Presentation at 7th ERNOP Conference, July 9, 2015, Paris, France

1. Do donors raise their donations when they are
aware of decreasing government subsidies?
A survey experiment
Arjen de Wit & René Bekkers
7th
ERNOP Conference
July 9, 2015, Paris, France

2. In a perfectly altruistic world...

Do people value certain public goods in society

Do people see where others spend their money
on

Do people donate to public goods that are not
funded by others

3. However...

4. However...

People often do not know how much subsidies an
organisation receives

And if they know, they do not change their
donations
(Horne et al. 2005)

5. Previous findings

Laboratory experiments typically find partial
crowding-out

But findings with administrative or survey data
are inconclusive
(De Wit & Bekkers 2013)

6. The current project

What if people know about actual subsidy
change?

7. The current project

What if people know about actual subsidy
change?

Survey experiment

Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey 2014

CAWI

N = 1,271

8. Experimental design

After filling out the survey, respondents get a
reward in points

They can spend their reward (partly) on a
personal voucher or (partly) on a charitable
organisation

9. Experimental design

No information:
'The Dutch charities are in need of your support.'

Information:
'The Dutch charities are in need of your support. KWF
Kankerbestrijding, for example, received € 361,000 on
government subsidies in 2011 but received no subsidies in
2012.'

10. Experimental design

No information:
'The Dutch charities are in need of your support.'

Information:
'The Dutch charities are in need of your support. KWF
Kankerbestrijding, for example, received € 361,000 on
government subsidies in 2011 but received no subsidies in
2012.'

Manipulation check:
'What do you think, did KWF Kankerbestrijding receive more,
an equal amount of, or less government susbidies in 2012
compared with 2011?'

11. Providing information on cuts does not
substantially increase number of donors
No information Information
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Average
Believes that subsidy has
decreased
Believes that subsidy has
increased or has not changed
%

12. Providing information on cuts does not
substantially increase number of donors
No information Information
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Average
Believes that subsidy has
decreased
Believes that subsidy has
increased or has not changed
%

13. ...nor does it increase the number of
points donated
No information Information
0
5
10
15
20
25
Average
Believes that subsidy has
decreased
Believes that subsidy has
increased or has not changed
Points

14. ...nor does it increase the number of
points donated
No information Information
0
5
10
15
20
25
Average
Believes that subsidy has
decreased
Believes that subsidy has
increased or has not changed
Points
*
*
or does it?

15. Who would be more sensitive to
information?

People who are more committed to the public
good

In this case, people who are KWF donors

16. Effect not stronger among KWF donors
No information Information
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Non-donors
Donors
%

17. Effect not stronger among KWF donors
No information Information
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Non-donors
Donors
Points

18. What if...

After decision and manipulation check:
'Imagine that you would have heard that KWF
Kankerbestrijding had received [less/an equal amount
of/more] subsidies in 2012 than in 2011. What would you
have done with your reward?'

19. Some people who did not receive
information earlier may start donating...
Imagine: decrease
Imagine: no change/increase
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Actual decision
Hypothetical decision
%

20. ...but no difference in points donated
Imagine: decrease
Imagine: no change/increase
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Actual decision
Hypothetical decision
Points

21. Three innovations

Role of information tested in novel research
design

Tested among different groups (donors vs. non-
donors) in survey experiment

Actual and hypothetical decision

22. Summing up

When provided with information about subsidy
decrease, people do not donate (more)

Effect not stronger among donors

No different effect for hypothetical situations of
changing government subsidies

23. Summing up

When provided with information about subsidy
decrease, people do not donate (more)

Effect not stronger among donors

No different effect for hypothetical situations of
changing government subsidies

Important null findings

24. What about the altruistic world?

Even if people know about a change in
government funding they are reluctant to change
donations

Previous beliefs and preferences seem to matter
more than new information

25. Thank you
Arjen de Wit
René Bekkers
Center for Philanthropic Studies
VU University Amsterdam