IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/glopol/v12y2021is5p45-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Cares about Crackdowns? Exploring the Role of Trust in Individual Philanthropy

Author

Listed:
  • Suparna Chaudhry
  • Marc Dotson
  • Andrew Heiss

Abstract

The phenomenon of closing civic space has adversely impacted international non‐governmental organization (INGO) funding. We argue that individual private donors can be important in sustaining the operations of INGOs working in repressive contexts. Individual donors do not use the same performance‐based metrics as official aid donors. Rather, trust can be an important component of individual donor support for nonprofits working towards difficult goals. How does trust in charitable organizations influence individuals' preferences to donate, especially when these groups face crackdown? Using a simulated market for philanthropic donations based on data from a nationally representative sample of individuals in the United States who regularly donate to charity, we find that trust in INGOs matters substantially in shaping donor preferences. Donor profiles with high levels of social trust are likely to donate to INGOs with friendly relationships with host governments. This support holds steady if INGOs face criticism or crackdown. In contrast, donor profiles with lower levels of social trust prefer to donate to organizations that do not face criticism or crackdown abroad. The global crackdown on NGOs may thus possibly sour NGOs' least trusting individual donors. Our findings have practical implications for INGOs raising funds from individuals amid closing civic space.

Suggested Citation

  • Suparna Chaudhry & Marc Dotson & Andrew Heiss, 2021. "Who Cares about Crackdowns? Exploring the Role of Trust in Individual Philanthropy," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S5), pages 45-58, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:12:y:2021:i:s5:p:45-58
    DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12984
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1758-5899.12984?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Belayet Hossain & Laura Lamb, 2012. "The Dynamics of Environmental Giving in Canada: Evidence of Rising Demand for Environmental Quality?," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 31(2), pages 265-273, June.
    2. Kendra E Dupuy & James Ron & Aseem Prakash, 2015. "Who survived? Ethiopia's regulatory crackdown on foreign-funded NGOs," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 419-456, April.
    3. Chong, Dennis & Druckman, James N., 2007. "Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 637-655, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    2. Midha, Joshua, 2022. "The Cycle of Rule: Existential Risks, Continuity Of Governance, And Conflict-Based Preservation," SocArXiv vc7w9, Center for Open Science.
    3. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    4. Urquía-Grande, Elena & Estébanez, Raquel Pérez & Alcaraz-Quiles, Francisco José, 2022. "Impact of Non-Profit Organizations’ Accountability: Empirical evidence from the democratic Republic of Congo," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    5. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    6. Bloemraad, Irene & Voss, Kim & Silva, Fabiana, 2014. "Framing the Immigrant Movement as about Rights, Family, or Economics: Which Appeals Resonate and for Whom?," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt3b32w33p, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    7. Maryam Dilmaghani, 2018. "Which is greener: secularity or religiosity? Environmental philanthropy along religiosity spectrum," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 477-502, April.
    8. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    9. Nicole Janz & Noel Johnston & Paasha Mahdavi, 2022. "Expropriation and human rights: does the seizure of FDI signal wider repression?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 847-875, October.
    10. Bhalotra, Sonia & Clots-Figueras, Irma & Iyer, Lakshmi, 2021. "Religion and abortion: The role of politician identity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    11. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    12. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    13. Simon D Angus & Lachlan O'Neill, 2024. "Paired Completion: Flexible Quantification of Issue-framing at Scale with LLMs," Papers 2408.09742, arXiv.org.
    14. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    15. Shapiro, Matthew A. & Bolsen, Toby, 2019. "Korean perceptions of transboundary air pollution and domestic coal development: Two framing experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 333-342.
    16. Bechtel, Michael & Hainmueller, Jens & Hangartner, Dominik & Helbling, Marc, 2015. "Reality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(3), pages 683-695.
    17. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.
    18. Appe Susan & Barragán Daniel & Telch Fabian, 2019. "Organized Civil Society Under Authoritarian Populism: Cases from Ecuador," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, October.
    19. Wasif Rafeel & Prakash Aseem, 2017. "Do Government and Foreign Funding Influence Individual Donations to Religious Nonprofits? A Survey Experiment in Pakistan," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 8(3), pages 237-273, September.
    20. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:glopol:v:12:y:2021:i:s5:p:45-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.