Economics of charitable giving understanding the motivation of donation behaviour

VIETNAM – NETHERLANDS PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY VIETNAM INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES THE HAGUE THE NETHERLANDS ECONOMICS OF CHARITABLE GIVING: UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATION OF DONATION BEHAVIOR NGUYEN NGOC NU HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2015 MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS ABSTRACT This paper studies the individual determinants of charitable giving including in time, donation in gift, and money donation The research analyzes survey data in Ho Chi Minh City on charity giving in the last 12 months with 500 individuals We design a questionnaire to collect information on the donation behavior, individual characteristics, and perceptual and attitudinal factors A multivariate probit model is applied to analyze the three related behavior of in-kind, time and money donation We found that richer, religious and female respondents are more likely to give Perceptual and attitudinal factors are not significant Particularly we found that altruism, warm glow, prestige and reciprocity, and government not have a statistical significant impact on all kinds of donation The only exception is family influence, implying that the giving of the current generation would result in good giving habit of the future generations Key words: Economics of Charity Giving, altruism, pure altruism, impure altruism, warm glow, prestige, and reciprocity ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank for special persons who supported me during the tough time of writing this thesis Specially, I would like to express my gratitude to all the lectures who provided evaluable knowledge and supported me to complete the thesis I am also indebted to Dr Pham Khanh Nam who positively encourage and assist me to finish the thesis process Additionally, thanks are also due to all the VNP staffs who create favorable conditions in my process of learning and researching: Ms Xuan Hong, Ms Man Thi, Mr Nhan Tam, Mr Quang Huy and many others For my family who created the conditions to me on the academic journey The completion of this dissertation is a valuable gift which assist me to go further in the studying process as well as my career in the future I recognized that although studying is really challenging, yet it is more interesting than I thought For this, I want to give a special thank to my mom who movetivated and supported me to finish the survey Completing the survey process is fraught with a lot of difficulties I acknowledge the contribution of all my friends, all the respondents who also enthusiastically supported me to fulfill the surveys Especially, I would like to say thank you, Le Viet Thanh, who guides me some necessary knowledge about running stability in working process My main research idea is about the charitable donation In the working process, I also receive the donated gift from many people That was the unforgettable journey with lots of enjoyable experiences Thank you, Nguyen Ngoc Nu Dec, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Problem Statement 1.2 Research Objectives and scope of study 10 1.3 Structure of the thesis 11 2.1 Theoretical Models of Charity Giving 12 2.1.1 The Pure Altruism Model 12 2.1.2 The Impure Altruism Models 13 2.1.2.1 The Warm-glow Giving Model 13 2.1.2.2 The Conspicuous Giving Model 13 2.1.2.3 The Reciprocity Model 13 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.2 A Review of empirical studies on charity giving 14 2.2.1 Empirical Studies 14 2.2.2 Experimental Studies 15 2.2.3 Psychology Studies 16 Chapter 3: Research Methodology 3.1 The model 18 3.2 Data collection method 19 3.3 the survey instruments 19 3.4 econometric models and Hypothesises 20 3.4.1 Logistic regression 20 3.4.2 Multivariate probit model 20 3.5 The independent variables 20 3.5.1 Individual Characteristics 20 3.5.1.1 Gender 20 3.5.1.2 Age 21 3.5.1.3 Education 21 3.5.1.4 Religion 21 3.5.1.5 Income 22 3.5.2 Altruism 22 3.5.3 Warm glow 23 3.5.4 Prestige 23 3.5.5 Reciprocity 23 3.5.6 Social influence 24 3.5.6.1 Government influence 24 3.5.6.2 Tax Incentive 24 3.5.6.3 Family Influence 24 Chapter 4: Analysis of Charity Giving Behavior 4.1 Respondents Profile 27 4.1.1 The Charity Giving 27 4.1.2 Gender 28 4.1.3 Education 28 4.1.4 Income 28 4.1.5 Religion 29 4.1.6 Age 29 4.1.7 Perception and attitude toward charity giving 29 4.2 Determinants of Donation: Econometric Analysis 32 4.2.1 Logit model 32 4.2.2 Multivariate Logistic Regression 34 4.3 Analysis of Donation Behavior 36 4.3.1 Information Channels 36 4.3.2 Kind of Donation 39 4.3.3 Kind of Money Donation 40 4.3.4 Donation Sectors 42 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Policy Implications 5.1 Research Objective Summary 46 5.2 The Regression Models Summary 46 5.3 The Data Collection Summary 46 5.4 The Main Finding 47 From Logit Model 47 From Multivariate Probit 47 From The Statistical Test 47 5.5 Policy Implication 48 5.6 Limitations 48 TABLE OF APPENDICES Appendix Pretest Questionnaire 52 Appendix The Final Questionnaires 67 Appendix Stata Analyses Output 71 Appendix 72 Appendix 73 Appendix 74 Appendix 75 Appendix 76 Appendix 77 10 Appendix 10 78 LIST OF TABLES Table Perceptual/Attitudinal questions used in this studies 17 Table Explanatory variables of the logit and multivariate probit models 24 Table Summary statistics 27 Table Percentage of donation by individual characteristics and Chi2 test 28 Table Respondents’ Age Descriptive Statistics 29 Table Summary of statistic results 30 Table Classification Predicted Table 32 Table Logistic Regression Results 33 Table Multivariate probit estimation results for in-kind gift, time, and money donation 35 Table 10 Percent of each cases of information channel 36 Table 11 Information Channel and Income 37 Table 12 Information Channel and Gender 37 Table 13 Information Channel and Religion 38 Table 14 Information Channel and Education 38 Table 15 Information Channel and Age 39 Table 16 Percent of Cases in Kind of Donation 39 Table 17 Donation Kind via Income, Gender, Religion, and Education 40 Table 18 Kind of Donation and Age 40 Table 19 Percent of cases in money donation kind 41 Table 20 Kind of Money via Income, Gender, Religion, and Education 41 Table 21 Methods of Money Transfer and Age 41 Table 22 Percent of Cases Donation Sectors 42 Table 23 Donation Sectors and Income 43 Table 24 Donation Sectors and Gender 43 Table 25 Donation Sectors and Religion 44 Table 26 Donation Sectors and Education 44 Table 27 Age and Donation Sectors 45 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT In any society, there are people who are lagging behind the overall growth and development of the economy, including the poor, minor ethnic groups, people with illness and disability, and people suffering natural or personal/family disasters And these groups of people account for a considerable proportion According to The World Bank (2015), there is 12.7% of the world’s population in 2012, or 896 million people with daily income below $1.9 FAO (2014) reports that there are 794.6 million people with undernourishment around the world in 2014, which concentrated in the developing countries Climate change, global warming, and environmental disaster result in more than 300,000 deaths per year according to the World Hunger Education Service (2015) More than one million children in the world are living in the poverty situation with 22,000 children deaths per day in 2014 (UNICEF, 2015) In addition, the lives of more than million children are threatened by fatal but preventable diseases The Disabled World (2015) reported that people with disability accounts for 10% of global population, with 650 million people, and 20% of them is in the world poorest people in 2014 Leaving these people struggling themselves may result in a society with substantial unhappiness, inequality As a result, many economies while pursuing the target of efficiency also try to provide help and assistance to people who are in need Great efforts have been devoted to relieve their pains, to help them to respond and recover from disasters, as well as to improve their ability to reside According to the US Government Spending (2015), the amount of expenditure for beneficiaries of the federal US government is $888 billion Moreover, the spending for old age survivor issue was $ 440 per year per person and for disability issue was $90 billion per year in 2005 Eurostat Statistics (2015), presented the pension beneficiaries across 21 countries among 28 EU members in 2014, that there was a total of EUR 1717 billion spent for unemployment, survivors, disability, and old age in 2012 The spending was 17.5% of GDP in Greece; 15% of GDP in Italy, France, and Austria; 7.9% in Estonia; 7.3% in Ireland; and 7.7% in Lithuania Funding for these relief, recovery and resilience activities are certainly from taxation And it is well known that taxes distort markets Goods and services taxes result in inefficient allocation of resources and lead to deadweight loss Income taxes weaken the incentive to work and thus result in a reduction in overall welfare Charity giving is an alternative sources of funding for the activities of helping people in need Charity donation is believed to be more efficient than taxation as it does not distort the efficient allocation of resource nor reduce the incentive to work In addition, charity donation is voluntary While taxes are mandatory to all, including those who find that taxes are a critical burden, charity donation is only from those who are willing to pay As a result, charity donation are more efficient comparing to taxes, and at the same time avoids imposing financial burden on people in difficult circumstances The Charities Aid Foundation (2015) investigated over 130 countries worldwide about their charity donation activities by Gallup’s data gathering method The collected information on the behavior of giving, helping a stranger, donating money and volunteering time in the last year The top five countries in terms of giving index are Myanmar, United Stated of America, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia Giving USA (2015) reports that charity private donation in USA was estimated over US$269 billion, especially in religion sector with more than 100 $billion money donation in 2014 UK Giving (2014) estimated that the total amounts given by private donation is £10.6 billions The largest typical donation is religious causes with 14% per total amount Medical, children, hospitals and overseas causes is also get the highest charitable monetary value about 11 to 12 % According the Canada Social Trends (2011), total amount of donation in 2010 was estimated to be 11 billions CAD, with the average amount per individual was $466 In general, charity donation was substantially contributed by a large amount of money across the world As an alternative source of funding, charity donation has been attracting many economists, both theorists and empirical researchers Several economic models have been developed to explain the behavior of charity giving The pure altruism model as shown in Andreoni (1988, 1989), Bergstrom, Blume and Varian (1986) postulates that individuals consider the final output of charity activities as public goods where they gain utility from The warmglow giving model of Andreoni (1989, 1990) recognizes that people enjoy giving, and thus the amount of donation enters as an argument in the utility function The conspicuous giving model of Glazer and Conrad (1996) assumes that people donate to signal their income and wealth, and in this model, giving is a conspicuous consumption item Developing from the model of impure altruism, Kolm (2000) used another model of reciprocity to explain the donation behavior Reciprocity is explained via the donation awareness of fairness and appreciation and people donate with the expectation that they will receive help when in need While in the pure altruism model, people simply concern the amount charities receive, the three later models imply that donors derive utility from giving and therefore are called impure altruism models Charity giving is also the subject of many studies in the empirical economic literature The topic of charity giving attracted economists, psychologists as well as researchers in the fields of marketing and business science Economists examines several issues related to charity giving using empirical data (see Andreoni and Gale 1996, Bauer, Bredtmann, and Schmidt 2012, Kitchen 1992, Yao 2015) or experimental data (see Ded, Gazzale and Kotchen 2013, Brown, Meer, and Williams 2013, Sussman, Sharma, and Alter 2015) Studying charity donation in psychology, marketing and business science usually focus on the effects of psychological factors, perceptions and attditude on donation behavior (see, for example, Sargeant, Ford, and West 2005, Chompff 2009) In Viet Nam, the proportion of people needing help is also remarkable Similar to many other developing countries, poverty has been persistent in Viet Nam According to the Ministry of Labor Invalids and Social Affairs (2008), there are 17% to 19% of the households living in poverty, accounting for 15.4 to 17.2 million people In addition, Vietnam is ranked 15th amongst 81 nations from the 2014 Global Hunger Index Report (GHI), being in the serious hunger situation with a GHI of 7.5 points below the threshold of serious hunger situation (GHI between 10.0 – 19.9) Another social problem is children malnutrition In a nationwide survey of the Viet Nam Ministry of Health (2010), the malnutrition rate was seriously high at 29.3% In addition, the proportion of people with disability is approximately 7.8% of the total population To resolve these social problems, Vietnam government has specific social security system consisted of social insurance and protection This is the government’s efforts to support social beneficiaries, including poverty, unemployment occupational accident, health care, older and other issues According to Viet Nam Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (2015), total expenditure for social issues accounts for 6.61% GDP The report also state that the government spent 190.86 thousands of billions VND in 2012 and 259.83thousands of billions VND in 2014 for social security Among the efficient government policies, the private donation considerably substantiate for solving social issues, especially in charitable activities Based on a study of Asia Foundation (2011) about Vietnam charity donation, the household sector contributed 627 billion VND with the average donation is 800,000 VND per household per year (for Ha Noi, Ho Chi Minh City, Long An, and Thai BinhCity) However, there is significant difference between rural donation and urban donation which the average of rural donation was just estimated as 60,000 VND per household per year Corporations’ donation gave the total amount of 1.836 billion VND per year of which 8% donation is from Ha Noi and 66% from HCMC Moreover, the research found that 40% of the charity is for marketing target, 40% for altruism, and the remaining 20% for both purposes This study aims at examining the behavior of charity giving using survey data in Ho Chi Minh City The study particularly try to investigate who are more likely to donate, and through which channels they access information and make charity donation The study is expected to provide relevant information for charities in identifying who are potential donors and how to approach them 1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY This study particularly examines the determinants of donation behavior, including the money donation, in-kind donation and time donation Logit and multivariate probit models, together with standards statistical techniques, are used to analyze The determinants of donation behavior include individual characteristics and perception and attitude toward charity giving Attitudinal and perceptual variables capture various psychological aspects including altruism, warm-glow, prestige, reciprocity, and social influence 10 The questions are for all respondents Based on the scale below, please circle the response that most accurately measures your charity reasons Very Somewhat Don’t Not very Not at all Important important know/ important important refused I believe charity activities are the right thing 5 5 I want to be recognized The tax benefit of giving is the main motive Because I will receive local prestige In some case, I want to give back the benefit 5 that needs to I feel good about myself if I donate to someone I care about well-being of each other and want to help them I charity because of memories of the loved one My family has a long tradition of charity giving, so I want to keep it moving for me to perform charity from charity giving I join in charity donation because of government suggestion 69 Part B: Respondents Profile In this part, please tell me about yourself 10 Gender  Male  Female 11 Year of birth: … 12 Education:  High school  Upper high school 13 Monthly Income:  million VND  More than million VND 14 Religion :  Yes  No 70 Appendix Stata Analyses Output Logistic regression Number of obs LR chi2(15) Prob > chi2 Pseudo R2 Log likelihood = -124.37603 charity Coef gender age education religion income q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 _cons -1.288058 0749029 5896281 3.219022 2.034262 1.223715 3164695 -.079889 -1.0079 1.829458 4608119 -2.143921 2589032 -.9143583 1.834079 -6.501922 Std Err .3687952 0164282 4234195 3886855 4721801 5944152 4419429 4607389 4987486 5023488 6246343 8448009 6555101 6602706 4782714 8850331 z -3.49 4.56 1.39 8.28 4.31 2.06 0.72 -0.17 -2.02 3.64 0.74 -2.54 0.39 -1.38 3.83 -7.35 P>|z| 0.000 0.000 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.474 0.862 0.043 0.000 0.461 0.011 0.693 0.166 0.000 0.000 = = = = 453 330.66 0.0000 0.5707 [95% Conf Interval] -2.010883 0427042 -.2402588 2.457213 1.108806 0586829 -.5497226 -.9829206 -1.985429 8448729 -.7634489 -3.7997 -1.025873 -2.208465 8966847 -8.236555 -.5652323 1071016 1.419515 3.980832 2.959718 2.388748 1.182662 8231426 -.0303705 2.814044 1.685073 -.4881417 1.543679 3797483 2.771474 -4.767289 71 Appendix Variable VIF 1/VIF q1 q3 q2 age income q4 q5 religion q8 q9 gender q7 q10 education q6 11.41 8.06 6.84 6.70 5.46 5.24 4.69 4.44 2.54 2.19 2.12 2.05 2.01 1.94 1.57 0.087662 0.124112 0.146147 0.149230 0.183250 0.190941 0.213243 0.225110 0.392972 0.456218 0.471062 0.488151 0.498243 0.515451 0.637302 Mean VIF 4.48 72 Appendix Logistic regression Number of obs LR chi2(14) Prob > chi2 Pseudo R2 Log likelihood = -124.39109 charity Coef gender age education religion income q1 q2 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 _cons -1.28021 0748126 5923099 3.224222 2.025981 1.180826 3147099 -1.012214 1.817148 4548754 -2.124598 2531122 -.9125041 1.832437 -6.517427 Std Err .3659292 0164294 4233591 3875836 4695702 540731 4415193 4987805 4970994 622788 8377261 6543757 6595566 4778916 8805403 z -3.50 4.55 1.40 8.32 4.31 2.18 0.71 -2.03 3.66 0.73 -2.54 0.39 -1.38 3.83 -7.40 P>|z| 0.000 0.000 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.476 0.042 0.000 0.465 0.011 0.699 0.167 0.000 0.000 = = = = 453 330.63 0.0000 0.5706 [95% Conf Interval] -1.997418 0426116 -.2374587 2.464572 1.10564 1210131 -.550652 -1.989806 8428514 -.7657666 -3.766511 -1.029441 -2.205211 8957869 -8.243254 -.5630019 1070137 1.422078 3.983872 2.946322 2.24064 1.180072 -.0346222 2.791445 1.675517 -.4826848 1.535665 380203 2.769088 -4.7916 73 Appendix Variable VIF 1/VIF q1 q2 age income q4 q5 religion q8 q9 gender q7 q10 education q6 8.65 6.79 6.57 5.38 5.22 4.51 4.41 2.54 2.19 2.09 2.02 2.01 1.94 1.57 0.115660 0.147289 0.152204 0.185704 0.191606 0.221914 0.226678 0.394049 0.456298 0.478630 0.495646 0.498745 0.515575 0.637324 Mean VIF 3.99 74 Appendix Logistic regression Number of obs Wald chi2(14) Prob > chi2 Pseudo R2 Log pseudolikelihood = -124.39109 charity Coef gender age education religion income q1 q2 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 _cons -1.28021 0748126 5923099 3.224222 2.025981 1.180826 3147099 -1.012214 1.817148 4548754 -2.124598 2531122 -.9125041 1.832437 -6.517427 Robust Std Err .3852036 0131486 4403632 4001478 3988551 523134 4400608 4661325 4610101 6522805 8613866 8141501 6877711 5018802 7691307 z -3.32 5.69 1.35 8.06 5.08 2.26 0.72 -2.17 3.94 0.70 -2.47 0.31 -1.33 3.65 -8.47 P>|z| 0.001 0.000 0.179 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.475 0.030 0.000 0.486 0.014 0.756 0.185 0.000 0.000 = = = = 453 132.53 0.0000 0.5706 [95% Conf Interval] -2.035195 0490419 -.270786 2.439947 1.244239 1555026 -.5477934 -1.925817 9135851 -.8235709 -3.812884 -1.342593 -2.260511 8487703 -8.024895 -.5252247 1005833 1.455406 4.008498 2.807723 2.20615 1.177213 -.0986111 2.720711 1.733322 -.436311 1.848817 4355024 2.816104 -5.009958 75 Appendix Marginal effects after logit y = Pr(charity) (predict) = 8027271 variable gender* age educat~n* religion* income* q1* q2* q3* q4* q5* q6* q7* q8* q9* q10* dy/dx -.2085868 0118614 0889839 6071716 4160612 238153 0527601 -.0124831 -.1502946 2958511 0651341 -.4699614 0385764 -.1730602 2510282 Std Err .06446 00227 0611 06198 0836 11687 07738 05687 06705 0744 08036 19012 11276 14587 05401 z -3.24 5.23 1.46 9.80 4.98 2.04 0.68 -0.22 -2.24 3.98 0.81 -2.47 0.34 -1.19 4.65 P>|z| [ 0.001 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.495 0.826 0.025 0.000 0.418 0.013 0.732 0.235 0.000 95% C.I -.334922 007414 -.030764 485699 252206 009096 -.098896 -.123951 -.281712 150034 -.092369 -.842588 -.182434 -.458959 145178 ] -.082251 016309 208732 728644 579917 46721 204416 098985 -.018877 441668 222638 -.097334 259587 112838 356879 X 472406 32.7108 364238 682119 803532 83223 774834 774834 602649 518764 10596 064018 119205 134658 357616 (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from to 76 Appendix Multivariate probit (SML, # draws = 500) Number of obs Wald chi2(45) Prob > chi2 Log pseudolikelihood = -601.23971 Coef Robust Std Err z P>|z| = = = 453 264.08 0.0000 [95% Conf Interval] giftinkind gender age education religion income q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 _cons -.0523802 0073961 2658538 7771537 4526875 -.0890494 3851184 -.0439215 -.172364 3690725 1588256 -.719733 0176964 3580664 1913057 -2.261066 1411424 0059216 1550097 1724273 1922394 2541126 2144501 2308314 2029283 2021084 2807233 4321988 3407005 2728608 1471274 3291613 -0.37 1.25 1.72 4.51 2.35 -0.35 1.80 -0.19 -0.85 1.83 0.57 -1.67 0.05 1.31 1.30 -6.87 0.711 0.212 0.086 0.000 0.019 0.726 0.073 0.849 0.396 0.068 0.572 0.096 0.959 0.189 0.194 0.000 -.3290143 -.00421 -.0379597 4392024 0759052 -.5871009 -.0351962 -.4963427 -.5700961 -.0270527 -.391382 -1.566827 -.6500643 -.1767308 -.0970587 -2.906211 2242539 0190022 5696673 1.115105 8294699 409002 8054329 4084998 2253681 7651977 7090333 127361 685457 8928637 47967 -1.615922 giftintime gender age education religion income q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 _cons -.038803 -.0037099 1173318 7217603 4825038 1385695 -.3627593 -.1334505 3445398 2532597 -.2813875 3972831 1708776 -.3279584 2034038 -2.060114 1625932 0066474 1742109 2256694 2439849 3458843 2496138 2728226 231622 2229493 2879148 4006326 349766 2921439 1596413 3462353 -0.24 -0.56 0.67 3.20 1.98 0.40 -1.45 -0.49 1.49 1.14 -0.98 0.99 0.49 -1.12 1.27 -5.95 0.811 0.577 0.501 0.001 0.048 0.689 0.146 0.625 0.137 0.256 0.328 0.321 0.625 0.262 0.203 0.000 -.3574798 -.0167386 -.2241153 2794565 0043021 -.5393512 -.8519934 -.6681731 -.109431 -.1837129 -.8456901 -.3879425 -.5146512 -.9005499 -.1094875 -2.738723 2798737 0093188 4587789 1.164064 9607055 8164902 1264748 4012721 7985106 6902324 282915 1.182509 8564064 2446332 516295 -1.381506 moneydonation gender age education religion income q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 _cons -.4146986 027377 3026534 1.346427 635186 3783863 0865247 2554746 -.2702772 4631999 -.0357675 -1.311663 -.3715744 2377875 1597776 -2.687164 1516726 0065585 1698641 1746986 1728773 2511945 2051161 2241028 2276444 2147075 3076036 4672054 3444368 2929474 1757561 3342485 -2.73 4.17 1.78 7.71 3.67 1.51 0.42 1.14 -1.19 2.16 -0.12 -2.81 -1.08 0.81 0.91 -8.04 0.006 0.000 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.673 0.254 0.235 0.031 0.907 0.005 0.281 0.417 0.363 0.000 -.7119714 0145226 -.0302741 1.004024 2963527 -.1139458 -.3154955 -.1837589 -.7164519 0423809 -.6386595 -2.227368 -1.046658 -.3363788 -.184698 -3.342279 -.1174258 0402314 635581 1.68883 9740193 8707185 4885449 6947081 1758975 884019 5671245 -.395957 3035092 8119538 5042532 -2.032049 /atrho21 182347 0983484 1.85 0.064 -.0104123 3751063 /atrho31 0952477 0943318 1.01 0.313 -.0896393 2801346 /atrho32 264262 1150985 2.30 0.022 038673 489851 rho21 1803525 0951494 1.90 0.058 -.0104119 35845 rho31 0949607 0934812 1.02 0.310 -.0894 2730297 rho32 2582776 1074206 2.40 0.016 0386538 4540981 Likelihood ratio test of rho21 = rho31 = rho32 = 0: chi2(3) = 9.69212 Prob > chi2 = 0.0214 77 10 Appendix 10 Charity Organization Sector: (E1-E5, Y1-Y4) E1: The organization provides me the way how money will be used clearly Valid Frequency Percent 0.6 17 10.7 12 7.5 82 51.6 47 29.6 159 100.0 Frequency E1 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 E2: The organization has clearly operation purpose Valid Frequency 11 16 71 59 159 Percent 1.3 6.9 10.1 44.7 37.1 100.0 78 Frequency E2 80 70 71 60 59 50 40 30 20 16 10 11 E3: The organization uses money effectively Valid Frequency 17 16 79 43 5 Percent 2.5 10.7 10.1 49.7 27.0 159 100.0 Frequency E3 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 79 43 17 16 E4: The organization keep in touch frequently Valid Frequency Percent 2.5 17 10.7 21 13.2 91 57.2 26 16.4 159 100.0 79 Frequency E4 100 91 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 17 20 26 21 10 E5: The organization make me feel like I’m helping to solve problem Valid Frequency Percent 1.9 19 11.9 28 17.6 83 52.2 26 16.4 159 100.0 Frequency E5 90 80 83 70 60 50 40 30 28 20 10 26 19 3 80 Y1: I volunteer my time to this organization Valid Frequency 17 30 81 31 Percent 10.7 18.9 50.9 19.5 159 100.0 Frequency Y1 90 81 80 70 60 50 40 31 30 30 17 20 10 0 Y2: I will be a loyal supporter to this organization Valid Frequency Percent 5.0 20 12.6 21 13.2 87 54.7 23 14.5 159 100.0 81 Frequency Y2 100 90 87 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 20 21 23 Y3: I care about long-term success of this organization Valid Frequency Percent 11 6.9 18 11.3 20 12.6 85 53.5 25 15.7 159 100.0 Frequency 90 80 85 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 18 20 25 11 82 Y4: I continue to donate next year Valid Frequency Percent 19 11.9 11 6.9 17 10.7 83 52.2 29 18.2 159 100.0 Frequency 90 83 80 70 60 50 40 29 30 20 19 17 11 10 83 ... kinds of donation The only exception is family influence, implying that the giving of the current generation would result in good giving habit of the future generations Key words: Economics of Charity... between the two groups (See Table 4) 4.1.6 Age Age of respondents range from 15 to 70 with the average of age of 33 (See Table 5) In terms of charity donation, there the average of age of the donating... the percentage of donation of 75.1% and the other 52.8% The pvalue equal 0.000 Hence, there is difference between the proportions of importance group and the other in charity donation (See Table