The ‘Crowding-out Effect’: What does the research tell us? René Bekkers VU University Amsterdam...

The ‘Crowding-outEffect’:

What does theresearch tell us?

René BekkersVU University Amsterdam

The Netherlands

March 17, 2015

Jewish Funders ConferenceTel Aviv

The ‘Crowding-out Effect’

• Occurs when a decrease in government funding leads to an increase in philanthropic funding for a cause.

• Or vice versa, when an increase in philanthropy reduces government funding.

March 17, 2015Jewish Funders Conference, Tel

Aviv2

The ‘Waterbed Effect’

Government grants

Private donations

The metaphor assumes the water mass is constant & contained. In a JC

interview, Hagai Katz (2010) said Israelis view philanthropy and

government funding as a ‘zero-sum game’. 3March 17, 2015

Jewish Funders Conference, Tel Aviv

Friedman (1962) called this the crowding-out

effect.

Questioning the metaphor

• The metaphor is not born out of research.

• For a researcher, it is a testable hypothesis.

• Empirical tests may as well reveal the reverse effect of ‘crowding-in’: when an increase in government funding increases philanthropic activity.

• The research question is: when and where occurs how much crowding-out?


Aviv4

A meta-analysis


Aviv5

Crowding-inCrowding-out De Wit, A. & Bekkers, R. (2014). Government support and charitable donations: A meta-analysis of

the crowding-out hypothesis. Paper presented at the 43d ARNOVA Conference, Denver, November 20-22, 2014.

‘A severe cut in government funding to nonprofit organisations is not likely, on average, to be made up by donations from private donors.’

Abigail Payne (1998)

Across all the published studies, a $1 increase in government support is associated with a $0.22 decrease in private charitable donations on average.

6March 17, 2015Jewish Funders Conference, Tel

Aviv

Contingencies

US-based studies find more crowding-out than studies from elsewhere, including Europe.

Experiments in controlled environments (mostly with students) find more crowding-out than studies analyzing archival data from nonprofit organizations.March 17, 2015


7

The ‘crowding-out effect’ varies

Between

• Societies (macro-level)• Organizations (meso-level)• Citizens (micro-level)

And it varies over time.


Aviv8


Aviv9

N = 111, r = .011


Aviv10


Aviv11

Taxes and giving

United States Israel the Netherlands0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tax burden % of GDP

Proportion of popu-lation giving to char-ity

Philanthropy ‰ of GDP


Aviv12

Sources: Committed to Give, 2009-2011; Giving USA, 2014; Giving in the Netherlands 2015

EU investments in innovation

• In the European Foundations for Research and Innovation (EUFORI) Study, a consortium of 34 national experts documented ~12,000 foundations supporting R&I in Europe.

• In which countries are foundations most active?

• How do foundations view their relationship with government?


Aviv13


Aviv14

N = 28r = - .176


Aviv15

N = 28r = 0.567

Four models of collaboration

• Competitive: try to do better than government or make government do better

• Initiating: start a program, and export it into government policy

• Substituting: take over government tasks

• Complementary: work towards similar goals and strengthen each other as partners 16March 17, 2015


Creating a ‘Giving Culture’

• Modesty: “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matthew 6:3; Maimonides second degree)

• Philanthropy should not be a dirty word.• Social entrepreneurship could be the

first degree (help a person help himself).• Education could play a role in creating a

giving culture, e.g. through service learning.


Aviv


Aviv18

When is that culture change scheduled?

On Thursday the 17th, at 3.30 PM

Text from a cartoon in Dutch by John Reid, Bastiaan Geleijnse and Jean-Marc van Tol, April 15, 2011


Aviv19

Popular concerns• Coverage: the general level of service

provision may suffer when the government retreats.

• Inequality: philanthropy may fund specific causes, but not others; Matthew-effects will help those causes with an early advantage.

• ‘Too much’ influence on public policy for philanthropists leading to arbitrariness, nepotism and inequality.

• Lack of trust among population and between government and philanthropy sector.


Aviv

What we need is…

• A serious political discussion about the role of philanthropy in public policy.

• Decent research informing policy decisions, paying attention to undesirable side-effects.

• Thorough evaluation of the results of any changes that will be implemented.


Aviv

Ingredients

• People are longing for a more ‘caring society’ and are prepared to contribute.

• People enjoy giving and volunteering more than paying taxes.

• They dislike organizational inefficiency.

• People respond to tax incentives and changes in government subsidies, but not that much. 22March 17, 2015


Flexibility is the rule

• The crowding-out effect is flexible, open to modification.

• Governments, nonprofit organizations, philanthropists and the public at large can influence it.


Aviv

Conditions for cooperation

• Meeting – Knowing – Strengthening each other; mutual trust.

• Accountability and (some) regulation.

• Public confidence and transparancy.• Self-organization of the sector;

speaking with one voice.


Aviv

Alternative visions

• Aiming for a substitution effect, the resulting crowd out will be far from perfect.

• If nonprofit organizations are viewed as partners in public policy, this would help.

• Think from a ‘crowding in’ hypothesis, even if subsidies are not changing.

• Present subsidies as matching grants.


Aviv

Framing the incentive as a match

control group 50% rebate: price = 0,50

100% match: price = 0,50

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Proportion of the reward for participation in GINPS04 donated by participants

+46%

+90%


Aviv

Thanks, saysRené Bekkers

Professor & DirectorCenter for Philanthropic

StudiesVU University Amsterdam

[email protected]: @renebekkers

Blog: renebekkers.wordpress.com


Aviv

mailto:[email protected]

https://twitter.com/renebekkers

https://twitter.com/renebekkers

Local cross-sector collaborations

• Private foundations in the Netherlands with a local focus receive more funding requests from nonprofits.

• Interest increases in what works in cross-sector collaborations, also from the government.

• Community foundations are now being established.


Aviv

Seed money: target $3,000

10% 33% 67%0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

No refund Refund


Aviv

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

41%48%

44%51% 55% 55%

no increase increase

Bron: CBF. 2005-2010


Aviv

HNW 2013 Survey

• 13% response rate from millionaires• Average giving: €5,200 = 1.9% of

income• Heavily skewed: 80/20 rule• Highest amounts donated by young

self-employed entrepreneurs• Increase from €2,300 in 2009


Aviv

“If the government cuts, I will give more”

Dutch population HNW sample

59

42

37

38

419

agree (com-pletely)neutral

disagree (completely)


Aviv

Total giving per year by willingness to compensate government cuts

Dutch population HNW sample

155

4,539

246

5,431

452

6,150

disagree (completely)neutralagree (com-pletely)

“If the government cuts, I will give more”


Aviv

The ‘Crowding-out Effect’: What does the research tell us? René Bekkers VU University Amsterdam...

Documents

Transcript of The ‘Crowding-out Effect’: What does the research tell us? René Bekkers VU University Amsterdam...