ECON145-Final Version

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL FACTORS THAT INCREASE FEMALE PHILANTHROPY 1
Do Economic and Social Factors Contribute to Increases in Philanthropic Engagements within
Female Headed Households in the United States??
Kindel V. Boyd
California State University, Sacramento
April, 2016

Abstract
This study aims to answer whether economic and social factors contribute to increases in
philanthropic engagements within female headed households in the United States. This study uses
the Utility Maximization theory to hypothesize that women place high value upon satisfaction
derived from warm glow; displaying higher levels of altruism than men. Thus, female headed
households will have a higher probability of donating to charity. The data was collected from the
Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) from the year 2012. A Logit distribution was
applied to the data due to the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable. The hypothesis failed
to be rejected; female headed households are 8.9% more probable to engage in philanthropic
activities. The results imply that women place higher value upon warm glow utility than upon
increased consumption, savings or accumulated assets.
Keywords: household formation, gender, female, woman, value of life, budget constraint
JEL Codes: J120, J160, J170, D11
I. Introduction
Do Economic and Social Factors Contribute to Increases in Philanthropic Engagements
within Female Headed Households in the United States?
The differences between men and women have largely been ignored in traditional
economic theory models. Decisions made in market transactions have largely been attributed to a
fictional, rationally behaving economic subject that bears very little resemblance to an actual,
irrational behaving human. When behaviors are analyzed, a deeper intellectual understanding of
economic patterns can be exposed and realized. Human behavior has an important relationship
within the future of economic theory; especially when exploring the economical differences
between men and women.
In the United States, a current hot topic issue is the disparity between male and female
annual earnings, better known as the gender wage gap. The average American woman only earns
82% of what the average American man earns (Kim, 2013). The wage gap further affects female
economic behavior as the social structure of a family continues to alter in the United States. More
people are choosing to wait longer before they marry, if they marry at all (Stevenson & Wolfers,

2007). The amalgamation of the wage gap alongside the changing structure of a family unit places
a steeper budget constraint upon female market participants, consequently altering utility.
Despite women being forced to alter economic habits to adhere to the wage gap, women
are responsible for many positive advances to empathetic social issues. The economic community
largely supports the elevated levels of altruism; the practice of concern for the welfare of others,
that are displayed amongst the female gender rather than that of the male. Women are considered
more receptive and sensitive to charitable organizations that aim to increase the value of a less
fortunate life (Dvorak, 2013). When a woman acts upon her desire to support a charitable
organization, is accepting a larger proportional loss to her income as a result of the wage gap. A
woman’s willingness to further constrain her already low budget implies that women place high
value upon the utility derived from the intrinsic satisfaction received from the empathetic support
of the needy; the feeling of warm glow. The importance to which warm glow alters female
economic behavior deserves attention and explorations as family structures continue to alter.
The research conducted in this paper will aim to answer the following question: do
economic and social factors influence increases in philanthropic engagements within female
headed households in the United States? It is hypothesized that women place high value upon
utility derived from warm glow; displaying higher levels of altruism than men. Thus, female
headed households will have a higher probability of donating to charity

II. Literature Review
Currently the Economic Literary community supports that women exhibit higher levels of
altruism and philanthropy within national and global contexts. The increases in generosity
displayed by women is likely a result of both economic and social rewards that are far superior to
the opportunity and transaction costs of decreased assets, foregone leisure time and increased
domestic fees.
Greene and McClelland (2001) suggested that federal tax incentives can increase the likelihood
for an individual to make a charitable donation. Federal tax incentives allow an earner to itemize
their tax return thus lowering their effective taxable income and reducing the strain placed on
income by donating assets. Their study exhibited that lower annual income earners donate 1.5%
more of their income than middle income earners. Additionally, they determined that educated
people donate more as higher educated women boast higher annual incomes and donate regularly
to educational advocacy organizations.
Rotolo and Wilson (2007) surmised that children in a family unit affect a woman’s decision to
engage in philanthropic work. They disported that women with younger, grammar school-aged
children are typically employed in part-time labor positions and as a result have an increased ability
to engage in charitable activities. Piper and Schenpf (2008) demonstrated that the financial
structure of the household also greatly influences the level of expressed altruism in a domestic
unit. Not only did this study maintain that women donate more often than men but it expressed
that donations increase when women are married and/or the head of household.

Furthermore, social capital and a sense of community have a pronounced affect on charitable
giving. Graddy and Wang (2009) deduced that certain socio-demographic bonds to a community
have significant effects on donations levels; especially when that bond is derived through religious
affiliations. Religious affiliations tend to be more pronounced in smaller, lower income
communities where social trust and the general hope for a thriving long-term community are
desired. Their social capital theory is further expanded by Clerkin’s (2013) stipulation that
communities with strong senses of belonging will receive charitable donations from residents even
if said resident bears substantial personal costs. Social capital theories provide a basis for the
economic field’s assumptions that women are more generous than men. Like religious and long-
term community inhabitants, women form a strong bond to the charitable organizations they
support.
Dvorak (2013) ascertained that women donate more frequently to alumni organizations than
men. Moreover, that rate increased when the female alumni were involved in Greek Organizations
during their collegiate tenure. Not only does the increase in donations from women suggest that
women are more reciprocal than men but it is suggested that a woman is more sensitive to the
charity’s beneficiaries.
The economic incentives and social rewards derived from charitable contributions are coupled
to diminish the economic opportunity cost of non-paid work. Knowles (2015) inferred that the
transaction costs associated with the time needed to donate has the potential to lower donation
levels; costs such as lost leisure and child care rates. The transaction costs are willingly accepted
by donators as the utility derived from altruism far exceeds that of shoe-leather costs. Sauer (2015)
expanded upon transaction cost theory suggesting that working for free is a widespread economic
activity; especially for women. The intrinsic value derived from altruistic behavior supersedes the

opportunity cost decreased leisure time and increased child care fees. It is further exhibited that
lifetime wages for women whom enter into non-paid charitable work increases by 1.92%. Women
whom enter into non-paid charitable work are able to network and earn experience that would have
been previously inaccessible without the expansion into a community foundation. Lost utility of
time today is compensated through increased lifetime utility.
Bischoff and Krauskopf (2015) detailed that the warm glow effect has a pronounced affect on
female donators. Warm glow is the satisfaction received from simply helping the needy. The
warm-glow effect stands to motivate pro-social behavior and encourage women to participate in
philanthropy as they place large intrinsic value upon altruistic behavior benefit greatly from
altruistic satisfaction.
These studies are unified in their notions that women have placed increased value upon
altruistic pursuits in lieu of increased assets, leisure time and lower domestic fees. Women are
willing to accept higher proportional losses to income as the social and economic rewards
experienced in philanthropic engagements far surpass any costs of engaging in charity. However,
these studies do fail to explore the possible benefits to charity derived from female headed family
structures. Female headed households would be expected to have high levels of charitable
engagement but, as women currently earn less than men the wage gap could negatively affect a
woman’s ability to engage in philanthropy when she is the head of household.

III. Methodology
Economic Model
In an effort to explain the increased generosity witnessed amongst women, the Utility
Maximization Theory will be applied to this model. The theory of utility is an essential factor to
rational choice presumptions as it exemplifies the satisfaction derived from the consumption of a
good. Goods are employed to satiate human wants and aid in the development of choice
preferences. The decision to donate to philanthropic organization does appear to contradict the
rational choices decided upon in the utility model. Choosing to donate to a philanthropic
organization will result in the individual loosing opportunities to consume, save and partake in
leisure. Charitable giving is a worldwide phenomenon and it is understood that the marginal
utility derived from philanthropy supersedes the excess consumption, savings and leisure that
could have been conducted with the sacrificed time and/or money (Piper, 2008). The utility model
for philanthropy is further affected by the gender of the donator as women have been shown to
display higher levels of generosity than men do. A woman being more generous with her assets
is quite captivating as women currently earn less income than men (Kim, 2013). The significance
of warm glow effects (Bischoff & Krauskopf, 2015) and the utility derived from aiding a person
and/or organization in need is essential to the study of gender and behavior in the economic utility
model.
b. Utility function = Max U(x, y)

Empirical Model
Data The data for the model was solely collected from the Michigan Panel Study of
Income Dynamics (PSID). The most recent survey from 2013 was used in the Logit regression.
The original cross section from 2013 yielded 9,064 observations. The data was modified to remove
any and all answers submitted as “don’t know, refused to answer and/or inappropriate question”
and yielded a final 7,928 observations (Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2016).
The independent variable is a dummy specifying whether or not a donation in excess of 25
dollars or more were made for the calendar year of 2012. Charities are classified by PSID (2016)
as serving an assortment of purposes that aim to serve persons in need in order to satisfy an
essential public interest. These organizations include both for-profit and non-profit groups that
accept money, assets, property and goods that aim to aid a special interest. The charities can range
in size from National organizations to small local agencies and accept donations in a variety of
manners (Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2016). A 1 indicates a yes response; while a 0
indicates a no response.
Upon reviewing the current literature that surrounds gender and philanthropy, ten
independent variables were chosen: Sex of the Head of Household, Marital Status, Age of the Head
of Household, Number of Children in Family Unit, Age of the Youngest Child in the Family Unit,
Religious Presence in the Household, Tax Itemization, Annual Income of the Head of Household,
Did Family Unit Move in the Past Calendar Year and Head of Household’s Total Years Educated.
The Sex of the Head of Household is the sex assignment of the head of household designee.
The variable is a dummy with 1 representing female heads and 0 representing male heads. Marital
Status is represented as a dummy with 1 as a married household and 0 as a single, a divorced, a

widowed and/or a separated household. There were no same-sex couples present in the data. Age
of the Head of Household are numerical entries ranging from age 16 to age 99. Although the
typical age of a head of household is the legal age of 18; some situations arise causing a minor to
assume the role (Panel Study of Income Dynamics, 2016). Number of Children in Family Unit is
the actual number of persons under age 18 that are in the care of the head of household and/or any
spouse in the home. The variables range from 1 to 18. Age of the Youngest Child in the Family
Unit is the actual age of the youngest person currently in the care of the head of household under
the age of 18. The variables are 1 and 3-17; with 1 encompassing newborns through aged 2
toddlers and 3-17 as actual years aged. Religious Presence in the Household was a self-
constructed variable, as PSID did not collect the head of household’s religious preference in the
survey. In order to construct the dummy variable Religious Presence in the Household; the
individual preferences of the male and female of each family unit was added together. If the
summation was greater than or equal to one, that household was assigned a 1; signifying that
religion was present in the home. If the summation was equal to 0, that household was assigned a
0 signifying that no religious preferences were present in the home. Tax Itemization refers to a
household itemizing an income tax return due to property taxes, interest payments and/ or
charitable contributions (PSID, 2016). A 1 was assigned to itemized filers while a 0 was assigned
to those who did not file income taxes or did not itemize their return. Annual Income of the Head
of Household is the summation of total wages and salary earned by the head of household before
any taxes and/or transfers were deducted from the salary sum. The values range from $125.00 to
$6,300,000.00 in actual dollar amounts. Did Family Unit Move in the Past Calendar Year is
whether or not the primary address for the family unit has changed due to a physical relocation of
the family unit within the past calendar year. A 1 represents no move taking place; while a 0

displays a move occurring. Head of Household’s Total Years Educated is the actual numeric
amount of years educated including grammar, secondary and tertiary levels that the head of
household completed. The values range from 0 to 17.
Data characteristics The original unedited data included 32.27% of the households as
headed by women. The edited data yielded a slightly lower 31.9% of female-headed households;
these figures are consistent with the American National average for 2012 of 30.4% (DeNavas-
Walt, Proctor & Smith, 2013). Furthermore, the United States Census Bureau (2013) reported that
married households earn a median income of $75,694.00 while female-headed households earn an
average of $30,009.00 and male-headed households earn an average of $42,811.00.
Table 1 below displays the descriptive statistics for male and female-headed households;
both total, married and unmarried. Similar to the census data, married households have higher
median incomes and female-headed households earn less than male-headed households do.
The data also displays that by donating to charity, women are indeed accepting a larger
proportional decrease to income. A one time, minimum $25.00 donation is 0.117% of the average
female head of household’s (married and single) income, while it is only 0.055% of a male head
of household’s (married and single) income; that is a difference of 62%.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics by sex- Gross, Single and Married
WAGES/SALARY-
HEAD FEMALE
WAGES/SALARY-
HEAD F married
WAGES/SALARY-
HEAD F single
Mean 21303 Mean 23254.4 Mean 21270.8
S Error 784.179 S Error 4616.83 S Error 793.539
Median 13000 Median 15000 Median 13000
S Dev 39427.9 S Dev 29562.1 S Dev 39573.7
S Var 1.6E+09 S Var 8.7E+08 S Var 1.6E+09

Count 2528 Count 41 Count 2487
WAGES/SALARY-
HEAD MALE
WAGES/SALARY-
HEAD M married
WAGES/SALARY-
HEAD M single
Mean 45601.8 Mean 54979.3 Mean 28657.2
S Error 1755.86 S Error 2590.7 S Error 869.945
Median 30000 Median 39000 Median 20000
S Dev 129017 S Dev 155485 S Dev 37092.7
S Var 1.7E+10 S Var 2.4E+10 S Var 1.4E+09
Count 5399 Count 3602 Count 1818
Of the 7,928 observations 52.6% donated to charity in 2012. Table 2 displays the percent
of households that donate to charity based on the presence of a female in the home, both as head
of household and as of wife.
Table 2: Donation Rates between Households
Male
HOH
Female
HOH
GROSS 56.8% 44.2%
SINGLE 33.2% 44%
MARRIED 68.2% 41.5%
Range 35% 2.7%
Although male-headed households have a 12.2% higher donation rate than female-headed
households, it is important to note the effect of a woman’s presence in the household. Single and
married female-headed households bear a minimal difference in their donation rates where single

male-headed households have an 105.42% increase to donating once they marry. While married
male-headed households have a higher donation rate, the small difference between the female-
headed households is important to note, as the female-headed households appear to have a more
balanced donation decision process.
Regression Equation
α Donation = β0 +β1 Sex HOH + β2 Marital HOH + β3 Kid FU + β4 Age Kid + β5 Age HOH+ β6
Religious + β7 Tax + β8 Income HOH + β9 Move + BETA 10 Edu HOH + ε
a. Sex of the Head of Household (Sex HOH): This variable is conjectured to be the most
significant variable in the model. Thomas Dvorak (2013) surmised that women are in fact
more generous than men; donating a higher proportion of their income more frequently than
that of their male counterparts. A plethora of additional literature suggests that there are
indeed major differences between the genders in regards to philanthropic contributions. The
feminization of philanthropy should see an increase in households headed by females.
Women whom control the finances of the household could be expected to include the warm
glow effect and utility maximization of philanthropy in their budgets. For this reason, this
variable shall display a positive relationship towards philanthropy.
b. Marital Status (Marital HOH): Greg Piper (2008) suggests that marital status has a
pronounced factor on charitable giving; increasing when an individual marries. Seeing as
no same- sex couples are present in the data, each married couple will benefit from a
woman’s effect on philanthropy. Therefore, the variable for marital status should have a
positive relationship to charitable giving.

c. Number of Children in Family Unit (Kid FU): Research conducted by Knowles (2015)
suggests that increased transaction costs have the possibility to diminish philanthropy. As
a result, households with larger amounts of children will bear childcare costs and lost leisure
that can affect philanthropy. It can then be expected that this variable will have a negative
relationship to charitable giving.
d. Age of the Youngest Child in the Family Unit (Age Kid): Rotolo and Wilson (2007) found
at women whom have children of a younger age tend to work more part-time hours than
women with older children. As children age, women tend to enter into the full-time labor
market thus lowering her ability to work philanthropically. Ergo, the variable for a child’s
age will possess a negative relationship towards the donation variable.
e. Age of the Head of Household (Age HOH): According to Robert Sauer (2015), women
between the ages of 25 to 55 maximize the rewards of philanthropy. These women stand to
benefit financially from networking opportunities through philanthropic engagements.
Furthermore, a greater age can allow for reduced childcare costs and lost leisure time that
burden younger women. Consequently, the variable age should have a positive relationship
to the dependent variable.
f. Religious Presence in the Household (Religious): Due to the alms based needs of religious
organizations and the social responsibility they preach, Graddy and Wang (2009)
established that religious individuals have been found to donate to charity at staggering
rates. It can then be expected to witness a positive relationship between the variable religion
and charitable giving.
g. Tax Itemization (Tax): Tax credits can increase philanthropic rates by 23.1% (Sauer, 2015)
and increase the chance that a tax return will be itemized by 1.5% (Greene & McClelland,

2001) Accordingly, a positive relationship between tax itemization and charitable donations
can be expected as tax itemization increases the incentive to donate.
h. Annual Income of the Head of Household (Income HOH): While this variable is not
hypothesized to have the highest impact on the dependent variable, this variable has
generated the most curiosity. Greene (2001) states that households that earn less than
$25,000.00 a year are more likely to donate than middle earner households. As the literature
theorizes that women are more generous than men are, this assumption would seem to be
true. However, male-headed households that feature a married couple were not only are the
highest earners in this study but they were also the highest donators. This suggests that
income will have a positive relationship to charitable donations.
i. Family Unit Moved in the Past Calendar Year (Move): Research conducted by Clerkin
(2013) suggests that social capital and community bonds are of great influence towards
charitable success. A family that has lived in a community longer than a newly relocated
family stands to have a deeper connection and desire for the longevity of their inhabited
community. This variable is expected to have a positive relationship towards charitable
donations, as a move would signal a lesser devotion to community.
j. Highest Level of Education Completed by Head of Household (Edu HOH): Data analysis
conducted by Green and McClelland (2001) maintained that those whom are highly
educated have increased resources and sentiments available to fund charitable
organizations. It is then expected that education will have a positive relationship towards
charitable donations.
IV. Regression Results
RESULTS

Given that the data for this distribution contains a dichotomous dependent variable, a Logit
regression will be applied to the cross-sectional data. The Logit model will prevent results that
would have been produced through violations to the classical assumptions of linear regressions.
The Logit regression will constrain the results which will eliminate any issues surrounding
probability and abnormal distributions.
Table 3 below displays the results of the Logit regression. The p-values followed by three
asterisks (***) indicate very significant results with values <0.0001. P-values featuring either one
or two asterisks are still significant variables but have values between 0.0001 and 0.05; one asterisk
(*) being closer to 0.05 than two asterisks. P-values that are not significant will feature a NS.
Although the data is cross-sectional, a test for heteroskedasticity was not preformed as Logit
regressions constrain the ability for the variances to be unequal across the range of variables. A
multicolinearity test was conducted and dismissed any presence of multicolinearity as no variables
received a score higher than 10; the highest score was 1.9.
Table 3: Regression Results
SLOPE P VALUE SIG
const NA 2.25E-138 ***
AGE HOH 0.00600478 4.91E-34 ***
SEX HOH 0.086343 1.04E-06 ***
KID FU -0.0137751 0.0413 **
AGE KID -0.000774 0.6288 NS
MARITAL
HOH
0.179274 2.10E-23 ***
MOVED 0.0220836 0.1477 NS

INCOME
HOH
3.42E-06 1.26E-39 ***
TAX 0.314578 4.81E-95 ***
RELIGION 0.00859831 0.6367 NS
ED HOH 0.0612041 1.53E-79 ***
INTERPRETATION
The sex of the head of household (SEX HOH) displays a positive and very significant
relationship to the dependent variable. A household featuring a female head has an 8.6% of
donating $25.00 or more to charity. This outcome was expected as this study hypothesizes
that women whom are head of households are more likely to be more altruistic and
philanthropically minded. The marital status of the head of household (MARITAL) has a
positive relationship to the dependent variable and is very statistically significant. This
relationship was to be expected as marital status indicates that at least one female is present in
possible financial and charitable decisions. Once a head of household marries their probability
of donating increases by 17.9%. The number of children in the family unit (KID FU) displays
an expected negative and significant relationship with the probably of donating decreasing by
1.4% as another child is added to the family unit. The age of the youngest child (AGE KID)
has a negative and insignificant relationship. As the youngest child in the household ages, the
household experiences a 0.07% decreased probability of donating to charity. Although the
negative relationship was expected, the insignificance was not. The age of the head of
household (AGE HOH) reflects an expected positive and very significant relationship towards
donations over $25.00. The probability of donating as the head of household ages yearly is

0.6%. The annual income of the head of household (INCOME HOH) has a positive and very
significant relationship. The probability of donating as income increases is 3.4e-03%. This
was expected to be true and suggests that the gender wage gap has the potential to harm
charitable donation rates as women make less money than men. Religious presence in the
household (RELIGION) had an expected positive 0.8% increased chance of donating to
charity; however the insignificance of this result was unexpected. Tax itemization (TAX)
proved to be the most significant and highly positive indicatior of a charitable donation. Those
whom itemize Federal and State tax returns are 31.4% more probable to donate to charity. This
relationship was expected, though not at the magnitude displayed. A family not moving
(MOVED) in the past calendar year has an expected positive and yet insignificant 2.2% higher
probability of donating than those whom did move housing units. Educated head of households
(ED HOH) have an expected positive and very significant impact philanthropic decisions.
Heads of households are 6.1% more likely to donate as education levels increase.
V. Conclusion and Future Study
The research conducted for this paper attempted to answer whether or not economic and social
factors influence increases in philanthropic engagements within female headed households in the
United States. It is hypothesized that women place high value upon utility derived from warm
glow; displaying higher levels of altruism than men. Thus, female headed households will have a
higher probability of donating to charity. Due to the results of the Logit regression, the hypothesis
will fail to be rejected demonstrating that female headed households have a higher chance of
engaging in philanthropic activity than male headed households. Furthermore, the results suggest
that women are indeed more responsive to feelings from warm glow and derive utility from aiding
others; rather than from increased consumption, savings and accumulated assets. Not only are

female headed households 8.9% more likely to donate but married households (all of which feature
heterosexual couples) are 17.3% more probable to donate to charity than unmarried headed
households.
The results of this research are similar to Dvorak’s (2013) supposition that women are more
generous than men. However, Graddy and Wang’s (2009) theory that religious people donate
more was debunked. Although Piper and Schnepf’s (2008) study stated that the structure of a
household influences charitable activity, they only considered marriage in their research and failed
to measure the impact of female headed households as this study does.
This research was limited as the dependent variable was binary; a simple yes or no response to
donating over $25.00 to charity in the past calendar year. This study could benefit in the future
from a dependent variable that is comprised of actual dollar amounts donated to charity in the form
of monetary or property gifts. Furthermore, this study could benefit from including hours spent
on volunteering as some households are likely to have not donated money but rather donated their
time to organizations. This variable was not included in this study as PSID did not collect data for
this area of interest in 2012.
While female head of households are more likely to donate, they only average $21, 963.34.00 a
year (PSID, 2016). The results of this study indicate that as income rises, so will charitable
donations and yet, female headed households (with the lowest reported incomes in the entire data
set) donate more than male headed households. Although this study does imply that the wage gap
harms philanthropic engagement, an explanation as to why women are more willing to accept a
larger proportional loss to income is not discovered. However, in Sauer’s (2015) study, he
stipulates that women are incentivized to enter into altruistic activities as their lifetime earnings
stand to increase as a result of the networking and experience they earn from unpaid work. In the

future, this current study could benefit from utilizing time-series data in order to compare a
respondent’s charitable engagements, their yearly salary and their employment sector and/or
employment level. This future study could provide further insight into why women are willing to
accept altruistic utility today in exchange for increased wages tomorrow than this study currently
answered.

VI. References
DeNavas-Walt, C; Proctor, B & Smith, J. (2013). income, poverty, and health insurance
coverage in the united states: 2012. U.S. Census Bureau. 6-11.
Retrieved from: census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf
Dvorak, T., & Toubman, S. R. (2013). are women more generous than men?
evidence from alumni donations. Eastern Economic Journal, 39(1), 121-131.
Graddy, E., & Wang, L. (2009). community foundation development and social capital.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 392-412.
Greene, P., & McClelland, R. (2001). taxes and charitable giving. National Tax Journal, 54(3)
433-453.
Kim, M. (2013). policies to end the gender wage gap in the united states. Review of Radical
Political Economics, 45(3), 278-283.
Knowles, S., & Servatka, M. (2015). transaction costs, the opportunity cost of time and
procrastination in charitable giving. Journal of Public Economics, 12554-63.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.csus.edu/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.03.001
Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public use dataset. Produced and distributed by the Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
(2016).
Piper, G., & Schnepf, S. V. (2008). gender differences in charitable giving in great britain.
Voluntas: International Journal Of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, 19(2),
103-124. doi:10.1007/s11266-008-9057-9
Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2007). the effects of children and employment status on the volunteer
work of american women. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 487-503.
Sauer, R. M. (2015). does it pay for women to volunteer? International Economic Review, 56(2),
537-564.
Stevenson, B & Wolfers, J. (2007). marriage and divorce: changes and their driving forces.
The National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from: nber.org/papers/w12944

ECON145-Final Version

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to ECON145-Final Version

Similar to ECON145-Final Version (20)

ECON145-Final Version