Upload
kaya
View
22
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Challenges for Comparative Research on Philanthropy in Europe. René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam ,The Netherlands [email protected]. Research Questions. How large are differences in philanthropy (incidence, amounts, causes) between nations in Europe? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
1
Challenges for Comparative Research on Philanthropy in Europe
René BekkersCenter for Philanthropic Studies, VU University Amsterdam ,The [email protected]
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
2
Research Questions1. How large are differences in
philanthropy (incidence, amounts, causes) between nations in Europe?
2. How can these differences be explained?
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
3
What we have…
Lots of data on volunteering, but much less on charitable giving
Several datasets on giving using Different definitions of
philanthropy Different questionnaire modules
to measure philanthropy Different survey methods
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
We’re in big trouble. How many people report
donations to various causes varies from one dataset to another.
Even differences in giving within the same country vary from one dataset to another.
Finally, differences between countries are explained by different variables in the two datasets.
412 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
512 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
What now?
Let’s start all over again. And do it better.
612 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
7
Prospects for Data Access Tax data: legal definitions,
thresholds, privacy issues Survey data on corporate
philanthropy difficult to gather Foundations even more
difficult to get access to Getting survey data on
households least problematic let’s do this!
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
8
What we need…
New data on giving, using: A clear definition of
philanthropy. A validated, cross-nationally
adequate instrument to measure philanthropy.
One single method of data collection; online is the only feasible option.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
912 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
10
Definitions
Should be operationalized. Definitions should identify a
clearly delimited set of phenomena
Easy way out: Exclude memberships and
fees. Exclude informal giving. Avoid the word ‘voluntary’.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
11
Conceptual model
Source Channel Destination
Donor Organization Cause
Money Services
Households, individuals, corporations
Churches, charities,
foundations
Groups,Ideals
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
12
The questionnaire should identify Units of analysis: individuals,
AND/OR households, OR foundations, OR corporations
Channels: churches, charities, foundations, other nonprofit organizations
Destinations: causes and services
Resources: money, goods, labor
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
13
European Social Survey
E1-12 a) CARD 43 For each of the voluntary organisations I will now mention, please use this card to tell me whether any of these things apply to you now or in the last 12 months, and, if so, which.E1-12 b) Do you have personal friends within this organisation?
a) CODE ALL THAT APPLY FOR EACH ORGANISATION
b)
None Member Participated
Donated money
Volun-teered
Personal friends?
E1 .…Firstly, a sports club or club for out-door activities?
Yes No DK
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 8
E2… an organisation for cultural or hobby activities?
0 1 2 3 4 1 2 8
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
14
WARNING
DATA FROM THESEMEASURES MAY BE *VERY FAR* FROM THE LIKELY TRUE VALUES
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
15
Questionnaires on household giving The Gold Standard: the ‘Method +
Area Module’ (e.g., GINPS) Incomplete coverage: ‘Area’
(ESS2002, EB 62.2) Severely limited: (Very) ‘Short’ “Methodology is Destiny”: shorter
questionnaires yield (strong) underestimates of giving volume and bias parameter estimates
Source: Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2006). ‘To Give or Not to Give…That’s the Question’. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3): 533‐540.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
16
Donors per sector (%) NL US
a religious or church organization 19 19
humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 20 5
environmental protection, peace or animal rights 23 5
science, education, or teachers and parents 2 5
cultural or hobby activities 4 3
sports club or club for outdoor activities 8 4
social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women 3 4
political party 2 5
trade union 2 1
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 2
consumer or automobile organization 2 1
any other voluntary organization 4 2
Donates money to at least one sector 45 29
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
17
Donors per sector in the Netherlands in two data sources (%) ESS GINPS
a religious or church organization 19 39
humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 20 21
environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights 23 (7)
health NA 13
science, education, or teachers and parents 2 2
cultural or hobby activities 4 2
sports club or club for outdoor activities 8 5
social club, club for the young, the retired/ elderly, women 3 10
political party 2 NA
trade union 2 NA
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 NA
consumer or automobile organization 2 NA
any other voluntary organization 4 4
Donates money to at least one sector 45 82
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
18
PhilanthropyEuropean Social Survey, 2002
0
10
20
30
40
50
Hungary Greece Poland Czech Republic Israel
Spain Portugal Finland USA Slovenia
Ireland UK Norway Sweden Netherlands
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
19
Giving is under-reported in the ESS
Direct Q
Matrix
No88%
Yes12%
No97%
2947 307
Yes3%
13 89
Cross tabulation of ESS direct question on political giving and marking ‘donated’ for ‘political party’ in the matrix question (US+NL)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
20
Correlates of giving
ESS GINPS
Age 35-65 1.19 1.13
Age>65 1.82 ** 0.80
Secondary education 1.60 ** 1.05
Tertiary education 3.50 ** 1.30
Big city 0.89 0.55 **
Suburb 0.79 (*) 0.75 (*)
Generalized social trust 1.20 ** 1.34 **
Right wing political self-placement 1.25 * 1.50 **
Volunteered last year 3.33 ** 1.76 **
Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
21
What we don’t know…
How are France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Switzerland doing?
How much is donated to charity?
How do countries differ in the composition of philanthropy?
How do countries differ in the characteristics of donors?
Where do all these country differences come from?
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
22
PhilanthropyEuroBarometer 62.2, 2004
0
20
40
60
80
100
Hungary Greece Poland Czech Republic Israel
Spain Portugal Finland France Slovenia
Ireland UK Germany West Sweden Netherlands
Luxemburg Malta
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
23
Donors per sector in the Netherlands in two data sources (%) EB GINPS
a religious or church organization 29 39
humanitarian aid, human rights, minorities, immigrants 41 21
environmental protection, (peace) or animal rights 40 (7)
Patients organization [and health] 30 [13]
Education (arts, culture) 13 2
Recreational organization [and sports] 20 5
Leisure organization for the elderly 3 NA
Rights for the elderly 3 NA
political party 5 NA
trade union 4 NA
business, professional, or farmers’ organization 1 NA
consumer or automobile organization 2 NA
any other voluntary organization 7 4
Donates money to at least one sector 81 82
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
24
Giving is likely to be overreported in EB 5% report giving to a ‘political
party or organization’; but only 2.5% is a member and only a fraction donate
40% report giving to an environmental organization; at best, 28% is a member
Humanitarian aid is way too high (41%)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
25
Correlates of giving
EB GINPS
Big city 0.60 * 0.55 **
Suburb 0.78 0.75 (*)
Age 35-65 2.41 ** 1.13
Age>65 2.66 ** 0.80
Secondary education 1.85 ** 1.05
Tertiary education 1.56 1.30
Generalized social trust 1.21 * 1.34 **
Right wing political self-placement 0.87 1.50 **
Volunteered last year 3.33 *** 1.76 **
Coefficients in bold are significantly different from each other (p<.05)
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
26
Why do countries differ?
EB ESS
Individual level variables YES YES YES YES
Country level variables NO YES NO YES
Country level variance 3.27% 5.45% 3.27% 9.97%
Secondary education 1.321** 1.305** 1.491 1.555**
% Secondary education 0.031** 25.744*
Generalized trust 1.075 1.075 1.109 1.120**
Mean Generalized trust 2.096** 1.098NS
Observations 16,279 16,279 32,905 32,905
Countries 17 17 17 17
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
27
What we want…
Giving Europe, using: A clear definition of
philanthropy. A validated, cross-nationally
adequate instrument to measure philanthropy, based on GINPS.
One single method of data collection; online is the only feasible option.
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
Thanks, says
René BekkersHead of Research
Center for Philanthropic StudiesVU University Amsterdam
[email protected]: @renebekkers
http://renebekkers.wordpress.com
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena 28
29
Correlates of giving
ESS GINPS
Age 35-65 1.16 1.09
Age>65 1.59 ** 0.64 *
Secondary education 1.71 ** 1.07
Tertiary education 3.84 ** 1.35
Big city 0.97 0.56 **
Suburb 0.84 0.80
Catholic 1.25 (*) 2.18 **
Protestant 2.02 ** 2.27 **
Other Christian 1.21 0.46
Other religion 0.90 4.66
Church attendance (times per year) 1.01 ** 1.01
Generalized social trust 1.19 ** 1.33 **
Right wing political self-placement 1.12 1.40 *
Volunteering 3.15 ** 1.55 **
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena
30
Volunteering European Social Survey, 2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Hungary Greece Poland Czech Republic Israel
Spain Portugal Finland Slovenia Ireland
UK Norway Sweden Netherlands
12 July 2012 ISTR Conference, Siena