1. Philanthropy in the Low Countries: Opportunities for Universities? René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam CASE LOWLANDS Conference 2016 April 11, 2016

2. Who’s this?

3. What’s up?

4. ROCKET SCIENCE

5. Back to the Future 20052015

6. The 2005 Question

7. The 2005 Talk is herehere

8. DIAGNOSIS – STILL THE SAME The ambitions of universities are high. Citizens want lower taxes. The compensation from the ministry of education per student credit declines. ‘Free’ research budget declines as research grant funding becomes more competitive and matching requirements increase. The need for fundraising increases.

9. The researcher’s perspective

10. Protest perspective

11. GIVING IN THE NETHERLANDS 2015

12. GIVING IN THE NETHERLANDS 2003 Including universities: 2% Household giving: 46% of total

13. GIVING IN THE NETHERLANDS 2015 Including universities: 2% Household giving: 45% of total

14. GIVING IN THE NETHERLANDS 2003 Outer ring: % of population Inner ring: % of total giving

15. Donations by cohort

16. Ranking the goals Most important for society 1.Health 2.Education/research 3.Public/society benefit 4.Environment/nature 5.International assistance 6.Religion 7.Sports/recreation 8.Culture Appropriate for charities 1.Religion 2.Sports/recreation 3.Public/society benefit 4.Culture 5.International assistance 6.Environment/nature 7.Health 8.Education/research Results from Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey 2016

17. THE BASIS FOR US STYLE FUNDRAISING

19. We are becoming more similar to US/UK

20. Prospects Without tremendous effort, a reduction of government support will not be followed by an increase in charitable contributions. Universities are not viewed as a charitable cause. Citizens think academic research should be funded by the government. The European culture of equality and proverbial Dutch modesty about donations reduces the chances of US-style fundraising.

21. Increasing the pie In the long term, bequests are an important additional source of income. Giving is not necessarily a zero-sum game for recipients. We can increase the size of the pie. The hugely successful Tsunami and Ice Bucket campaigns did not lower concurrent giving to other causes or consecutive giving to the same causes

22. Requirements Investments in fundraising and alumni relations. Create networks of friends. Generate pride, commitment, group cohesion. Reciprocity: make students feel they ‘owe’ you. Patience. It takes at least 30 years. Use insights in donor behavior and strategic partnerships. Develop propositions that are appealing to prospective donors.

23. EIGHT MECHANISMS IN PHILANTHROPY 1.Awareness of need 2.Being asked to give 3.Costs and benefits 4.Altruism: how much others are giving 5.Reputation: social pressure and rewards 6.Psychological costs and rewards 7.Values 8.Efficacy

24. EIGHT MECHANISMS IN PHILANTHROPY People give more (often) when 1.There is a clear needneed 2.They are being askedsolicitation 3.Costs are lower, and benefits are highercosts/benefits 4.They care about the recipients altruism 5.They receive social benefitsreputation 6.They receive psychological benefitsself-rewards 7.The cause matches their values values 8.Donations are perceived to be efficientefficacy

25. CROWDING-OUT EFFECT: POLITICS Occurs when a decrease in government funding leads to an increase in philanthropic funding for a cause. Or vice versa, when an increase in philanthropy reduces government funding.

26. CROWDING-OUT EFFECT: EMPIRICS De Wit, A. & Bekkers, R. (2016). Government support and charitable donations: A meta-analysis of the crowding-out hypothesis. Revised version of paper presented at the 43 d ARNOVA Conference, Denver, November 20-22, 2014.

27. CROWDING-IN RESULT Data from the Gallup World Poll show that citizens in countries in which the tax burden is higher are more likely to give to charity, suggesting a crowding-in effect

28. EUFORI STUDY

29. PhiSI Conference, April 21-22, 2016

30. Ideas Small groups, colleges. Limited access, increasing tuition. Differentiate expertise between universities. Use new forms of financing: social impact philanthropy, venture philanthropy, matching funds from foundations, investment platforms Seek collaboration with foundations and high net worth individuals – there is a lot of wealth around with little economic return on investment

31. In the meantime Crowdfunding: a lot of work, but helpful to practice with ‘Science for Society’ Corporate giving: avoiding the dependence trap Reduce uncertainty for donors: social information can increase giving, if reference amounts are carefully chosen

32. The letter “If everybody joins with €35 we are right on track” 32

33. The power of suggestion 33 Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2013). Descriptive Norms on Giving: Effects of Ambiguity, Specific Reference Amounts, and Expectations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 12799. http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2013/1/12799 http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2013/1/12799

34. Public giving 34 Experiment in the Netherlands Service Learning Panel Survey (NSLPS): 2008-2009. https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/an- evaluation-of-service-learning-programs-in-secondary-education-in-the-netherlands/https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/an- evaluation-of-service-learning-programs-in-secondary-education-in-the-netherlands/

35. Public giving 35 Experiment in the Netherlands Service Learning Panel Survey (NSLPS): 2008-2009. https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/an- evaluation-of-service-learning-programs-in-secondary-education-in-the-netherlands/https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/an- evaluation-of-service-learning-programs-in-secondary-education-in-the-netherlands/

36. Thanks to Arjen de Wit EUFORI colleagues Funders of Giving in the Netherlands The European Commission

37. This presentation is copyright (your name), (your title) (name of your institute) © 2016 All rights reserved. Used with permission.

38. It is 2016. You all own this.