IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i16p6989-d1456704.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Complementarity or Crowding Out: The Effects of Government-Led Philanthropic Development

Author

Listed:
  • Yahui Song

    (School of Public Administration, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China)

  • Kegao Yan

    (School of Public Administration, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China)

  • Guozhang Yan

    (School of Public Administration, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China)

Abstract

At present, China regards philanthropy as an important component of social security, social governance, and the third distribution of resources. Structural changes in government expenditure can drive the adjustment of social resources; therefore, it is fundamental to investigate the macroeconomic transmission effect of government expenditure on the development of the philanthropic sector in order to promote the sustainable development of philanthropy and ensure the fairness and justice of social distribution. The results of a regression analysis on provincial panel data from 2007 to 2020 indicated the following: (1) Government expenditure exhibits crowding-out effects on various dimensions of the philanthropic sector. (2) In terms of regional development disparities, government guidance shows crowding-out effects on the development of philanthropy in the eastern and central regions; meanwhile, it demonstrates complementary effects on the dimensions of charitable donations and the number of social organizations in the western region. (3) Furthermore, in terms of the regional distribution of social organizations by industry, government guidance in the eastern region exhibits crowding-out effects on the numbers of social organizations in the fields of science and technology, education, culture, health, and sports; meanwhile, in the western region, it shows complementary effects. Additionally, in the central region, it shows a complementary effect only in the cultural sector, with crowding-out effects in other industries. Therefore, greater flexibility should be granted to the philanthropic sector, in which the construction of hub-type philanthropic organizations and the creation of regional industry cooperation platforms promote the relatively balanced development of philanthropy.

Suggested Citation

  • Yahui Song & Kegao Yan & Guozhang Yan, 2024. "Complementarity or Crowding Out: The Effects of Government-Led Philanthropic Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6989-:d:1456704
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6989/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/6989/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Mohan & Matthew R. Bennett, 2019. "Community-level impacts of the third sector: Does the local distribution of voluntary organizations influence the likelihood of volunteering?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 51(4), pages 950-979, June.
    2. Gregory D. Saxton & Michelle A. Benson, 2005. "Social Capital and the Growth of the Nonprofit Sector," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(1), pages 16-35, March.
    3. Thomas Garrett & Russell Rhine, 2010. "Government growth and private contributions to charity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 103-120, April.
    4. James Andreoni & A. Abigail Payne, 2003. "Do Government Grants to Private Charities Crowd Out Giving or Fund-raising?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 792-812, June.
    5. Kathleen M. Day & Rose Anne Devlin, 1996. "Volunteerism and Crowding Out: Canadian Econometric Evidence," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 37-53, February.
    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. Franz Hackl & Martin Halla & Gerald Pruckner, 2012. "Volunteering and the state," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 465-495, June.
    2. Gibbons, Steve & Hilber, Christian Albin Lukas, 2022. "Charity in the time of austerity: in search of the 'Big Society'," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 117995, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Cappellari, Lorenzo & Ghinetti, Paolo & Turati, Gilberto, 2011. "On time and money donations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 853-867.
    4. Daniel Jones, 2013. "Education’s gambling problem: The impact of earmarking lottery revenues for education on charitable giving and government spending," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 13/307, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    5. A. Abigail Payne, 2009. "Does Government Funding Change Behavior? An Empirical Analysis of Crowd-Out," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 23, pages 159-184, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Amihai Glazer, 2014. "The Profit-maximizing Non-profit," Working Papers 131404, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    7. Kraus, Margit & Stegarescu, Dan, 2005. "Non-Profit-Organisationen in Deutschland: Ansatzpunkte für eine Refom des Wohlfahrtsstaats," ZEW Dokumentationen 05-02, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Peter Nunnenkamp & Hannes Öhler, 2012. "Funding, Competition and the Efficiency of NGOs : An Empirical Analysis of Non‐charitable Expenditure of US NGOs Engaged in Foreign Aid," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 81-110, February.
    9. repec:esx:essedp:762 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Paskalev, Zdravko & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2017. "A theory of outsourced fundraising: Why dollars turn into “Pennies for Charity”," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-18.
    11. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. repec:lic:licosd:27210 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Gruber, Jonathan & Hungerman, Daniel M., 2007. "Faith-based charity and crowd-out during the great depression," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(5-6), pages 1043-1069, June.
    14. Katia Melnik & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2008. "An Economic Approach To Voluntary Association," Working Papers halshs-00347448, HAL.
    15. William F. Stine, 2008. "An empirical analysis of the effect of volunteer labor on public library employment," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 525-538.
    16. Drevs, Florian & Tscheulin, Dieter K. & Lindenmeier, Jörg & Renner, Simone, 2014. "Crowding-in or crowding out: An empirical analysis on the effect of subsidies on individual willingness-to-pay for public transportation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 250-261.
    17. Jonathan Meer & Harvey S. Rosen, 2008. "The ABCs of Charitable Solicitation," Working Papers 1057, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    18. Gani Aldashev & Esteban Jaimovich & Thierry Verdier, 2018. "Small is Beautiful: Motivational Allocation in the Nonprofit Sector," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 730-780.
    19. Keum, Daniel & Meier, Stephan, 2020. "License to Fire? Unemployment Insurance and the Moral Cost of Layoffs," IZA Discussion Papers 13497, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Guin, Benjamin, 2017. "Culture and household saving," Working Paper Series 2069, European Central Bank.
    21. Kevin C. Corinth, 2016. "A price theory of altruistic identity," AEI Economics Working Papers 901391, American Enterprise Institute.
    22. Chen, Jie & Nong, Huifu, 2016. "The heterogeneity of market supply effects of public housing provision: Empirical evidence from China," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 115-127.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:16:p:6989-:d:1456704. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.