Problem Statement
In every society, certain groups, including the poor, ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities, and those affected by natural or personal disasters, often struggle to keep pace with economic growth and development These marginalized populations represent a significant portion of the community, highlighting the need for targeted support and intervention to foster inclusive progress According to The World Bank, addressing the challenges faced by these individuals is crucial for achieving overall economic advancement.
As of 2012, 12.7% of the global population, equating to 896 million individuals, lived on less than $1.90 a day The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported in 2014 that 794.6 million people were undernourished, primarily in developing countries Climate change and environmental disasters contribute to over 300,000 deaths annually, according to the World Hunger Education Service In 2014, UNICEF highlighted that more than one million children were living in poverty, with 22,000 child deaths occurring each day Additionally, over 2 million children faced threats from preventable diseases The Disabled World reported that individuals with disabilities make up 10% of the global population, totaling 650 million, with 20% living in extreme poverty as of 2014.
Neglecting individuals in need can lead to widespread unhappiness and inequality within society Consequently, many economies strive for efficiency while also offering support to those facing hardships Significant efforts are dedicated to alleviating their suffering, aiding in disaster recovery, and enhancing their capacity to thrive in their environments.
In 2015, the US government allocated $888 billion for beneficiaries, with $440 spent annually per person for old age survivor issues and $90 billion for disability in 2005 According to Eurostat Statistics, in 2014, 21 out of 28 EU member countries collectively spent EUR 1717 billion on unemployment, survivors, disability, and old age, which accounted for 17.5% of GDP in Greece, 15% in Italy, France, and Austria, and 7.9% in Estonia, 7.3% in Ireland, and 7.7% in Lithuania.
Funding for relief, recovery, and resilience initiatives primarily comes from taxation, which is known to distort markets Taxes on goods and services can lead to inefficient resource allocation and create deadweight loss Additionally, income taxes diminish the incentive to work, ultimately reducing overall welfare.
Charity giving serves as an alternative funding source for aiding those in need, offering a more efficient solution than taxation Unlike taxes, which can distort resource allocation and diminish work incentives, charitable donations are voluntary, allowing individuals to contribute based on their willingness This voluntary nature not only enhances the efficiency of resource distribution but also alleviates the financial burden on those facing economic hardships.
In 2015, the Charities Aid Foundation conducted a comprehensive study across more than 130 countries, utilizing Gallup's data collection methods to analyze charity donation behaviors The research focused on various aspects of charitable activities, including the propensity to give, assist strangers, donate money, and volunteer time over the past year.
Over the past five years, the top five countries in terms of charitable giving are Myanmar, the United States, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia According to Giving USA (2015), private charitable donations in the U.S exceeded $269 billion, with over $100 billion allocated to religious causes in 2014 alone UK Giving (2014) reported that private donations in the UK reached £10.6 billion, primarily supporting religious causes, which accounted for 14% of total donations Medical, children’s, hospital, and overseas causes also received significant funding, ranging from 11% to 12% In Canada, Social Trends (2011) estimated that total donations in 2010 were around 11 billion CAD, with an average individual contribution of $466 Overall, charitable donations represent a substantial financial commitment worldwide.
Charity donations have emerged as a significant alternative funding source, capturing the interest of economists, both theoretical and empirical Various economic models have been created to analyze the dynamics of charitable giving, including the pure altruism model presented by Andreoni.
Bergstrom, Blume, and Varian (1986) suggest that individuals perceive the outcomes of charitable activities as public goods that provide utility Andreoni's warm-glow giving model (1989, 1990) highlights that the pleasure derived from giving influences donation amounts Glazer and Conrad's conspicuous giving model (1996) posits that donations serve as a means to display one's wealth and status Building on the concept of impure altruism, Kolm (2000) introduces a reciprocity model, where donations are motivated by an expectation of future assistance, emphasizing fairness and appreciation Unlike pure altruism, which focuses solely on the benefits to charities, these models illustrate that donors gain satisfaction from the act of giving itself, categorizing them as impure altruism models.
Charity giving has become a significant topic of study across various fields, including economics, psychology, marketing, and business science Economists analyze this phenomenon through empirical and experimental data to understand the underlying issues related to donations (e.g., Andreoni and Gale 1996, Bauer et al 2012) In contrast, research in psychology and marketing often emphasizes the influence of psychological factors, perceptions, and attitudes on donation behavior (e.g., Sargeant et al 2005, Chompff 2009).
In Vietnam, a significant portion of the population requires assistance, highlighting a persistent issue of poverty that is common in many developing nations According to the Ministry of
According to the Labor Invalids and Social Affairs report (2008), between 17% to 19% of households in Vietnam live in poverty, impacting approximately 15.4 to 17.2 million individuals The 2014 Global Hunger Index ranked Vietnam 15th out of 81 countries, indicating a serious hunger situation with a GHI score of 7.5, which is below the threshold for serious hunger (GHI of 10.0 – 19.9) Additionally, a 2010 nationwide survey by the Ministry of Health revealed a concerning malnutrition rate of 29.3% among children, while around 7.8% of the population lives with disabilities.
The Vietnamese government has established a comprehensive social security system that includes social insurance and protection to address various social issues such as poverty, unemployment, occupational accidents, healthcare, and support for the elderly According to the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs, social spending accounted for 6.61% of the country's GDP in 2015, with expenditures rising from 190.86 trillion VND in 2012 to 259.83 trillion VND in 2014.
Private donations play a crucial role in addressing social issues and supporting charitable activities, as highlighted by a study from the Asia Foundation (2011) on charity in Vietnam The household sector contributed approximately 627 billion VND, with an average annual donation of 800,000 VND per household in urban areas like Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Long An, and Thai Binh In contrast, rural households donated an average of only 60,000 VND per year Corporate donations totaled 1.836 billion VND annually, with 8% coming from Hanoi and 66% from Ho Chi Minh City The research also revealed that 40% of charitable contributions are aimed at marketing objectives, another 40% are driven by altruism, while the remaining 20% serve both purposes.
Research Objectives and scope of study
This study investigates the factors influencing donation behavior, encompassing monetary, in-kind, and time donations Utilizing logit and multivariate probit models alongside standard statistical techniques, the research identifies key determinants such as individual characteristics and attitudes toward charitable giving Notably, attitudinal and perceptual variables reflect psychological elements like altruism, warm-glow effects, prestige, reciprocity, and social influence.
Structure of the thesis
This thesis is structured into five chapters, with Chapter 2 offering a concise overview of theoretical models, specifically focusing on pure and impure altruism, alongside a review of empirical studies, including experimental and psychological research Chapter 3 details the research methodologies employed, encompassing data collection techniques, the survey instrument utilized, and the hypothesis testing conducted through logistic regression and multivariate probit regression analyses.
Chapter 4 presents the results in three parts including descriptive statistics, determinants of donation, and analysis of donation behavior Chapter 5 concludes the thesis.
Theoretical Models of Charity Giving
The Pure Altruism Model
Altruism is a key factor driving individual charitable behavior, as it is believed to enhance the overall well-being of the community Pure altruism, as proposed by researchers like Andreoni and Bergstrom, suggests that the outcomes of charitable actions are public goods that contribute positively to an individual's utility function.
� � = �(� � , )� Where� is the output of charities which is � ∑ �
� � in a community of � individuals, including �.
The pure altruism model suggests that individuals gain utility from the consumption of others, meaning that their donations enhance both the well-being of others and their own satisfaction To maximize their utility, individuals must strategically allocate their income between personal consumption and charitable contributions This relationship can be mathematically represented as maximizing utility, expressed as max U = f(C1, C2), where C1 and C2 represent the two consumption items.
� � st�� � + � � ≤ � where � is the vector of prices of consumption goods � �
Another theoretical variant of the pure altruism model was suggested by Kolm (2000) in
�= 1 case of altruism which the giver concerned about the specific receiver’s benefit
� � = (�� � − � �� , � � + � �� ) where� � , � � are the amounts of initial endowment of the giver � and the receiver �,
� �� is the amount of the donation from � to � As individual � increase the donation amount, the utility decreases as the argument � � − � �� decreses, while utility increases because the argument
The decision to donate is influenced by the net utility effect of the incremental donation; individuals are more likely to contribute if this effect is positive Consequently, each person determines their optimal level of giving based on maximizing their overall utility.
Literature Review 2.2 A Review of empirical studies on charity giving
Empirical Studies
Andreoni and Gale (1996) utilized a warm-glow altruism model to examine charitable donation behaviors concerning money and labor, analyzing over 1,000 U.S households Their findings revealed that the cost of donations, influenced by taxes, negatively impacts the contributions of both time and money Additionally, individual characteristics such as income, education, and age play a significant role in donation behavior, with higher-income, more educated, and older individuals tending to donate more Conversely, donations are lower among females, non-white individuals, and those with children under the age of three.
In another application of a warm-glow altruism model, Bauer, Bredtmann, and Schmidt
(2012) researched the relationship between time and money contributions at individual and country level The data is from the European Social Survey with 22,756 individuals across
This study analyzes private consumption patterns in 22 countries using the Menchik and Weisbrod (1987) model, which considers utility as a function of private consumption, voluntary contributions, and public goods Employing a bivariate probit model, it examines the determinants of time and money donations, incorporating individual and country-level variables The research highlights that individuals often shift from donating time to donating money as the opportunity cost of time rises Additionally, unemployed individuals are less likely to contribute compared to those working over 45 hours Gender differences are also noted, with females generally less likely to donate than males; however, women aged 46-65 are more active in charitable giving, contributing both time and money.
Individuals aged 25 and younger are less inclined to participate in voluntary activities, while those with tertiary education are more likely to contribute to charitable causes Factors negatively impacting charitable donations include being an immigrant, not being a church member, the number of partners in a household, and the number of children aged 0-5 Additionally, income exhibits an inverse U-shaped relationship with the likelihood of donating; as income increases, the probability of donation rises, but it subsequently declines once a certain income threshold is reached Consequently, both the poorest and the wealthiest individuals are the least likely to make donations.
In a study conducted by Kitchen (1992) on the factors influencing charity donations in Canada, data from the Survey of Family Expenditure for 1982 and 1986 was analyzed The research utilized two models, focusing on total contributions and religious donations Employing a Tobit model, the study revealed that factors such as income, wealth, and age positively impacted both general and religious contributions, while the price of donations significantly affected general donations but not religious ones in most provinces.
Yao (2015) conducted an analysis of the 2012 General Social Survey in the United States to explore the factors influencing charitable giving and volunteering, utilizing binomial and multinomial logit models The study identified key determinants such as income, marital status, age, religion, political affiliation, children status, employment, social self-rank, and residential area Findings revealed that higher income, marital status, religious beliefs, and elevated social ranking correlate with increased frequency and occurrence of donations, while having children tends to reduce the likelihood of donating Additionally, older individuals are less likely to participate in volunteer activities, although they do volunteer more frequently Political party affiliation also significantly influences volunteering behavior Overall, the relationship between monetary and time-based donations is significantly affected by income, age, marital status, religion, children status, political factors, and social self-rank, with other independent variables showing no significant impact.
Experimental Studies
In a study by Ded, Gazzale, and Kotchen (2013), an experiment was conducted to explore the motivations behind charitable giving, categorizing participants into various models such as warm-glow, pure altruism, impure altruism, relative donation, and relative consumption The findings revealed that a significant 94.12% of subjects identified with relative consumption alongside relative donation, while only 49.58% were classified under the warm-glow model, indicating a strong preference for relative consumption in charitable behaviors.
Brown, Meer, and Williams (2013) conducted a laboratory experiment to explore why individuals choose to volunteer, focusing on how donation behavior varies across different scenarios The study included four treatments: a Baseline where participants could earn and donate at the end, a Continual Reminder prompting subjects about their donation options, a Continual Donation allowing donations at any time, and a Toggle option where participants could choose to earn for themselves or for charity Results indicated that donation behavior in the Continual Reminder condition did not significantly differ from the Baseline, highlighting the complexities of motivation in charitable giving.
Donation is stronger than that in Continual Reminder, and that under Toggle is stronger than that under Continual Donation.
A study by Sussman, Sharma, and Alter (2015) revealed that individuals are more likely to donate when they perceive the donation opportunity as rare rather than common Involving 401 participants, the experiment presented advertisements for the Alzheimer Association charity walk under two conditions: "held annually" and "only once a year," with brief messages Participants viewed these ads for a minimum of 10 seconds, illustrating how frequency perception influences charitable responses The second phase of the research explored the ads' impact on participants' daily lives, highlighting that minor changes in charity walk messaging can significantly affect charitable behavior Although the study did not quantify donation amounts, it found that, on average, one to three out of 100 respondents clicked on the ads The final experiment assessed the influence of exceptional framing on charitable donations, with participants indicating how much they would spend on various items, including charity donations, organic milk, and movie tickets.
Research Methodology 3.1 The model
Data collection method
In statistical science, two primary sampling methods are utilized: probability sampling and non-probability sampling Probability sampling involves known probabilities for elements within a population, while non-probability sampling is employed when the selection frequency of population elements is unequal According to Fred, Thomas, and James (2012), there is no evidence to suggest that probability sampling is inherently more accurate than non-probability sampling.
Choosing non-probability sampling is appropriate for this research due to several factors The study examines various elements such as age, education, and occupation, which may have conflicting frequencies Additionally, time and financial constraints support the use of this sampling method Specifically, convenience sampling, a key type of non-probability sampling, is selected for its reliance on the accessibility and convenience of respondents The target sample size is set at 500 questionnaires utilizing this non-probabilistic approach.
the survey instruments
The structured questionnaire comprises three key sections: donor and volunteer activities, attitudes toward charitable donations, and respondent demographics The first section gathers data on donor and volunteer participation over the past year The second section explores factors such as altruism, warm glow, prestige, reciprocity, and social influence, utilizing a 5-point Likert scale for measurement The final section captures respondent characteristics, including age, religion, social status, income, education, and gender For the complete questionnaire, please refer to Appendix 2.
In the pretest phase, the initial questionnaire included numerous questions aimed at gathering detailed information about respondents' donation activities over the past year, such as donation amounts and recipient organizations However, feedback from 200 participants revealed that many struggled to complete the survey, particularly regarding questions about donation amounts and frequency Consequently, we revised the questionnaire for the main survey, which was administered to 500 respondents, streamlining it by eliminating less critical questions while retaining essential ones to effectively address our research objectives.
The final sample consists of 14 questions implemented with 500 respondents by convenient sampling method (see Appendix 2).
econometric models and Hypothesises
As mentioned, we analyze the probability of giving using the logit model, and the probability of donating time, in-kind gifts and money simultaneously using the multivariate probit model.
In the logit model, the dependent variable has only two cases: Y = 1 indicating the respondent donating either time, money or in-kind gifts, and Y = 0 otherwise.
The multivariate probit model in this study is a system of 3 equations, and therefore 3 dummy dependent variables� � where � = 1, 2, 3 indicating time, in-kind gifts and money.
� 1 = 1 if the respondent donate time, otherwise zero
� 2 = 1 if the respondent donate in-kind gifts, otherwise zero
� 3 = 1 if the respondent donate money, otherwise zero.
Independent variables for both models are the identical, including groups of (1) individual characteristics, (2) altruism, (3) tax incentive, (4) prestige, (5) family influence, (6) social influence.
The standard t-test is utilized to assess the significance of estimated coefficients, while we also apply the t-test to evaluate mean differences and the chi-squared test to analyze percentage differences, specifically focusing on variations in donation behavior among different groups of respondents.
Analysis of Charity Giving Behavior 4.1 Respondents Profile
The Charity Giving
In a sample of 454 observations, Table 3 reveals that 66% of respondents engaged in charity giving over the past 12 months, indicating a significantly higher proportion of donors compared to non-donors.
Table 3 illustrates the frequency of charitable donations among respondents, revealing that out of the total sample, 300 individuals donated while 153 did not Among the types of donations, monetary contributions lead with 57.6%, followed by in-kind donations at 28.5%, with time donations accounting for the lowest percentage at 15.5%.
Gender
The percentages of male and female respondents in the sample is quite undifferentiable, with 47.2% male and 52.8% female respondents (see Table 3).
A recent analysis of charity donations revealed that 77% of female respondents engaged in charitable giving, surpassing male participation by 22.8 percentage points To assess the significance of this difference, a Chi-square test was conducted, yielding a p-value of 0.000, which is below the 10% threshold This indicates a statistically significant disparity in charity donation rates between males and females.
Table 4 Percentage of donation by individual characteristics and Chi2 test
Education High School Upper High School p-value
Religion No Religion Religion p-value
Education
In our study, respondents are categorized into two groups based on their education levels: those with a degree higher than high school and those who completed high school or less Notably, the high school or lower group constitutes 64% of the total respondents, significantly exceeding the 36% representation of the upper high school group (refer to Table 3).
A study on charity donations revealed that 64.9% of high school respondents and 68.5% of upper high school respondents reported making donations The Chi-square test indicated a p-value of 0.441, which exceeds the 10% threshold, suggesting no significant difference in donation proportions between the two groups.
Income
The survey results indicate that respondents are divided into two income categories: 20% earn 5 million VND or less per month, while 80% earn more than 5 million VND This data shows that the majority of respondents belong to the higher income group, highlighting a significant disparity in income levels.
In donation case, the 5 million income group makes up 34.8% and the higher-than-5- million income group has 73.9% giving to charity, with the p-value of the chi-square test equals
0.000 Therefore, there is a statistical difference between the proportions of these two group in charity donation (see Table 4).
Religion
There is 68% religious respondents while those who are not account for 32% (See Table
In charitable donations, religious individuals constitute the largest segment, accounting for 87% of participation in charity activities, while non-religious groups represent only 22% A chi-square test reveals a significant difference in the proportions of charitable giving between these two groups, with a p-value of 0.000.
Age
The respondents' ages span from 15 to 70, with an average age of 33 Notably, the average age of individuals who donate to charity is 35, compared to 28 for those who do not donate A t-test was conducted to assess the difference in average age between these two groups.
Table 5 Respondents’ Age Descriptive Statistics
Age Observation Mean Minimum Maximum Std.
The t-test result represents the p-value equals 0.000 which means there is a difference in age between the two groups of donating and non-donating.
Perception and attitude toward charity giving
This section outlines a five-point scale used to assess respondents' levels of agreement The subsequent results detail the percentage of agreement and the corresponding p-values.
The 5-point-scale variables are transformed to binary variables, each indicating two groups.The “importance” group (points 4, 5) is count for value of 1, other cases (points 1, 2, 3) is 0Then, the following statistical results is represented.
Table 6 Summary of statistic results
Factor Proportion of respondents choosing
Percentage of charity giving by groups of p-value of chi- square test
Not important (scale of 1, 2 and 3)
Altruism 1: I believe charity activities are the right thing that needs to do
The statistical analysis reveals that 83.22% of respondents rated the importance of altruism positively, with 73.5% of those agreeing that charitable activities are worthwhile engaging in some form of charity giving Conversely, 30.3% of respondents who deemed the statement unimportant still contributed to charitable donations The chi-square test yielded a p-value of 0.000, indicating a significant difference in charity donation behaviors between the two groups.
Altruism 2: I feel good about myself if I donate to someone
The Importance group constitutes 74.1% of charity donations, while the Altruism 1 group accounts for 39.2%, with a statistically significant p-value of 0.000 This indicates a notable difference in the proportions of these two groups regarding their contributions to charity (Refer to Table 6)
Altruism 3: I care about well-being of each other and want to help them
In a comparison of two groups regarding the significance of charity donations, 73.5% of respondents prioritized importance, while 41.2% did not The analysis yielded a p-value of 0.000, indicating no significant difference between the proportions of these groups in their charitable contributions.
Warm-glow: I do charity because of memories of the loved one
The importance group demonstrates a significant donation percentage of 75.1%, compared to 52.8% in the other group, with a p-value of 0.000 This indicates a notable difference in charity donation proportions between the two groups.
Family Influence: My family has a long tradition of charity giving, so I want to keep it moving
The “importance” group account for 81.7% and the other 49.5% The p-value is 0.000 So there is difference between the proportions of importance group and the others in charity donation (See Table 6)
Prestige 1: I want to be recognized
A significant difference exists between the importance group and other respondents regarding charity donations, with 41.7% selecting points 4 and 5 The calculated p-value of 0.000 indicates a strong statistical difference in proportions, as detailed in Table 6.
Prestige 2: Because I’ll receive local prestige
A significant 42.6% of respondents believe that local prestige is important for charitable donations, while 69.4% hold differing views The analysis reveals a p-value of 0.000, indicating a substantial difference between the two groups regarding the perceived importance of local prestige in charity contributions.
Tax Incentive: the tax benefit of giving is the main motive for me to perform charity
A significant portion of respondents, 37.9%, believe that the tax benefits associated with charitable giving are important, while 68.2% hold differing views The p-value of 0.001 indicates a notable difference in the proportions of those who prioritize tax benefits in their charitable donations compared to others.
Reciprocity: I want to give back the benefit from charity giving
A survey revealed that 54.1% of respondents expressed a desire to benefit from charitable giving, while 68.1% of others felt similarly However, the p-value of 0.736 indicates that there is no significant difference between the responses of those who consider charity donations unimportant and those who do not.
Government Influence: I join in charity donation because of government suggestion.
A significant 83.3% of respondents indicated that they donate due to government suggestions, compared to 56.7% from other motivations The p-value of 0.000 highlights a notable difference between the unimportance group and other respondents regarding their charity donation behaviors, suggesting that government influence plays a critical role in shaping donation patterns.
Determinants of Donation: Econometric Analysis
This section presents the estimation results of the logit model and the multivariate probit model.
The first column of Table 7 displays the actual observations, coded as 0 for "no" donation and 1 for "yes" donation The table shows the number of observations classified as donated or not donated, as predicted by the logit regression model There are 125 instances of accurately predicted non-donations and 279 instances of correctly predicted donations, resulting in a total of 404 correct predictions, which accounts for 89.2% accuracy.
Actual donation Predicted Donation Percentage of correct prediction
Table 8 presents the Logistic Regression Results, which include the estimated coefficients (β), robust standard errors, and marginal effects The coefficient β indicates the directional relationship between the dependent and independent variables, while the robust standard error addresses potential heteroskedasticity Additionally, the marginal effects illustrate how a unit change in independent variables affects the probability of donation.
We utilized the variance inflation factor (VIF) to assess multicollinearity in our analysis, identifying that Altruism 1 and Altruism 3 exhibited high collinearity with VIF values exceeding 10 Consequently, we excluded Altruism 3 from our model, resulting in all remaining VIF values falling below the threshold of 10 (Refer to Appendix 4 and 6 for details.)
In analyzing the individual characteristics of respondents, it is noteworthy that all factors, except for education, exhibit a statistically significant relationship, with p-values lower than 10% These significant variables include gender, age, religion, and income.
The analysis reveals that gender significantly influences donation behavior, with male respondents demonstrating a lower likelihood of donating compared to their female counterparts, holding other factors constant Specifically, the marginal effects indicate that female respondents are 20.7 percentage points more likely to make a donation than male respondents.
Research indicates a strong positive correlation between religion and charitable donations, with a coefficient of 3.224 This suggests that individuals who are religious are significantly more inclined to contribute to charitable causes Furthermore, the analysis reveals that religious individuals outnumber their non-religious counterparts by 60.8 percentage points, highlighting the impact of religious affiliation on charitable giving.
Table 8 Logistic Regression Results Β Robust Std Err Marginal Effects Gender
Notes: (***) significant at 1% level, (**) 5% level, and (*) 10% level.
Individuals with a monthly income exceeding 5 million VND are more likely to donate to charity, with a marginal effect of 41.4% This indicates that higher-income respondents tend to contribute more than those in lower income brackets The positive correlation between income levels and charitable donations is further supported by a coefficient of 2.026, highlighting the significant impact of income on charitable giving.
The analysis reveals a significant difference in the average age of donors compared to the overall observations, as indicated by a p-value of less than 1% Furthermore, the marginal effect of age shows that for every additional year, donations increase by 1.9 percentage points.
The analysis reveals that education is not a statistically significant factor in influencing charity giving decisions, as indicated by a p-value exceeding 10% This suggests that differences in education levels between the two groups do not have a meaningful impact on their charitable contributions.
Altruism, warm-glow effects, family influence, and government influence significantly impact charitable donations Among these factors, altruism stands out as a primary motivator, while the warm-glow effect can have a contrasting influence on charitable decision-making Additionally, the role of family and government can shape individual contributions, highlighting the complex dynamics that drive charitable participation.
The marginal effect of -0.151 indicates that individuals who view charitable giving as a warm glow are 15.1 percentage points less likely to donate Conversely, factors positively influencing charitable actions include altruism, family influence, and government support.
Table 9 illustrates the multivariate probit model analyzing in-kind gifts, time donations, and monetary contributions The p-value of 0.000 indicates a significant correlation among these three functions, necessitating their inclusion in a unified multivariate probit model This approach avoids potential bias that could arise from regressing the dependent variables separately in distinct logit or probit models Additionally, a p-value of 0.02 suggests that the null hypothesis, which posits no differences among the coefficient values, is rejected.
The in-kind gift function is influenced by several key factors, including education, religion, income, altruism, and family influence, all of which positively impact donations Conversely, tax incentives have a negative relationship with in-kind donations, suggesting that while personal values and social factors encourage giving, financial incentives may not have the same effect.
The analysis of the time donation function reveals that only religion and income have a p-value below 10%, indicating their statistical significance Both factors demonstrate a positive relationship with the willingness to donate time, while other factors do not influence respondents' decisions to contribute time.
The analysis reveals that personal characteristics and altruistic factors significantly influence money donations Notably, female respondents are more likely to donate than their male counterparts, indicated by a coefficient of -0.438 Furthermore, tax incentives negatively affect donation behavior, aligning with prior hypotheses Additionally, family influence plays a crucial role, positively impacting the likelihood of making monetary contributions.
Table 9 Multivariate probit estimation results for in-kind gift, time, and money donation
Gift in Kind Gift in Time Gift in Money
Prob> chi2 (for non- correlated error terms)
Notes: ***significant at 1%, ** 5%, and * 10% Robust standard errors are in parentheses.
Conclusions and Policy Implications 5.1 Research Objective Summary
The Regression Models Summary
There are two types of regression models used to analyze donation behaviors: the logit model and the multivariate probit model The logit model assesses the probability of making a donation, while the multivariate probit model evaluates the likelihood of donating time, in-kind gifts, and money through a system of three equations In the logit model, donations are categorized with Y=1 for respondents who contribute to any type of charity and Y=0 for those who do not Conversely, the multivariate probit model utilizes three variables, denoted as Y=1, 2, and 3, to represent time, in-kind donations, and monetary contributions, respectively.
The Data Collection Summary
The study utilized a structured questionnaire divided into three key sections: donating and volunteering activities, attitudes and perceptions toward charity donations, and respondent profiles over the past year The data collection process occurred in two stages: a retest stage involving 200 respondents who completed all 32 questions, particularly focusing on donation amounts and giving frequency, followed by a redesigned questionnaire with 14 questions administered to 500 respondents Ultimately, 453 completed surveys were deemed suitable for analysis in this research.
The Main Finding
The regression model largely confirmed the initial hypothesis regarding factors influencing charitable giving Significant differences were found in charity donations based on gender, age, religion, income, altruism, warm-glow, family influence, tax incentives, and government influence Notably, education did not correlate with charitable donations Female respondents contributed more than their male counterparts, and age was an important factor, with a marginal effect of 0.019 indicating that each additional year of age corresponds to increased donations Religion positively influenced charitable giving, while individuals earning over 5 million VND donated more than those with lower incomes The analysis also revealed that altruism, family influence, and government influence significantly impacted donation behavior Interestingly, the warm-glow factor exhibited a negative coefficient, contrary to prior expectations.
Multivariate Probit regression reveals the dynamics of three donation types: gift in kind, gift in time, and money donation, influenced by individual characteristics and economic theories of giving Gender significantly affects monetary donations, with female respondents donating more than males Age negatively correlates with time donations, indicating that older individuals tend to donate less time Education positively influences both gift in kind and money donations, as those with higher education levels contribute more Altruism plays a crucial role, with beliefs in charitable activities significantly impacting money donations, while personal satisfaction from donating enhances gift in kind contributions Additionally, family influence and tax incentives positively correlate with both gift in kind and monetary donations.
The most significant information channel is relationships, accounting for 27% of responses, followed by websites at 20% and media sources at 17% Among respondents involved in charity distribution, relationships dominate at 58.7% For those with an income exceeding 5 million VND, websites and other channels play a crucial role Gender analysis reveals that relationships and websites have a P-value below 10%, with females being more engaged with websites and males favoring relationships Religion influences email usage, with 16.2% of respondents without religion using email compared to 4.8% of those with religion; the latter group shows a higher preference for other channels at 20.4% Education also affects channel preferences, as high school graduates exhibit a strong inclination towards relationships (63.6%), while upper high school graduates show higher engagement with email (12.4%) and websites (59.3%).
Policy Implication
The multivariate probit model indicates that individuals with higher income and religious affiliations are more inclined to contribute in-kind gifts, time, and financial donations Consequently, fundraisers should focus their efforts on targeting this demographic of high-income, religious individuals to maximize donations.
Research indicates that gender significantly impacts monetary donations, with males showing a negative correlation Therefore, fundraisers should target female donors to enhance fundraising efforts However, when it comes to in-kind contributions and volunteer time, there is no notable difference between male and female individuals in terms of their likelihood to donate.
Fundraisers are more likely to succeed in securing in-kind and monetary donations when targeting individuals with a high school education or higher, as education plays a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness of donation efforts.
Attitudinal and perceptual factors generally show insignificant effects on donation behaviors, with family influence being a notable exception Individuals from families with a strong tradition of charitable giving are more inclined to contribute across various donation types This suggests that fostering awareness among the current generation about the importance of donating can cultivate a lasting culture of generosity in future generations.
Limitations
The research utilized convenient sampling, which limits the ability to draw representative conclusions To enhance the validity of findings, especially regarding the Vietnamese population, a random sampling method should be employed at the provincial level Additionally, the implementation of this research faces challenges related to timing and financial constraints.
The survey failed to address crucial aspects such as the amount and frequency of charitable donations, which may stem from cultural and political challenges that are difficult to navigate Most donations are not channeled through specific charitable organizations, making it challenging to gather accurate information on donors' contributions Additionally, many respondents struggled to recall the frequency or amount of their donations Establishing a system of charity organizations with clear and transparent operations would significantly enhance research in this area.
One limitation of the psychological factors measured in this study is that they rely on only one or two variables, which may not adequately represent the underlying concepts While the questions posed do reflect certain aspects, a broader range of variables is necessary for a more comprehensive understanding Future research should incorporate at least 4-5 variables for each concept to capture the nuances effectively.
Andreoni, J (1989) Giving with impure altruism: applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence The Journal of Political Economy, 1447-1458.
Andreoni, J., & Payne, A A (2003) Do government grants to private charities crowd out giving or fund-raising? American Economic Review, 792-812.
Andreoni, J., Gale, W G., Scholz, J K., & Straub, J (1996) Charitable contributions of time and money University of Wisconsin–Madison Working Paper.
Andreoni, James "Why free ride?: Strategies and learning in public goods experiments." Journal of public Economics 37.3 (1988): 291-304.
Auten, Gerald E., HolgerSieg, and Charles T Clotfelter "Charitable giving, income, and taxes: an analysis of panel data." American Economic Review(2002): 371-382.
Basil, D Z., Ridgway, N M., & Basil, M D (2008) Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy Psychology & Marketing, 25(1), 1-23.
Belk, R W., &Pollay, R W (1985) Images of ourselves: The good life in twentieth century advertising Journal of Consumer Research, 887-897.
Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & Varian, H (1986) On the private provision of public goods Journal of public economics, 29(1), 25-49.
Braus, P (1994) Will Baby Boomers Give Generously
Brown, A L., Meer, J., & Williams, J F (2013) Why do people volunteer? An experimental analysis of preferences for time donations (No w19066) National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bui, X M (2014) Regional Minimum Wage Hanoi: Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
CanadaSocialTrend (2011) Charitable giving by Canadians.
CharitiesAidFoundation (2015) World Giving Index 2015 - A global view of giving trends.
Chompff, D (2009) Charity & Willing The Role of Individual Dispositions and Charity Perceptions on The Willingness to Donate Enonomics& Business, Maketing.
Clotfelter, C T (1980) Tax incentives and charitable giving: Evidence from a panel of taxpayers Journal of Public Economics, 13(3), 319-340.
Dang, A., Lê, S., Nghiem, T., Nguyen, L., & Phi, N (2011) ĐóngGópTừThiệntạiViệt Nam.
The Asia Foundation, VAPEC, Hanoi
Danko, W D., & Stanley, T J (1986) Identifying and reaching the donation prone individual: a nationwide assessment Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 2(1-2), 117-122.
Davis, J B (1992) The Economic Surplus in Advanced Economies.
DellaVigna, S., & John, A List, and Ulrike Malmendier 2012.“Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 1-56. DisabledWorld (2015) Facts & Statistics on Disabilities & Disability Issues
Edmundson, B (1986) Who Gives to Charity? 1986 American Demographic 45-49
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P A (1987) The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors Psychological bulletin, 101(1), 91.
The European Commission's Social Protection Committee, under the Directorate-General for Employment and Equal Opportunities, published a report in 2008 addressing child poverty and well-being within the EU The document outlines the current status of child poverty and proposes strategies for improvement, highlighting the need for effective policies to enhance the well-being of children across Europe.
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Unit E 2. Eurostat (2015) Social protection statistics - pension expenditure and pension beneficiaries.
FAO (2014) the Multiple Benefits Provide from Forests The United States: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States.
GivingUSA (2014) An Overview of Giving in 2014 USA.
Greg, P and Sylke, V S.(2007)Gender Differences in Charitable Giving IZA Discussion Paper, No.3242
Hann, C (2006) The gift and reciprocity: perspectives from economic anthropology Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, 1, 207-223.
Harbaugh, William T (1998) The Prestige Motive for Making Charitable Transfers," American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, May 1998, Vol 88, No.
Jones, A., &Posnett, J (1991) Charitable donations by UK households: evidence from the Family Expenditure Survey Applied Economics, 23(2), 343-351.
Kitchen, H., & Dalton, R (1990) Determinants of charitable donations by families in Canada: a regional analysis Applied Economics, 22(3), 285-299.
Kolm, S C (2000) Introduction: The economics of reciprocity, giving and altruism In Iea
Conference Volume Series (Vol 130, pp 1-46) Basingstoke; Macmillan Press; New York;
Kolm, S C., &Ythier, J M (Eds.) (2006) Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity: Foundations (Vol 1) Elsevier.
Lee, Y K., & Chang, C T (2007) Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(9), 1173- 1180.
Markstrom, C A., Huey, E., Stiles, B M., & Krause, A L (2010) Frameworks of caring and helping in adolescence: Are empathy, religiosity, and spirituality related constructs? Youth & Society, 42(1), 59-80.
Menchik, P L., &Weisbrod, B A (1987) Volunteer labor supply Journal of PublicEconomics, 32(2), 159-183.
Royer, M (1989) Please Give Generously, Okay? NSFRE 17 – 20
Sargeant, A (2008) Donor retention: What do we know and what can we do about it A
Report for the Association of Fundraising Professionals, Washington DC.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J B., & West, D C (2006) Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior Journal of Business Research, 59(2), 155-165.
Silver, M (1980) Affluence, Altruism, and Atrophy: The Decline of Welfare States New York University Press.
Simpson, J.C.(1986) Baby Boomers Have 60s Heritage, but Charities Say They're Cheap”. Wall Street Journal 33
Sussman, A B., Sharma, E., & Alter, A L (2015) Framing charitable donations as exceptional expenses increases giving Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(2), 130.
Sutherland, M B (1986) Education and empathy British Journal of Educational
The World Bank (2015) Poverty Overview Washington UK giving (2015) An Overview of Charitable Giving in UK
Unicef (2015) Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger.
USgovernmentspending (2015) What is the spending on Social Security? USA.
Von Grebmer, K., Saltzman, A., Birol, E., Wiesman, D., Prasai, N., Yin, S., & Sonntag,
A (2014) 2014 Global Hunger Index: The challenge of hidden hunger IFPRI books.
WHES (2015) 2015 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics World Hunger Education Service.
Yankelovich, D (1981) Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned upside down Psychology Today, 15(4), 5-91.
Vietnam – Netherlands Program For M.A in Development Economics
Economics of Charitable Giving Individual Donor Behavior Survey
From: Nguyen Ngoc NuOctober, 2015
My name is Nu Nguyen, a graduate student in the Master's program of Development Economics at the University of Economics under the Netherlands-Vietnam Programme For my final project, I am conducting research on the economics of charity, focusing on the key factors that influence individual donor behavior I invite you to participate in this important study by completing the survey.
Your responses are solely for research purposes, and you can remain anonymous without providing your name Please answer the questionnaires truthfully and to the best of your ability.
Thank you so much for providing useful information and, even, supporting me to finish an important part of this project.
If you have any questions or feedbacks about this project, please ask me via the following contract information.
Student’s name : Nu Ngoc Nguyen
Email : nu.nn@vnp.edu.vn
Part A: Donor and Volunteer Performance
1 Did you give any donation or volunteer charity for the last 12 months? a Yes ��Go to the questions from 2 to 15, and part B b I used to donate/ volunteer ��Go to the questions from 8 to 16, and part B c I have never donated/volunteer��Go to the questions 15,17 to 19 and part B
The questions from 2 to 15 are for respondents who are performing charity for the last
2 How was your charity performance situation in 2015 compare with in 2014? a The same b Better c Worse
3 Do you prefer donation anonymous? a Yes b No
4 How did you find out charity information? a Website b Personally connected to the charity c Media sources d Direct contact e New paper f Friend, Family members g Direct mail h Email
5 The reason why you choose for your donation to appear anonymous? a I don’t want to be recognized b I don’t want any others to know I gave less c I don’t want any others to know I gave more d I don’t want any others to know my amount donation e Other reasons: …
6 Please specify your charity performance in the last 12 months, in case of donation performance.
In donation channel section, please choose the following answers and fill in the blank. a Direct cash b Bank wire transfer c Text mobile phone message d Property or goods
When asked how frequently you donate to charity, please select one of the following options: a Once in the past year, b Once a month, or c Every 2 to 3 months.
This table is for respondent who donates cash. d Once or twice a week e Every 2 – 3 weeks
How many times did you give money to a charity?
How often have you given money to a charity (a, b, c, d, or e)
The total donations to charity, including cash donation Medical
This table is for respondent who donates property.
In kind of property section, please choose the following answers and fill in the blank. a Household goods b Used clothing c Food d Used furniture e Medicines f Book, journal g Other
Reasons for Giving Kind of property
How many times did you give property to a charity?
How often have you given property to a charity (a, b, c, d, e, f or g)
The total donations to charity, including property donation
7 Please specify your charity performance in the last 12 months, in case of donation performance.
When asked about your volunteer work for a charity, please select one of the following options to indicate your frequency of participation: a Once in the past year, b Once a month, c Every 2 to 3 months, d Once or twice a week, or e Every 2 to 3 weeks.
How often have you worked as volunteer for a charity?
How many hours did you usually work as volunteer for a charity for once?
The questions from 8 to 14 are for respondents who are performing, or used to perform in charity organization.
8 Did you choose a particular charity organization to donate or volunteer? a Yes b Self- donate/volunteer c No
9 Did you do any research about organization before making your donation or volunteer? a Yes b No
10 How did you find out charity information of the organization? a Website b Personally connected to the charity c Media sources d Direct contact
11 How often do you donate to this organization? c Annually d Monthly e Rarely e New paper f Friend, Family members g Direct mail h Email f Biannually g Bimonthly h No more or never
12 Please tell the organizations name that you choose to donate or volunteer, for the last 12 months.
13 Based on the scale below, please circle the response that most accurately measures your understanding about the charity organization that you choose to donate
The organization clearly outlines its financial allocation, ensuring transparency in how funds are utilized It has a well-defined operational purpose that guides its activities Additionally, the organization demonstrates effective use of resources, maintaining regular communication to keep stakeholders informed and engaged This consistent interaction fosters a sense of connection and involvement, making me feel valued as part of the community.
5 4 3 2 1 f The organization is well- managed 5 4 3 2 1 g The organization has disclosure specific donor information h The organization supports causes that
I believe in i The organization provide me enough information before donate
14 Based on the scale below, please circle the response that most accurately measures your satisfaction about the charity organization that you choose to donate
I firmly believe that the organization consistently prioritizes its best interests and operates with integrity I have confidence that the funds donated are utilized effectively and responsibly My commitment to this organization extends beyond financial support, as I actively volunteer my time and efforts I am dedicated to being a loyal supporter, driven by my genuine concern for the organization's long-term success and impact.
5 4 3 2 1 g I continue to donate next year 5 4 3 2 1
The questions 15 are for respondents who are performing, or used to perform, or have never performed in charity organization
15 Based on the scale below, please circle the response that most accurately measures your charity reasons
Engaging in charity activities is essential to me, as I believe it is the right thing to do Donating not only enhances my self-esteem but also reflects my deep care for the well-being of others My commitment to charity is inspired by cherished memories of a loved one, and I am proud to continue my family's long-standing tradition of giving back to the community.
Many individuals feel a sense of guilt if they do not engage in charitable giving, driven by a desire to help the disadvantaged and make a positive impact Personal beliefs, often rooted in religious values, encourage acts of kindness and generosity Additionally, the recognition and local prestige associated with charitable contributions can be motivating factors For some, the tax benefits linked to donations serve as a significant incentive to give Ultimately, the desire to give back to the community and follow government suggestions also plays a role in encouraging charitable donations.
The questions 16 are for respondents who are used to perform charity
16 Based on the scale below, please circle the response that most accurately measures the reasons why you do not perform charity anymore
Many individuals express reservations about charitable giving for various reasons Some believe they already contribute enough, while others feel overwhelmed by their personal commitments and financial responsibilities Concerns about the operational costs of nonprofit organizations also deter potential donors, as some question the effectiveness of their contributions Additionally, the perception that a small donation lacks impact can discourage charitable actions There's a sentiment that individuals should address their own challenges, and some argue that charity might inadvertently contribute to unemployment issues.
The questions 17, 18, and 19 are for respondents who have never performed charity
17 Why have you never performed any charity activities? a I do not want to give charity b I do not have a chance to give charity
18 For respondents who do not want to give charity, please circle the response that most accurately measures the reasons why you have never perform charity