IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v28y1976i1p55-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social pressure and contributions to health charities

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Long

Abstract

On the whole the evidence lends support to the hypothesis that social pressure affects the level of charitable contributions. We find, however, that the form of the pressure is an important determinant of the size of health contributions. Personal forms of solicitation appear to increase contributions, relative to impersonal forms such as media advertisements and mail campaigns. Within the class of personal solicitations, we find that pressure to give which is exerted by friends is more effective than requrests by strangers. Limited evidence was also found that some workplace relationships result in more effective fund-raising when compared to solicitations by strangers. Copyright Center for Study of Public Choice Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1976

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Long, 1976. "Social pressure and contributions to health charities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 55-66, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:28:y:1976:i:1:p:55-66
    DOI: 10.1007/BF01718457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF01718457
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF01718457?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reinstein David A, 2011. "Does One Charitable Contribution Come at the Expense of Another?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-54, June.
    2. Meer, Jonathan, 2011. "Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 926-941.
    3. Jonathan Meer, "undated". "Brother Can You Spare a Dime? Peer Effects in Charitable Solicitation," Discussion Papers 08-035, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Reinstein, David, 2006. "Does One Contribution Come at the Expense of Another? Empirical Evidence on Substitution Between Charitable Donations," Economics Discussion Papers 2938, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    5. Lawrence B. Lindsey & Richard Steinberg, 1990. "Joint Crowdout: An Empirical Study of the Impact of Federal Grants on State Government Expenditures and Charitable Donations," NBER Working Papers 3226, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Erik Schokkaert & Luc Ootegem, 2000. "Preference Variation and Private Donations," International Economic Association Series, in: L.-A. Gérard-Varet & S.-C. Kolm & J. Mercier Ythier (ed.), The Economics of Reciprocity, Giving and Altruism, chapter 3, pages 78-95, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2014. "Favor trading in public good provision," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(3), pages 439-460, September.
    8. Joseph Cordes & Robert Goldfarb & Harry Watson, 1986. "The relative efficiency of private and public transfers," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 29-45, January.
    9. Richard Steinberg, 1986. "Charitable Giving as a Mixed Public/Private Good: Implications for Tax Policy," Public Finance Review, , vol. 14(4), pages 415-431, October.
    10. Diamond, Peter, 2006. "Optimal tax treatment of private contributions for public goods with and without warm glow preferences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(4-5), pages 897-919, May.
    11. Burton Abrams & Mark Schitz, 1978. "The ‘crowding-out’ effect of governmental transfers on private charitable contributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 29-39, March.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:28:y:1976:i:1:p:55-66. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.