IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mos/moswps/archive-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subsidizing Charitable Contributions in the Field: Evidence from a Non-Secular Charity

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine C. Eckel
  • Philip J. Grossman

Abstract

This paper reports results from a field study comparing the effects of rebates and matching subsidies for charitable contributions. The study was conducted in conjunction with Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota, a religiously affiliated social services charity. The field experiment has three main treatments: a baseline with no subsidy, a rebate to donors of a portion of their contribution to the charity, and an equivalent matching contribution. Within each subsidy treatment there are two rates of subsidy: 20 and 25 percent rebates and 25 and 33 percent matches. We report results that for the most part validate prior laboratory experiments. These results suggest that replacing the current tax rebate system with a matching program of equal cost could increase total giving to charitable organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions in the Field: Evidence from a Non-Secular Charity," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-44, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:mos:moswps:archive-44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.utdallas.edu/~eckelc/Catherine%20Eckel_files/lss%20paper%20final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas D. Davis & Edward L. Millner, 2005. "Rebates, Matches, and Consumer Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 410-421, October.
    2. Jen Shang & Rachel Croson, 2006. "The Impact of Social Comparisons on Nonprofit Fund Raising," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments Investigating Fundraising and Charitable Contributors, pages 143-156, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. Barrett, Kevin S. & McGuirk, Anya M. & Steinberg, Richard S., 1997. "Further Evidence on the Dynamic Impact of Taxes on Charitable Giving," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 50(2), pages 321-334, June.
    4. Tiehen, Laura, 2001. "Tax Policy and Charitable Contributions of Money," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(4), pages 707-723, December.
    5. Barrett, Kevin S. & McGuirk, Anya M. & Steinberg, Richard S., 1997. "Further Evidence on the Dynamic Impact of Taxes on Charitable Giving," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 50(2), pages 321-34, June.
    6. Clotfelter, Charles T, 1980. "Tax Incentives and Charitable Giving: Evidence from a Panel of Taxpayers," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 319-340, June.
    7. Catherine Eckel, 2005. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies," Working Papers 2098, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Clotfelter, Charles T., 1980. "Tax incentives and charitable giving: evidence from a panel of taxpayers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 319-340, June.
    9. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Giving with Rebates or Matching: Further Laboratory Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 794-807, April.
    10. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Do Donors Care about Subsidy Type? An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments Investigating Fundraising and Charitable Contributors, pages 157-175, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    11. Kingma, Bruce Robert, 1989. "An Accurate Measurement of the Crowd-Out Effect, Income Effect, and Price Effect for Charitable Contributions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1197-1207, October.
    12. Tiehen, Laura, 2001. "Tax Policy and Charitable Contributions of Money," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 54(n. 4), pages 707-23, December.
    13. Douglas Davis & Edward Millner & Robert Reilly, 2005. "Subsidy Schemes and Charitable Contributions: A Closer Look," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(2), pages 85-106, June.
    14. Robert McClelland & Mary F. Kokoski, 1994. "Econometric Issues in the Analysis of Charitable Giving," Public Finance Review, , vol. 22(4), pages 498-517, October.
    15. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Olga Bogach & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2011. "An Experimental Study on the Relevance and Scope of Culture as a Focal Point," Working Papers 201104, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:13-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Emmanuel Saez, 2009. "Details Matter: The Impact of Presentation and Information on the Take-Up of Financial Incentives for Retirement Saving," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 204-228, February.
    4. Kling, Jeffrey R., 2007. "Methodological Frontiers of Public Finance Field Experiments," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 60(1), pages 109-127, March.
    5. Davis, Douglas D., 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 13-22, July.
    6. Christina Fong & Erzo Luttmer, 2007. "What determines giving to hurricane katrina victims? Experimental evidence on income, race, and fairness," Artefactual Field Experiments 00046, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Douglas D. Davis, 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 13-22, July.
    8. Umer, Hamza, 2020. "Revisiting generosity in the dictator game: Experimental evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    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. Catherine Eckel, 2005. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies," Working Papers 2098, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Emmanuel Saez, 2009. "Details Matter: The Impact of Presentation and Information on the Take-Up of Financial Incentives for Retirement Saving," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 204-228, February.
    3. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Giving with Rebates or Matching: Further Laboratory Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 794-807, April.
    4. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:13-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Davis, Douglas D., 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 13-22, July.
    7. John A. List, 2011. "The Market for Charitable Giving," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 157-180, Spring.
    8. Eckel, Catherine & Grossman, Philip J., 2017. "Comparing rebate and matching subsidies controlling for donors’ awareness: Evidence from the field," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 88-95.
    9. Backus, Peter, 2010. "Is charity a homogeneous good?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 951, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    10. Douglas D. Davis, 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 13-22, July.
    11. Enrique Fatas & Joo Young Jeon & Paloma Ubeda, 2019. "An Experimental Investigation of Charity Rebates," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2019-12, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    12. Seiyoun Kim & Vjollca Sadiraj & Yongsheng Xu, 2024. "Tax Framing in Matching and Rebate Subsidy," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2023-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    13. Yamamura, Eiji & Tsutsui, Yoshiro & Ohtake, Fumio, 2018. "Altruistic and selfish motivations of charitable giving: The case of the hometown tax donation system (Furusato nozei) in Japan," MPRA Paper 86181, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Adena, Maja, 2021. "Tax-price elasticity of charitable donations – evidence from the German taxpayer panel," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 219-235.
    15. Huck, Steffen & Rasul, Imran, 2011. "Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(5-6), pages 351-362, June.
    16. Peng, Hui-Chun, 2020. "Effect of cognitive ability on matching and rebate subsidies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 19-25.
    17. Roman M. Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2021. "The impact of taxes and wasteful government spending on giving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 355-386, June.
    18. Diederich, Johannes & Eckel, Catherine C. & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo & Grossman, Philip J., 2019. "Subsidizing Quantity Donations: Matches, Rebates, and Discounts Compared," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203650, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Do Donors Care about Subsidy Type? An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments Investigating Fundraising and Charitable Contributors, pages 157-175, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    20. Daniel M. Hungerman & Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2021. "Impure Impact Giving: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1553-1614.
    21. Backus, Peter, 2010. "Is charity a homogeneous good?," Economic Research Papers 270773, University of Warwick - 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:mos:moswps:archive-44. 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: Simon Angus (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dxmonau.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.