How large are differences in philanthropy (incidence, amounts, causes) between nations in Europe? How can these differences be explained?

1. Challenges for
Comparative Research
on Philanthropy in
Europe
René Bekkers
Center for Philanthropic Studies, VU University
Amsterdam ,The Netherlands
R.Bekkers@vu.nl
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 1

2. Research Questions
1. How large are differences in
philanthropy (incidence,
amounts, causes) between nations
in Europe?
2. How can these differences be
explained?
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 2

3. 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
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 3

4. 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.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 4

5. 12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 5

6. What now?
 Let’s start all over again.
 And do it better.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 6

7. 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!
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 7

8. 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.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 8

9. 12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 9

10. 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’.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 10

11. Conceptual model
Source Channel Destination
Donor Organization Cause
Money Services
Households, Churches, Groups,
individuals, charities, Ideals
corporations foundations
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 11

12. 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
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 12

13. European Social Survey
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 b)
ORGANISATION
None Member Partici Donated Volun- Personal
pated money teered friends?
E1 .…Firstly, a sports Yes No D
club or club for out- K
door activities?
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 8
E2… an organisation 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 8
for cultural or hobby
activities?
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 13

14. WARNING
DATA FROM THESE
MEASURES MAY BE
*VERY FAR*
FROM THE LIKELY
TRUE VALUES
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 14

15. 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.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 15

16. Donors per sector (%)
NL US
a religious or church organization 19 19
humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 20 5
environmental protection, peace or animal rights 23 5
science, education, or teachers and parents 2 5
cultural or hobby activities 4 3
sports club or club for outdoor activities 8 4
social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women 3 4
political party 2 5
trade union 2 1
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 2
consumer or automobile organization 2 1
any other voluntary organization 4 2
Donates money to at least one sector 45 29
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 16

17. Donors per sector in the
Netherlands in two data sources (%)
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 2
cultural or hobby activities 4 2
sports club or club for outdoor activities 8 5
social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, 3 10
women
political party 2 NA
trade union 2 NA
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 NA
consumer or automobile organization 2 NA
any other voluntary organization 4 4
Donates money to at least one sector 45 82
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 17

18. Philanthropy
European Social Survey, 2002
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hungary Greece Poland Czech Republic Israel
Spain Portugal Finland USA Slovenia
Ireland UK Norway Sweden Netherlands
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 18

19. Giving is under-
reported in the ESS
Direct Q No Yes
88% 12%
Matrix
No 2947 307
97%
Yes 13 89
3%
Cross tabulation of ESS direct question on
political giving and marking ‘donated’ for
‘political party’ in the matrix question (US+NL)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 19

20. Correlates of giving
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)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 20

21. What we don’t know…
 How are France, Germany, Italy,
Denmark, Switzerland doing?
 How much is donated to charity?
 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?
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 21

22. Philanthropy
EuroBarometer 62.2, 2004
100
80
60
40
20
0
Hungary Greece Poland Czech Republic Israel
Spain Portugal Finland France Slovenia
Ireland UK Germany West Sweden Netherlands
Luxemburg Malta
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 22

23. Donors per sector in the
Netherlands in two data sources (%)
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 3 NA
political party 5 NA
trade union 4 NA
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 NA
consumer or automobile organization 2 NA
any other voluntary organization 7 4
Donates money to at least one sector 81 82
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 23

24. Giving is likely to be
overreported in EB
 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%)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 24

25. Correlates of giving
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)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 25

26. Why do countries differ?
EB ESS
Individual level variables YES YES YES YES
Country level variables NO YES NO YES
Country level variance 3.27% 5.45% 3.27% 9.97%
Secondary education 1.321** 1.305** 1.491 1.555**
% Secondary education 0.031** 25.744*
Generalized trust 1.075 1.075 1.109 1.120**
Mean Generalized trust 2.096** 1.098NS
Observations 16,279 16,279 32,905 32,905
Countries 17 17 17 17
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 26

27. 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.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 27

28. Thanks, says
René Bekkers
Head of Research
Center for Philanthropic Studies
VU University Amsterdam
r.bekkers@vu.nl
Twitter: @renebekkers
http://renebekkers.wordpress.com
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 28

29. Correlates of giving
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 ** 1.01
Generalized social trust 1.19 ** 1.33 **
Right wing political self-placement 1.12 1.40 *
Volunteering 3.15 ** 1.55 **
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 29

30. Volunteering
European Social Survey, 2002
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Hungary Greece Poland Czech Republic Israel
Spain Portugal Finland Slovenia Ireland
UK Norway Sweden Netherlands
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 30