Giving back to communities of residence and of origin. Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie

682 views
606 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
682
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
224
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Giving back to communities of residence and of origin. Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie

  1. 1. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Some data perspectives
  2. 2. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013o ONS/DEFRA Living Costs and Food Survey, 2001 to 2010 annual cross-sectionso 63,033 households in the United Kingdom (~6,000 per year)o Two-week spending diaries including remittances and charitable donationso Household characteristics (composition, age, education, employment, budget)o 2001 Census classification of ethnicityUK household survey evidence
  3. 3. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Ethnic minorities in the survey sample
  4. 4. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Households at risk of poverty, by ethnicity
  5. 5. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Comparing remittances and donations
  6. 6. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Proportions of total spending, by ethnicity
  7. 7. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Modelling remitting
  8. 8. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Modelling remittingHRP characteristicsEthnicityAgeEmployment statusEducationHousehold characteristicsCompositionGeneral spending/ wellbeing“Indulgence” spendingOther givingRegionTime period (quarter, year)
  9. 9. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Modelling donating
  10. 10. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Modelling donatingHRP characteristicsEthnicityAgeEmployment statusEducationHousehold characteristicsCompositionGeneral spending/ wellbeing“Indulgence” spendingOther givingRegionTime period (quarter, year)
  11. 11. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Modelling remitting and donating
  12. 12. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Pr(remitter=1) Pr(donor=1)1 34.6% 28.8%dy/dx std. err. p dy/dx std. err. pHRPethnicgroupmixed 6.0% 0.018 0.001 -4.8% 0.024 0.041Asian/Asian Br. 15.3% 0.012 0.000 -7.8% 0.012 0.000Black/Black Br. 21.0% 0.015 0.000 -7.2% 0.014 0.000Chinese 12.8% 0.032 0.000 -6.8% 0.033 0.038other 12.6% 0.022 0.000 -11.0% 0.020 0.000further controls no noresidual correl. ρ 0.208Correlation between remitting & donating
  13. 13. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Pr(remitter=1) Pr(donor=1)2 43.7% 26.4%dy/dx std. err. p dy/dx std. err. pHRPethnicgroupmixed 7.2% 0.021 0.000 4.1% 0.029 0.151Asian/Asian Br. 14.3% 0.012 0.000 -3.9% 0.013 0.003Black/Black Br. 22.0% 0.017 0.000 1.2% 0.018 0.527Chinese 11.2% 0.030 0.000 -1.8% 0.039 0.647other 12.3% 0.022 0.000 -5.6% 0.024 0.017further controls yes yesresidual correl. ρ 0.121Correlation between remitting & donating
  14. 14. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Correlation between remitting & donating?
  15. 15. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013o Interviewers: Tamara Tatem-Hale and Nikki Leeo 32 remitters in London, aged between 24 and 71o 17 female, 15 maleo China, Somalia, Bangladesh*, Bolivia, Pakistan, Polando 12 with children in country of origin; 12 with children in the UK (some overlap)o range of educational qualifications and occupationso migration to the UK: some ‘forced’, others ‘voluntary’o remitting between £10 and £1,000 per month*3 Bangladeshi interviewees were born in the UKInterviews with remitters in London
  16. 16. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  17. 17. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  18. 18. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  19. 19. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  20. 20. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  21. 21. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  22. 22. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  23. 23. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  24. 24. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  25. 25. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Giving back: motivation and approach
  26. 26. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Parallels and differences?o Immediacy in perception of needo Religiono Status (‘conspicuous’ remitting and donating)o Responding to the asko Level of obligationo Decisions to remit and to donate can both be individual or collectiveo Division of responsibilities in the remittance distribution processo Remitted money goes directly to remote recipients
  27. 27. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Implications of the findingsMain areas:o valuing the generosity of the UK’s migrants and minoritieso understanding the place of remitting in diaspora philanthropy and sharing modelsof givingo access to charitable tax benefitso support for migrants who remito re-evaluating our approach to concepts and measurement of giving
  28. 28. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Valuing migrant and minority givingPrecedents for wider understandings and meanings of giving existo Giving historically measured in UK only by money to formal registered charitieso Volunteering similar, but informal help incorporated (Citizenship Survey)o No real parallel to this in the study of giving of moneyo Yet there are multiple traditions of making charitable gifts in the UK:o giving to people asking for money on the street (ambiguous attitudes);o gifts in kind (not individual)o donations to charity shops, food, clothes appeals (donate a coat/ suit);o direct web appeals, disintermediation: Karen, bullied bus monitor ($700k)
  29. 29. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013More diverse understandingso Acknowledgement that giving and sharing within extended family and communitynetworks is an important part of giving cultureso ‘Giving within extended families represents an interesting challenge to existingliterature on philanthropy [. . .] it is part of the responsibility of belonging to anextended family, group or community’ (Everatt et al 2005, South Africa)o Taking responsibility for those in need close to oneself underlies aspirations forgreater mutual responsibility and empowered communities, or Big Society.o ‘Mutual support is at the core of a happy, healthy society’ (WP Cabinet Office, ’11)o Emerging study of inter-relationships between different giving behaviours
  30. 30. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Celebrating and learning from diversityo The Giving White Paper emphasises the importance of teaching young peopleabout the culture of giving - future curriculum development around giving andcitizenship could valuably include examples and knowledge-sharing from thecultures of giving in UK’s diverse communitieso US work has suggested that the experiences of giving which young migrants learnfrom family backgrounds could be rich source in teaching other young people aboutgiving.o Government should include specific support for initiatives that celebrate andpromote different traditions of giving within its giving policy, White Papers and actionprogrammes like Innovation in Giving
  31. 31. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Messages for policyMain areas and agencieso Remitter behaviouro International NGO services for donorso Fiscal policy developmento Role of money transfer organisations (MTO)o Role of migrant infrastructure agencies
  32. 32. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Adapting ways of remittingo Promote awareness-raising and education around tax-effective givingo The other side of the coin is that remitters are prepared to switch some remitting toapproaches which enable use of tax-effective vehicles for their givingo For example, making more and better use of the collective ways of fundraising orgiving for which there are already many precedents amongst remitters such as:o Formalising the informal collection mechanisms in which many participate intogiving structures eligible for a tax breako A proportion of remittances could be diverted into collective funds for projectsof community benefit, which would be eligible for a tax break (see AFFORD)
  33. 33. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Development of INGO services for donorso The easiest route to tax benefit is giving through an INGO: could donor services bemore responsive to elements embodied in remitting? Models and precedentsalready existo Plan International’s ‘sponsor a child’ scheme allows donors to provide directsupport to, and interact with a specific child, and monitor development overtimeo Plan International offers donors the opportunity to support specific localprojects, including education, homelessness, business training, and small-scale local enterprise (through microfinance)o Hope Africa targets help to poor families enabling donors to choose the familythey would like to help and how they would like to help, and facilitatingrelationships between donor and recipient
  34. 34. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Development of INGO services for donorso Global Giving list specific international named projects/organisations to whichdonors can giveo US Kiva enables social investors to lend to identified individuals / businessesthrough established community micro-finance institutionso The Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) are providing immediate targeted cashhelp in humanitarian and disaster situations, including where migrants aretrying to help their extended families, communitieso NGOs provide vouchers for specific gifts such as food, education and health –like ring-fencing remittances through accounts with local food stores, banks orRemitPlus for school/ health fees, invest in an enterprise
  35. 35. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Access to fiscal benefitso Anomaly in much donor support and incentive for addressing the poverty ofstrangers in developing countries, and for bridging the gap between donor andrecipient in substantive and tangible ways while discounting help for those alreadynear and dearo Similarities between UK charitable giving and migrant remitting, dissimilarities inaccess to fiscal benefits: INGOs claim Gift Aid (DFID 2010), while remitting is onlyoccasionally tax-efficiento Barry and Øverland (2010) argue on moral grounds that remitters deservefavourable tax treatment because they fill gaps in governments’ overseas aid, andsuffer particular personal and economic cost
  36. 36. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Access to fiscal benefitso Chavez (2006) argues on legal grounds that money collected by Mexican migrantorganisations from members for the benefit of specific communities, fulfils all thecriteria for a US charitable tax deduction:‘the fact that personal remittances and collective remittances are focused onimproving the welfare of others suggests that both should be eligible for thecharitable deduction ...Collective remittances lead to investment in infrastructure, education, and healthfacilities in migrants’ home countries [... meeting] basic needs [...] for thecommunities in which these families live’
  37. 37. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Multi-agency approaches necessaryo Money transfer organisations (MTO)o Infrastructure agencies and MTO could provide information on tax breaks for giving,and develop some communal funds, endorsing details of employment whereappropriateo Those serving particular countries, regions or communities could help thedevelopment of collective funds to which their clients could contribute, claimingsubsidies and helping to organise the distribution of such fundso MTO who participate in such initiatives might get a market advantage, but theremight also be a role for corporate incentives, such as tax breaks for corporatecontributions
  38. 38. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Multi-agency approaches necessaryo For example, Dahabshiil, largest Somali MTO, has corporate policy of investing 5%of profits into community projects in education and health, relief efforts around Hornof Africao Alongside remitter services, it provides money transfer and services for processingdonations /grants from humanitarian and international development organizationsincluding United Nations, Save the Children, Oxfam, Care International
  39. 39. Giving back to communities of residence and of origin • Cathy Pharoah and Tom McKenzie • 10 May 2013Third sector, other and statutory agenciesInfrastructure agencieso Agencies serving migrant and minority communities could be supported, possiblythrough dedicated grants, to advise remitters but also to provide or facilitate accessto giving vehicles such as donor-advised, collective giving and investment fundsSupporting those who give through remittingo Central/local government should provide advice/ guidance to officers assessingneeds in health, welfare, housing, employment and legal support on taking into fullaccount the financial responsibilities and obligations of migrants and minorities

×