 ‘Crowding-out’ across the world (Gallup World Poll)

16 June 2015WU Wien 32 N = 111, r =.011 ‘Crowding-out’: excluding Europe

33

6. Implications New data are needed to answer questions on how much is donated by households across Europe. Replications are needed to see whether published results (including our own) are robust. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 34

16 June 2015WU Wien 35

16 June 2015WU Wien 36 The higher the proportion of non-religious citizens in a country, the more likely Catholics and protestants are to give to religious organizations

16 June 2015WU Wien 37 The higher the proportion of Catholics in a country, the more likely Protestants are to give to religious organizations

16 June 2015WU Wien 38

16 June 2015WU Wien 39 From my Blog,

16 June 2015WU Wien 40

Grams of food required to yield an additional €1 donation 16 June 2015 WU Wien 41

6. Implications 16 June 2015 WU Wien 42

16 June 2015WU Wien 43

N j > June 2015 WU Wien 44

16 June 2015WU Wien 45

What now? Let’s start all over again. Do it better. And call it Giving Europe. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 46

E. Collect new data A clear definition of philanthropy. A validated, cross-nationally adequate instrument to measure philanthropy. One single method of data collection; online is the only feasible option. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 47

Definitions Should be operationalized. Definitions should identify a clearly delimited set of phenomena. Easy way out: ▫ Exclude memberships and fees. ▫ Exclude informal giving. ▫ Avoid the word ‘voluntary’. 16 June 2015 WU Wien 48

The questionnaire should identify Units of analysis: individuals, AND/OR households, OR foundations, OR corporations Channels: churches, charities, foundations, other nonprofit organizations Destinations: causes and services Resources: money, goods, labor 16 June 2015 WU Wien 49

16 June 2015WU Wien 50 This is where we are now

Thanks, says René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam Twitter: 16 June 2015 WU Wien 51

References Bekkers, R. (2015). The Analysis of Regional Differences in Philanthropy: Evidence from the European Social Survey, the Eurobarometer and the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey. Paper presented at the 5 th ESS Workshop, The Hague, May 22, Bekkers, R. (2015). ‘Regional Differences in Philanthropy’. In: Routledge Companion to Philanthropy, edited by J. Harrow, T. Jung & S. Phillips. Routledge. Wiepking, P., Bekkers, R. & Osili, U. (2015). Examining the association of religious context with giving to non-profit organizations. European Sociological Review, 30(5): Bekkers, R. (2015). The “Crowding-out Effect”: What does the research tell us? Jewish Funders Network Conference, Tel Aviv, March 17, Bekkers, R. (2014). The Fishy Business of Philanthropy. December 17, Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). ‘A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight Mechanisms that Drive Charitable Giving’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5): 924‐ June 2015 WU Wien 52