際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Challenges for Comparative Research on Philanthropy in Europe

Download as PPT, PDF
Rene Bekkers
Rene Bekkers

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

1 of 30
Download to read offline
Challenges for Comparative Research on Philanthropy in Europe Ren辿 Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam ,The Netherlands R.Bekkers@vu.nl 12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 1
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
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
Were 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
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 5
What now? Lets start all over again. And do it better. 12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 6
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 lets do this! 12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 7
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
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 9
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
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
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
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
WARNING DATA FROM THESE MEASURES MAY BE *VERY FAR* FROM THE LIKELY TRUE VALUES 12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 14
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 Thats the Question. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3): 533 540. 12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 15
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
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
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
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
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
What we dont 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Thanks, says Ren辿 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
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
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

More Related Content

Challenges for Comparative Research on Philanthropy in Europe

  • 1. Challenges for Comparative Research on Philanthropy in Europe Ren辿 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. Were 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? Lets 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 lets 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 Thats 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 dont 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 Ren辿 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

Editor's Notes

  • #14: Goed: hele range van mogelijke organisaties Slecht (voor geefgedrag): categorieen organisaties niet optimaal voor het onderzoeken van donaties