Suchergebnisse

This article considers what drives donors to leave charitable bequests. Building on theories of charitable bequest giving, we consider two types of motivations for leaving a bequest: attitudinal and structural motivations. Using unique Australian data, we show that a strong belief in the efficacy of charitable organisations has a significant positive effect on the likelihood of leaving a bequest, as does past giving behaviour and having no children. As bequests constitute an important income stream for charitable organisations, this research can help fundraisers better target their marketing strategies towards those most likely to plan their estates and motivate these people to make bequests.

"Fundraisers inspire generosity, which fuels the work of millions of charities worldwide. Historically an altruistic role performed by those paid to work on behalf of a charity, it is now becoming increasingly taught as well as professionalised. Several European governments have stepped in to ensure tighter regulation and promote better practice. The UK's Institute of Fundraising was granted chartered status in 2020, offering formal recognition of fundraising as a profession. But the action needed to build a systematic body of knowledge is limited. To ensure this complex and skilled role is taught and delivered to the highest standard, with autonomy, self-regulation, ethics, altruism and systematic knowledge, the work in this area needs to be synthesised and understood in its totality to create a future generation of fundraisers better equipped to inspire generous societies. Answering this urgent need, The Philanthropy Reader draws together a body of empirically grounded literature to establish the body of knowledge needed in one place to ease the work of tutors leading academic courses in fundraising, as well as aid those who seek professional development in fundraising. The book contains a compilation of internationally sourced essential extracts of key writing on fundraising, with a comprehensive introduction that explains the relevance of the content of the chapter to the academic and professional study of fundraising, provides a commentary on the selected texts and describes the contours of core debates. Each chapter also contains an introduction that discusses the relevance of the selected texts to the academic and professional study of fundraising and ends with suggestions for how to incorporate the texts in the classroom, as well as example reading questions"--

There has been a steady increase in research studying the role of gender in prosocial behavior, such as charitable giving and volunteering. We provide an extensive review of the interdisciplinary literature and derive hypotheses about three different pathways that lead men and women to differ in their display of giving and volunteering: pathways through social capital, motivations, and resources. We test these hypotheses across 19 countries by analyzing 28,410 individuals, using generalized structural equation models. Our results support previous research, conducted in single countries, that there are distinct different pathways that lead men and women to engage in giving and volunteering: Women report stronger motivations to help others, but men report more of the financial resources that make giving and volunteering possible. The gendered pathways to giving and volunteering that lead through social capital, educational achievement, and financial security vary by country.

The authors present the first cross-national comparison of more than 300 national campaigns for charitable causes in the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and the United States for the period 1950 to 2011. The authors study frequency and amounts raised, discuss successful and failed campaigns, and review the literature with regard to potential determinants of success. The authors group these determinants into three categories: (a) perceived characteristics of recipients, notably their need, agency, and blamelessness; (b) donor characteristics, such as geographical and cultural proximity, a gain in status or reputation, and material incentives; and (c) structural characteristics of the giving regime, such as the frequency and media formats of campaigns, fundraising rules and regulations, and trust.

We study the charitable behavior of the wealthiest individuals in a very affluent and unequal society, that of the Dutch during their "Golden Age" (late 16th to the 17th centuries). Did these wealthy elites share their prosperity with those less fortunate? Using rare data from printed sources and wills located in archives, we study their inter vivos giving as well as their charitable bequests. Our study shows that the elites were surprisingly uncharitable: Only 15% made documented life-time gifts, and their bequests were valued around 1% of their wealth. Charity was embedded in the whole social fabric save the frugal top. Our results show that burghers made more documented life-time gifts than those belonging to the nobility and regent classes. In addition, those belonging to a religious minority as well as those without children gave more. We conclude our article with implications and limitations of elite philanthropy for society.

Giving in the Netherlands provides the macro-economic estimates of philanthropy by households, bequests, foundations, corporations and lotteries. The Center for Philanthropic Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has conducted the research since 1995. This is the 13th edition, about giving in the year 2020.

Giving in the Netherlands 2022 answers the following questions: How generous are the Dutch in their charitable giving? Who gives to which charitable causes? How has giving behavior developed over the past 25 years? In Giving in the Netherlands, we do not only examine financial contributions, but also volunteer service.

Giving in the Netherlands contributes to the visibility of the philanthropic sector in the Netherlands. This is important to legitimize an independent and rapidly growing sector.

In 2020, the Netherlands gave € 5.6 billion ($ 5.6 billion, £ 4.9 billion) which equals 0.7% of GDP. As a proportion of GDP, the Netherlands gave slightly less in 2020 than in 2018. In addition, 44% of the population was engaged in volunteer work. Corporations and households give most. Together, corporations and households are responsible for almost 80% of all philanthropy in the Netherlands. While, every source has a favorite charitable cause, health received the most in 2020.

In this article, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multilevel analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy.

In this article, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multilevel analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy. ; Peer reviewed

In this article, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multilevel analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy. ; The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Pamala Wiepking was funded for her work in this paper by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research grant VI 451-09-022 and by the SPP Do Good Institute—ARNOVA Global Philanthropy & Nonprofit Leadership Award. Her work at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy is funded by the Stead Family, and her work at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is funded by the Dutch Charity Lotteries. Femida Handy was funded for her work in this paper by the University of Pennsylvania's PURM mentorship grant. Both authors are grateful for the support and funding received.

In this paper, we examine whether and how the institutional context matters when understanding individuals' giving to philanthropic organizations. We posit that both the individuals' propensity to give and the amounts given are higher in countries with a stronger institutional context for philanthropy. We examine key factors of formal and informal institutional contexts for philanthropy at both the organizational and societal levels, including regulatory and legislative frameworks, professional standards, and social practices. Our results show that while aggregate levels of giving are higher in countries with stronger institutionalization, multi-level analyses of 118,788 individuals in 19 countries show limited support for the hypothesized relationships between institutional context and philanthropy. The findings suggest the need for better comparative data to understand the complex and dynamic influences of institutional contexts on charitable giving. This, in turn, would support the development of evidence-based practices and policies in the field of global philanthropy.