IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v105y2024i4p1351-1367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revealing the impact of individual income inequality on different types of charitable giving in China through social interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Senlin Li
  • Le Zhang
  • Yiying Sun
  • Fulin Li

Abstract

Objective This study delves into the correlation between individual income inequality as measured by the relative deprivation index and charitable giving, while also examining urban–rural heterogeneity. Additionally, it further explores the mechanisms by which online and offline forms of social interaction operate in this context. Methods Utilizing data from the 2014–2020 China Family Panel Studies, we employed several methodologies including Probit regression models, cross‐model average marginal effects difference testing based on bootstrap method, instrumental variable method, and the Karlson–Holm–Breen (KHB) effect decomposition method. Results The findings reveal that individual income inequality measured by the relative deprivation index significantly reduces charitable giving among Chinese households. The inhibitory effect of individual income inequality on social charitable giving is higher than that on charitable giving directed toward friends or colleagues. Furthermore, this impact exhibits some heterogeneity between urban and rural areas. Mechanism analysis indicates that the adverse effect of income inequality on charitable giving operates through reducing social interaction, including both online and offline forms. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that income inequality has distinct adverse effects on two types of charitable giving and explain the mechanisms underlying these effects through social interaction. A pattern of the differential mode of association similar to “ripples” in Chinese society is beneficial for understanding these differentiated impacts. We believe it is necessary to improve economic inequality conditions and enhance the enthusiasm of the Chinese public for participating in charitable donations by promoting various forms of social interaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Senlin Li & Le Zhang & Yiying Sun & Fulin Li, 2024. "Revealing the impact of individual income inequality on different types of charitable giving in China through social interactions," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1351-1367, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:4:p:1351-1367
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13394
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13394?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. Antinyan, Armenak & Baghdasaryan, Vardan & Grigoryan, Aleksandr, 2022. "Charitable giving, social capital, and positional concerns," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Justina A.V. Fischer & Benno Torgler, 2013. "Do Positional Concerns Destroy Social Capital: Evidence From 26 Countries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(2), pages 1542-1565, April.
    3. A. Abigail Payne & Justin Smith, 2015. "Does income inequality increase charitable giving?," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(2), pages 793-818, May.
    4. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    5. Gergő Tóth & Johannes Wachs & Riccardo Clemente & Ákos Jakobi & Bence Ságvári & János Kertész & Balázs Lengyel, 2021. "Inequality is rising where social network segregation interacts with urban topology," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Fisher, Jonathan D. & Johnson, David S. & Smeeding, Timothy M. & Thompson, Jeffrey P., 2020. "Estimating the marginal propensity to consume using the distributions of income, consumption, and wealth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    7. Kris‐Stella Trump, 2023. "Income inequality is unrelated to perceived inequality and support for redistribution," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(2), pages 180-188, March.
    8. Anca Elena-Bucea & Frederico Cruz-Jesus & Tiago Oliveira & Pedro Simões Coelho, 2021. "Assessing the Role of Age, Education, Gender and Income on the Digital Divide: Evidence for the European Union," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1007-1021, August.
    9. Junsen Zhang, 2021. "A Survey on Income Inequality in China," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(4), pages 1191-1239, December.
    10. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    11. Betsy Jane Clary, 2011. "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Society Stronger," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(2), pages 239-243.
    12. Jiawen Huang, 2019. "Income Inequality, Distributive Justice Beliefs, and Happiness in China: Evidence from a Nationwide Survey," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 83-105, February.
    13. Frederick Solt, 2008. "Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 48-60, January.
    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. Xiaoting Zheng & Jiayue Chen & Yipeng Li, 2021. "The association between charitable giving and happiness: Evidence from the Chinese General Social Survey," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2103-2138, December.
    2. Cai, Meina & Caskey, Gregory W. & Cowen, Nick & Murtazashvili, Ilia & Murtazashvili, Jennifer Brick & Salahodjaev, Raufhon, 2022. "Individualism, economic freedom, and charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 868-884.
    3. Antinyan, Armenak & Baghdasaryan, Vardan & Grigoryan, Aleksandr, 2022. "Charitable giving, social capital, and positional concerns," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Yongzheng Yang, 2023. "Does government social spending matter? Exploring how income inequality is associated with charitable giving," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(4), pages 728-741, July.
    5. Nicolas J. Duquette & Enda Hargaden, 2018. "Inequality, Social Distance, and Giving," Working Papers 2018-03, University of Tennessee, Department of Economics.
    6. Duquette, Nicolas J., 2018. "Inequality and philanthropy: High-income giving in the United States 1917–2012," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 25-41.
    7. Duquette, Nicolas J. & Hargaden, Enda P., 2021. "Inequality and giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 189-200.
    8. Tina Fransman & Marisa Fintel, 2024. "Relative Standing and Political Participation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 281-311, August.
    9. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2006:i:33:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Heineck, Guido & Süssmuth, Bernd, 2013. "A different look at Lenin’s legacy: Social capital and risk taking in the Two Germanies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 789-803.
    11. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    12. Daniel Sutter & Daniel J. Smith, 2017. "Coordination in disaster: Nonprice learning and the allocation of resources after natural disasters," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 469-492, December.
    13. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    14. Lewkowicz, Jacek & Woźniak, Michał & Wrzesiński, Michał, 2022. "COVID-19 and erosion of democracy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    15. Dwenger, Nadja & Kleven, Henrik & Rasul, Imran & Rincke, Johannes, 2014. "Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivations for Tax Compliance. Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100389, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    17. Francesco Rullani, 2005. "The Debate and the Community. “Reflexive Identity” in the FLOSS Community," LEM Papers Series 2005/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    18. Nikolova, Milena & Roman, Monica & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2017. "Left behind but doing good? Civic engagement in two post-socialist countries," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 658-684.
    19. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur, 2008. "Incentives and Workers' Motivation in the Public Sector," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 171-191, January.
    20. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," THEMA Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    21. Lohse, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Diederich , Johannes, 2014. "Giving is a question of time: Response times and contributions to a real world public good," Working Papers 0566, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.

    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:socsci:v:105:y:2024:i:4:p:1351-1367. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.