Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan

Maja Adena
Maja Adena
[email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6378-3466
Research Area Markets and Choice, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, D-10785 Berlin, Germany;
Search for more papers by this author
,
Rustamdjan Hakimov
Corresponding Author
Rustamdjan Hakimov
[email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5425-4554
Research Area Markets and Choice, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, D-10785 Berlin, Germany;Department of Economics, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland;
Search for more papers by this author
,
Steffen Huck
Steffen Huck
[email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7586-7985
Research Area Markets and Choice, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, D-10785 Berlin, Germany;Department of Economics, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
Search for more papers by this author

Research Area Markets and Choice, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, D-10785 Berlin, Germany;

Corresponding Author

Rustamdjan Hakimov

Research Area Markets and Choice, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, D-10785 Berlin, Germany;Department of Economics, University of Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland;

Search for more papers by this author

Steffen Huck

[email protected]

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7586-7985

Research Area Markets and Choice, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, D-10785 Berlin, Germany;Department of Economics, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:21 Feb 2023https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4702

References

Adena M, Harke J (2022) COVID-19 and pro-sociality: How do donors respond to local pandemic severity, increased salience, and media coverage? Experiment. Econom. 25(3):824–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-022-09753-y.Google Scholar
Adena M, Huck S (2017) Matching donations without crowding out? Some theoretical considerations, a field, and a lab experiment. J. Public Econom. 148(April):32–42. Crossref, Google Scholar
Adena M, Huck S (2022) Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 200:1–20.Google Scholar
Altmann S, Falk A, Heidhues P, Jayaraman R, Teirlinck M (2019) Defaults and donations: Evidence from a field experiment. Rev. Econom. Statist. 101(5):808–826. Crossref, Google Scholar
Andreoni J (2006) Philanthropy. Kolm S-C, Ythier JM, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, vol. 2 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 1201–1269.Google Scholar
Andreoni J, Nikiforakis N, Stoop J (2021) Higher socioeconomic status does not predict decreased prosocial behavior in a field experiment. Nature Comm. 12(1):4266. Crossref, Google Scholar
Andreoni J, Rao JM, Trachtman H (2017) Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. J. Political Econom. 125(3):625–653. Crossref, Google Scholar
Augenblick N, Cunha JM (2015) Competition and cooperation in a public goods game: A field experiment. Econom. Inquiry 53(1):574–588. Crossref, Google Scholar
Auriol E, Lassébie J, Panin A, Raiber E, Seabright P (2020) God insures those who pay? Formal insurance and religious offerings in Ghana. Quart. J. Econom. 135(4):1799–1848. Crossref, Google Scholar
Bennett R (2012) Why urban poor donate: A study of low-income charitable giving in London. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quart. 41(5):870–891. Crossref, Google Scholar
Bennett R (2018) Financial charity giving behaviour of the working poor: An empirical investigation. J. Marketing Management 34(17–18):1587–1607. Crossref, Google Scholar
Blanco M, Dalton P (2019) Generosity and wealth: Experimental evidence from Bogotá stratification. CentER Discussion Paper No. 2019-031, Universidad del Rosario, Bogota, Colombia.Google Scholar
Brown AL, Meer J, Forrest Williams J (2017) Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 66(February):9–15. Crossref, Google Scholar
Candelo N, Eckel C, Johnson C (2018) Social distance matters in dictator games: Evidence from 11 Mexican villages. Games 9(4):77. Crossref, Google Scholar
Castillo M, Petrie R (2021) Optimal incentives to give. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3616460.Google Scholar
Charness G, Holder P (2019) Charity in the laboratory: Matching, competition, and group identity. Management Sci. 65(3):1398–1407. Link, Google Scholar
Condra LN, Isaqzadeh M, Linardi S (2019) Clerics and scriptures: Experimentally disentangling the influence of religious authority in Afghanistan. British J. Political Sci. 49(2):401–419. Crossref, Google Scholar
Davis DD, Millner EL, Reilly RJ (2005) Subsidy schemes and charitable contributions: A closer look. Experiment. Econom. 8(2):85–106. Crossref, Google Scholar
DellaVigna S, List J, Malmendier U (2012) Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):1–56. Crossref, Google Scholar
de Oliveira ACM, Croson RTA, Eckel C (2011) The giving type: Identifying donors. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):428–435.Google Scholar
de Oliveira ACM, Eckel C, Croson RTA (2012) The stability of social preferences in a low-income neighborhood. Southern Econom. J 79(1):15–45.Google Scholar
Duquette NJ, Hargaden EP (2021) Inequality and giving. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 186(June):189–200. Crossref, Google Scholar
Eckel C, Grossman PJ (2003) Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? J. Public Econom. 87(3–4):681–701. Crossref, Google Scholar
Epperson R, Reif C (2019) Matching subsidies and voluntary contributions: A review. J. Econom. Surveys 33(5):1578–1601. Crossref, Google Scholar
Gallier C, Goeschl T, Kesternich M, Lohse J, Reif C, Römer D (2019) Inter-charity competition under spatial differentiation: Sorting, crowding, and spillovers. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, (19-039). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3466679.Google Scholar
Gee LK, Schreck MJ (2018) Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory. Games Econom. Behav. 107(January):282–297. Crossref, Google Scholar
Genç M, Knowles S, Sullivan T (2021) In search of effective altruists. Appl. Econom. 53(7):805–819. Crossref, Google Scholar
Grieco D, Braga M, Bripi F (2016) Cooperation and leadership in a segregated community: Evidence from a laboratory-in-the-field experiment in a South African township. World Institute for Development Economics Research Working Paper No. 76/2016, United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Grimson D, Knowles S, Stahlmann-Brown P (2020) How close to home does charity begin? Appl. Econom. 52(34):3700–3708. Crossref, Google Scholar
Hoffman E, McCabe K, Shachat K, Smith V (1994) Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games Econom. Behav. 7(3):346–380. Crossref, Google Scholar
Holla A, Kremer M (2009) Pricing and access: Lessons from randomized evaluations in education and health innovations for poverty action. Center for Global Development Working Paper No. 158, Center for Global Development, Washington, DC. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1390281.Google Scholar
Huck S, Rasul I (2011) Matched fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment. J. Public Econom. 95(5–6):351–362. Crossref, Google Scholar
Huck S, Rasul I, Shephard A (2015) Comparing charitable fundraising schemes: Evidence from a natural field experiment and a structural model. Amer. Econom. J. Econom. Policy 7(2):326–369. Crossref, Google Scholar
Jack BK, Recalde MP (2015) Leadership and the voluntary provision of public goods: Field evidence from Bolivia. J. Public Econom. 122(February):80–93. Crossref, Google Scholar
James RN, Sharpe DL (2007) The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quart. 36(2):218–238. Crossref, Google Scholar
Kannai Y (1980) The ALEP definition of complementarity and least concave utility functions. J. Econom. Theory 22(1):115–117. Crossref, Google Scholar
Karlan D, List JA (2007) Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(5):1774–1793. Crossref, Google Scholar
King G, Zeng L (2001) Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Anal. 9(02):137–163. Crossref, Google Scholar
Landry CE, Lange A, Price MK, Rupp NG (2010) Is a donor in hand better than two in the bush? Evidence from a natural field experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100:437–455.Google Scholar
Li SX, de Oliveira ACM, Eckel C (2017) Common identity and the voluntary provision of public goods: An experimental investigation. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 142(October):32–46. Crossref, Google Scholar
List J, Lucking-Reiley D (2002) The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. J. Political Econom. 110(1):215–233. Crossref, Google Scholar
Mahmud M, Wahhaj Z (2018) Charitable giving or signalling? Voluntary contributions by microcredit borrowers in Pakistan. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 158:394–415. Crossref, Google Scholar
Mansuri G, Rao V (2012) Localizing Development (The World Bank, Washington, DC).Crossref, Google Scholar
Meer J (2014) Effects of the price of charitable giving: Evidence from an online crowdfunding platform. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 103:113–124. Crossref, Google Scholar
Meier S (2007) Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run? Matching donations in a field experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 5(6):1203–1222.Crossref, Google Scholar
Moore RT, Schnakenberg K (2016) BlockTools: Blocking, assignment, and diagnosing interference in randomized experiments. Accessed January 24, 2018, https://cran.r-project.org/package=blockTools.Google Scholar
Rondeau D, List JA (2008) Matching and challenge gifts to charity: Evidence from laboratory and natural field experiments. Experiment. Econom. 11(2008):253–267. Crossref, Google Scholar
Sadoff S, Samek A (2019) The Effect of recipient contribution requirements on support for social programs. J. Public Econom. 169(January):1–16. Crossref, Google Scholar
Spears D (2014) Decision costs and price sensitivity: Field experimental evidence from India. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 97:169–184. Crossref, Google Scholar
Vesterlund L (2003) The informational value of sequential fundraising. J. Public Econom. 87:627–657. Crossref, Google Scholar
Whillans AV, Caruso EM, Dunn EW (2017) Both selfishness and selflessness start with the self: How wealth shapes responses to charitable appeals. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 70:242–250. Crossref, Google Scholar

Volume 70, Issue 1

January 2024

Pages 1-670, iii-iv

Article Information

Supplemental Material

Metrics

Information

Received:April 29, 2021
Accepted:July 06, 2022
Published Online:February 21, 2023

Cite as

Maja Adena, Rustamdjan Hakimov, Steffen Huck (2023) Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan. Management Science 70(1):633-646.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4702

Keywords

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all those at the partnered microfinance company and the Apake Foundation (apake.kg), and personally, they thank Altynay Kozubekova and Baburzhan Tolbaev for making this project possible. They also thank Kai Barron; Raphael Epperson; Johannes Lohse; Dorothea Kübler; Kimberley Scharf; and participants of the Berlin Behavioral and Experimental Economics Workshop, the Berlin Research Associates Workshop, and the seminar in Birmingham for helpful suggestions and comments. They are grateful to Katharina Dorn for excellent research assistance and many others for help in conducting the field experiment. This paper has been screened to ensure that no confidential information is revealed.

PDF download

Available Issues

Available Issues

Available Issues

Available Issues

Available Issues

Available Issues

Available Issues

Available Issues

Available Issues

Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan

References

Volume 70, Issue 1

Article Information

Supplemental Material

Metrics

Information

Cite as

Keywords

Sign Up for INFORMS Publications Updates and News