1. Giving Europe Insights on Methodology for Comparative Research on Philanthropy from PGPE and Beyond
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
René Bekkers
ERNOP Research Chair
Director, Center for Philanthropic Studies
VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Research Questions
How large are differences in philanthropy (incidence, amounts, causes) between nations in Europe?
How can these differences be explained?
Today specifically: What can we learn from the PGPE survey?

3. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
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

4. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
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.

5. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014

6. What now? Let’s start all over again. Do it better.
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
What now?
Let’s start all over again.
Do it better.
And call it Giving Europe.
PGPE is helping us in building a high quality Giving Europe study.

7. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014

8. Prospects for Data Access
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Prospects for Data Access
Tax data: legal definitions, thresholds, privacy issues
Survey data on corporate philanthropy difficult to gather
Foundations even more difficult to get access to
Getting survey data on households least problematic  let’s do this!

9. What we need… New data on giving, using:
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
What we need…
New data on giving, using:
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.

10. Definitions Should be operationalized.
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
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’.

11. Churches, charities, foundations
9 October 2014
Conceptual model
Source
Channel
Destination
Donor
Organization
Cause
Money
Services
Households, individuals, corporations
Churches, charities, foundations
Groups,
Ideals
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

12. The questionnaire should identify
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
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

13. European Social Survey
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
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)
None
Member
Participated
Donated money
Volun-teered
Personal friends?
E1 .…Firstly, a sports club or club for out-door activities?
Yes No DK 1 2 3 4 8
E2 … an organisation
for cultural or hobby activities?
Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties
Slecht (voor geefgedrag): categorieen organisaties niet optimaal voor het onderzoeken van donaties

14. FROM THE LIKELY TRUE VALUES
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
WARNING
DATA FROM THESE
MEASURES MAY BE
*VERY FAR*
FROM THE LIKELY TRUE VALUES

15. Questionnaires on household giving
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Questionnaires on household giving
The Gold Standard: the ‘Method + Area Module’ (e.g., GINPS)
Incomplete coverage: ‘Area’ (ESS2002, EB 62.2)
Severely limited: (Very) ‘Short’
“Methodology is Destiny”: 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): 533‐540.

16. Donors per sector (%, ESS)
9 October 2014 NL US
a religious or church organization 19
humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 20 5
environmental protection, peace or animal rights 23
science, education, or teachers and parents 2
cultural or hobby activities 4 3
sports club or club for outdoor activities 8
social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women
political party
trade union 1
business, professional, or farmers’ organization
consumer or automobile organization
any other voluntary organization
Donates money to at least one sector 45 29
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

17. Donors per sector in the Netherlands (%)
9 October 2014
ESS
GINPS
a religious or church organization 19 39
humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 20 21
environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights 23
(7)
health NA 13
science, education, or teachers and parents 2
cultural or hobby activities 4
sports club or club for outdoor activities 8 5
social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women 3 10
political party
trade union
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1
consumer or automobile organization
any other voluntary organization
Donates money to at least one sector 45 82
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

18. Giving is under-reported in the ESS
9 October 2014
Direct Q
Matrix No
88%
Yes
12%
97%
2947
307 3% 13 89
Cross tabulation of ESS direct question on political giving and marking ‘donated’ for ‘political party’ in the matrix question (US+NL)
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

19. Correlates of giving ESS GINPS Age 35-65 1.19 1.13 Age>65 1.82 **
9 October 2014
ESS
GINPS
Age 35-65
1.19
1.13
Age>65
1.82 **
0.80
Secondary education
1.60
1.05
Tertiary education
3.50
1.30
Big city
0.89
0.55
Suburb
0.79
(*)
0.75
Generalized social trust
1.20
1.34
Right wing political self-placement
1.25 *
1.50
Volunteered last year
3.33
1.76
Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05)
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

20. What we don’t know…
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
How are France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Switzerland doing? Eastern European countries?
How much is donated to charity?
How do countries differ in the composition of philanthropy and characteristics of donors?
Where do all these country differences come from?

21. Donors per sector in the Netherlands (%)
9 October 2014 EB
GINPS
a religious or church organization 29 39
humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 41 21
environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights 40
(7)
Patients organization [and health] 30
[13]
Education (arts, culture) 13 2
Recreational organization [and sports] 20 5
Leisure organization for the elderly 3 NA
Rights for the elderly
political party
trade union 4
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1
consumer or automobile organization
any other voluntary organization 7
Donates money to at least one sector 81 82
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

22. Giving is likely to be overreported in EB
9 October 2014
5% report giving to a ‘political party or organization’; but only 2.5% is a member and only a fraction donate
40% report giving to an environmental organization; at best, 28% is a member
Humanitarian aid is way too high (41%)
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

23. Correlates of giving EB GINPS Big city 0.60 * 0.55 ** Suburb 0.78 0.75
9 October 2014 EB
GINPS
Big city
0.60 *
0.55 **
Suburb
0.78
0.75
(*)
Age 35-65
2.41
1.13
Age>65
2.66
0.80
Secondary education
1.85
1.05
Tertiary education
1.56
1.30
Generalized social trust
1.21
1.34
Right wing political self-placement
0.87
1.50
Volunteered last year
3.33
***
1.76
Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05)
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

24. Why do countries differ?
9 October 2014 EB
ESS
Individual level variables
YES
Country level variables NO
Country level variance
3.27%
5.45%
9.97%
Secondary education
1.321**
1.305**
1.491
1.555**
% Secondary education
0.031**
25.744*
Generalized trust
1.075
1.109
1.120**
Mean Generalized trust
2.096**
1.098NS
Observations
16,279
32,905
Countries 17
PGPE Conference, Warsaw

25. What we want… Giving Europe, using:
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
What we want…
Giving Europe, using:
A clear definition of philanthropy.
A validated, cross-nationally adequate instrument to measure philanthropy, based on GINPS.
One single method of data collection; online is the only feasible option.

26. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Building blocks

27. EB73.4 Question Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties
Slecht (voor geefgedrag): categorieen organisaties niet optimaal voor het onderzoeken van donaties

28. PGPE Question
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Please look at the list of organisations and associations again and tell me, for which of them did you do any voluntary work in the past 12 months. By voluntary work I mean spending time helping charities or associations WITHOUT BEING PAID for it.
Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties
Slecht (voor geefgedrag): categorieen organisaties niet optimaal voor het onderzoeken van donaties

29. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Membership: PGPE vs EB73.4

30. Volunteering: PGPE vs EB73.4
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Volunteering: PGPE vs EB73.4

31. Membership and/or volunteering
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Membership and/or volunteering

32. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Giving: PGPE vs GWP

33. Giving: PGPE vs GWP vs EB vs ESS
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Giving: PGPE vs GWP vs EB vs ESS

34. Giving, specifically to help people in need
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Giving, specifically to help people in need

35. Religious giving by affiliation
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Religious giving by affiliation

36. Giving in past year and in scenarios
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Giving in past year and in scenarios

37. C02_g I feel sorry for other people when they are having problems.
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
ITEM
CARE
RECIPROCITY
HEDONISM
C02_g I feel sorry for other people when they are having problems.
,678
,271
,024
C02_j I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.
,741
,174
,019
C02_o People should help those who are less fortunate.
,699
,270
,053
C02_r I feel it is my duty to give money to charitable causes.
,633
,039
-,072
C02_s Helping people in trouble is very important to me.
,768
,207
-,013
B01_a People who help others will not be alone in time of need.
,104
,677
,015
B01_b People should do favours for each other without keeping track of who owes whom.
,178
,684
-,034
B01_d A person who has received help from someone should help others.
,192
,582
,083
B01_f It is human nature to cooperate* with others.
,668
-,038
B01_h Working together with others ALWAYS brings more benefits than acting on your own
,143
,609
-,017
C02_b People need to look after themselves rather than worry about others.
-,093
-,025
,661
C02_c I do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even at the cost of some long-ter
,011
,748
C02_p I'm more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run
,074
,055
,680

38. Correlates of giving Linear probability model (standardized β coeffs)
PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Correlates of giving Linear probability model (standardized β coeffs)

39. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Correlates of giving to help people in need Linear probability model (standardized β coeffs)

40. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Correlates of hypothetical giving in scenarios OLS model (standardized β coeffs)

41. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Correlates of hypothetical giving in scenarios OLS model (standardized β coeffs)

42. PGPE Conference, Warsaw
9 October 2014
Thanks, says
René Bekkers Director Center for Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam

43. Correlates of giving ESS GINPS Age 35-65 1.16 1.09 Age>65 1.59 **
9 October 2014
ESS
GINPS
Age 35-65
1.16
1.09
Age>65
1.59 **
0.64 *
Secondary education
1.71
1.07
Tertiary education
3.84
1.35
Big city
0.97
0.56
Suburb
0.84
0.80
Catholic
1.25
(*)
2.18
Protestant
2.02
2.27
Other Christian
1.21
0.46
Other religion
0.90
4.66
Church attendance (times per year)
1.01
Generalized social trust
1.19
1.33
Right wing political self-placement
1.12
1.40
Volunteering
3.15
1.55
PGPE Conference, Warsaw