Upload
ardice
View
55
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Giving in Europe Current Trends. René Bekkers VU University Amsterdam The Netherlands. May 23, 2013. Cross-Border Giving : Changes and Trends in the 21st Century Center for the Study of Philanthropy in Israel. Boy, we are in big trouble . To mention just a few things . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Giving in EuropeCurrent Trends
René BekkersVU University Amsterdam
The Netherlands
May 23, 2013
Cross-Border Giving: Changes and Trends in the 21st Century
Center for the Study of Philanthropy in Israel
2
Boy, we are in big trouble.
3
To mention just a few things...
• The housing bubble burst.• Unemployment is high, especially
among young people.• Public debts have increased.• Pension payments are reduced.• Consumer spending and confidence
are down.• The banking crisis is not over yet.
4
It’s not just the money, stupid!
• The economic crisis not only reduces people’s resources to do good, it also makes them uncertain.
• People are uncertain about their jobs, their savings, their pensions.
• Uncertainty lowers giving and volunteering.
5
Social psychological effects• More insecurity.• More anxiety, more stress.• Lower subjective well-being.• Lower trust in fellow citizens and
institutions.• Polarization along political and
ethnic cleavages.• More demand for religion.
6
Some sociological trends• Families become smaller.• Increasing inequality.• Ongoing secularization.• Educational expansion: diploma
inflation.• Immigration continues.• Ethnic heterogeneity increases.
7
The need for philanthropy• Poverty increases.• Social and emotional needs increase.• Cohesion and tolerance are under
threat.
• And governments do less.
8
The Waterbed Effect
Government grants
Private donations
Friedman (1962) called this the crowding-out
effect.
9
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
41%48%
44%51% 55% 55%
no increase increase
Bron: CBF. 2005-2010
10
‘A severe cut in government funding to nonprofit organisations is not likely, on average, to be made up by donations from private donors.’
Abigail Payne (1998)
This statement applies to the US. In the UK and the Netherlands the evidence supports the conclusion that government cuts reduce giving.
11
12
The ‘Big Society’• UK prime minister David Cameron
called for increased civic responsibility, before the Big Cuts.
• Evidence from the Third Sector Research Center in the UK shows that the capacity to compensate cuts is lowest in areas where the needs are at a maximum.
13
14
A ‘Big Society’ in the Netherlands?
• A similar call was made by the previous conservative/Christian coalition when budget cuts were announced for Arts & Culture (€200 mln).
• Recently the conservative/labor coalition announced a cut of €1 bln in international assistance, calling for more corporate activity.
• More cuts will follow – bracing for impact.
15
We’ve been there before.• This is not the first time in history
that we go through an economic and social crisis.
• We’ve been through worse periods in history.
• Periods in which philanthropy was a much more important force in society.
16
17
“Stuyvesant called upon the 43 richest residents of New Amsterdam to provide funding to fix up the ailing Fort Amsterdam and to construct a stockade across the island to prevent attacks from the north, while it took New Amsterdam's most oppressed inhabitants -- slave labor from the Dutch West India Company -- to actually build the wall.”
Russell Shorto – The Island at the Center of the World
18
This is the ‘Giving house’ in the city of ‘s-Hertogenbosch. In the middle ages, the poor in the city received food and clothing at this house. Funds for the service were obtained through bequests, legacies and other donations from citizens, but also from the city council. Today, the building serves as the city’s library and an arts center.
19
The ‘Sweet Mary’ Fraternity was founded in 1318. Its first members were clergy. The fraternity engaged in charity and cultural activities. Ghisbertus van der Poorten donated his house in 1483. The acceptance of Protestants, including members of the Royal House of Orange, helped resolve religious conflicts that had dominated the city since the spanish occupation in the 17th century. The current building in neogothic style dates back to 1846.
20
The ‘Sweet Mary’ Fraternity was founded in 1318. Its first members were clergy. The fraternity engaged in charity and cultural activities. Ghisbertus van der Poorten donated his house in 1483. The acceptance of Protestants, including members of the Royal House of Orange, helped resolve religious conflicts that had dominated the city since the spanish occupation in the 17th century. The current building in neogothic style dates back to 1846.
21
The Rijksmuseum (1885)
22
The Concert Hall (1886)
23
What do I mean by ‘philanthropy’?
• The transfer of resources from an individual to a collective, without direct compensation at the market price.
• This definition avoids the problems associated with terms ‘voluntary’ and ‘public good’.
• It includes much more than the donation of money.
24
Some examples• Charitable giving to nonprofits
helping people in need.• Venture philanthropy.• Social entrepreneurship.• Employee volunteering.• Corporate sponsorships.• In-kind donations.
25
Some NOT examplesCharity:• Almsgiving.• Helping a friend.• Informal care of family members.
Involuntary:• Mandatory service learning.
26
Questions we would like to answer
1. How large are differences in philanthropy (incidence, amounts, allocation over causes) between nations in Europe?
2. How can these differences be explained?
3. How has philanthropy changed as a result of the economic downturn, government cuts, and legal changes?
27
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
28
We’re in big research 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.
29
30
What now?• Let’s start all over again.• And do it better.
31
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!
32
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.
33
34
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’.
35
Conceptual model
Source Channel Destination
Donor Organization Cause
Money Services
Households, individuals, corporations
Churches, charities,
foundations
Groups,Ideals
36
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
37
The fragmented pieces of evidence
• We know next to nothing on the sensitivity of volunteering to recessions.
• Until 2008, philanthropy used to be fairly ‘recession proof’.
• Giving by households is less sensitive to economic trends than corporate and foundation giving.
• Religious giving is less sensitive to economic trends than other types of giving.
38
• In the UK, giving by households declined by 10% in 2008/09 – it is slowly recovering.
• In the Netherlands, giving by households remained steady in 2009 but has declined by almost 5% in 2011.
• Corporate giving is much more sensitive to the economy, it declined by 19%
39
Some positive new trends• Crowdfunding and crowdsourcing.• Micro-lending.• Remittances.• Friends’ societies.• Heart beating organ donations.• Social entrepreneurship.
40
And some more• Giving platforms for special events
fundraising, like giving.uk.• Participatory philanthropy: sports
events.• Corporate social responsibility.• Employee volunteering programs.• High Net Worth Philanthropy.
41
The “Golden Age” of Philantropy
2012
2015
2018
2021
2024
2027
2030
2033
2036
2039
2042
2045
2048
2051
2054
2057
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
€ millionsExtrapolation based on data from Statistics Netherlands (CBS)
By 2059 €86 billion will be transferred to charitable causes through bequests
42
The Giving Pledge
43
Modern philantropists in the Netherlands
Pieter Geelen created the Turing Foundation after he sold his company
The royal family and Johan Cruijff support youth and cohesion
The Van den Ende foundation supports arts and culture
44
HNW 2013 Survey• 13% response rate from millionaires• Average giving: €5,200 = 1.9% of
income• Heavily skewed: 80/20 rule• Highest amounts donated by young
self-employed entrepreneurs• Increase from €2,300 in 2009
45
“If the government cuts, I will give more”
Dutch population HNW sample
5942
37
38
419
agree (com-pletely)neutraldisagree (completely)
46
Total giving per year by willingness to compensate government cuts
Dutch population HNW sample
155
4,539
246
5,431
452
6,150
disagree (completely)neutralagree (com-pletely)
“If the government cuts, I will give more”
47
Creating a ‘Giving Culture’• Modesty: “Do not let your left hand know
what your right hand is doing” (Matthew 6:3; Maimonides second degree)
• Philanthropy should not be a dirty word.• Social entrepreneurship could be the
first degree (help a person help himself).• Education could play a role in creating a
giving culture, e.g. through service learning.
48
Local cross-sector collaborations
• Private foundations in the Netherlands with a local focus receive more funding requests from nonprofits.
• Interest increases in what works in cross-sector collaborations, also from the government.
• Community foundations are now being established.
49
Four models• Initiating: start a program, and
export it into government policy.• Complementary: work towards
similar goals and strengthen each other as partners
• Adversarial / competitive: try to do better than government or make government do better
• Substitutive: take over government tasks
50
Concerns• Production of some public goods but
not others. • Cancer but not mental illness
research centers.• ‘Too much’ influence on public policy
for philanthropists leading to arbitrariness, nepotism and inequality.
What we need is…• A serious political discussion about
the role of philanthropy in public policy.
• Decent research informing policy decisions.
• Thorough evaluation of the results of any changes that will be implemented.
51
Ingredients• People are longing for a more
‘caring society’ and are prepared to contribute.
• People enjoy giving and volunteering more than paying taxes.
• They dislike organizational inefficiency.
• People respond to tax incentives and changes in government subsidies, but not that much. 52
53
Conditions for cooperation• Meeting – Knowing – Strengthening
each other; mutual trust.• Accountability and (some)
regulation.• Public confidence and transparancy.• Self-organization of the sector;
speaking with one voice.
Alternative visions• Aiming for a substitution effect, the
resulting crowd out will be far from perfect.
• If nonprofit organizations are viewed as partners in public policy, this would help.
• Think from a ‘crowding in’ hypothesis, even if subsidies are not changing.
• Present subsidies as matching grants.
54
This…
55
Rather than this.
56
Tools for governance1. Measure impact and effectiveness.
Thank you, ECSP (Rotterdam).2. Impose financial reporting
requirements.3. Establish nonprofit management
education programs.4. Amplify the signal that
accreditation gives to donors.
57
Tasks for the sector• Nonprofit organizations will need to
report and improve their reporting standards.
• Raise standards by education in nonprofit management.
• Adopt more stringent codes of conduct.
• Evaluate programs and show impact.• Advertise tax incentives and engage
donors more in programs. 58
Tasks for the government• Get educated in nonprofit
management.• Measure and evaluate impact and
effectiveness of reforms.• Check charity registrations.• Give public access to the charity
register, in a user-friendly manner.
59
60
Legal changes• A European Foundation Statute
should allow cross-border philanthropy in Europe.
• Favorable tax treatment is important but often ‘treasury inefficient’.
• Laws alone do not change behavior; people have to know about them and see their advantages.
• Framing is important.
61
A price is not a price
control group 50% rebate: price = 0,50
100% match: price = 0,50
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Proportion of the reward for participation in GINPS04 donated by participants
+46%
+90%
Bestemming - Herkomst - Effecten
Sociale invloed
Thanks, saysRené Bekkers
Professor & Head of ResearchCenter for Philanthropic Studies
VU University [email protected]
Twitter: @renebekkershttp://renebekkers.wordpress.com
62