Category Archives: Center for Philanthropic Studies

Twenty Years of Generosity in the Netherlands

ERNOP 2017 presentation PaperOpen Science Framework

In the past two decades, philanthropy in the Netherlands has gained significant attention, from the general public, from policy makers, as well as from academics. Research on philanthropy in the Netherlands has documented a substantial increase in amounts donated to charitable causes since data on giving in the Netherlands have become available in the mid-1990s (Bekkers, Gouwenberg & Schuyt, 2017). What has remained unclear, however, is how philanthropy has developed in relation to the growth of the economy at large and the growth of consumer expenditure. For the first time, we bring together all the data on philanthropy available from eleven editions of the Giving in the Netherlands survey among households (n = 17,033), to answer the research question: how can trends in generosity in the Netherlands in the past 20 years be explained?

 

The Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey

One of the strengths of the GINPS is the availability of data on prosocial values and attitudes towards charitable causes. In 2002, the Giving in the Netherlands survey among households was transformed from a cross-sectional to a longitudinal design (Bekkers, Boonstoppel & De Wit, 2017). The GIN Panel Survey has been used primarily to answer questions on the development of these values and attitudes in relation to changes in volunteering activities (Bekkers, 2012; Van Ingen & Bekkers, 2015; Bowman & Bekkers, 2009). Here we use the GINPS in a different way. First we describe trends in generosity, i.e. amounts donated as a proportion of income. Then we seek to explain these trends, focusing on prosocial values and attitudes towards charitable causes.

 

How generous are the Dutch?

Vis-à-vis the rich history of charity and philanthropy in the Netherlands (Van Leeuwen, 2012), the current state of giving is rather poor. On average, charitable donations per household in 2015 amounted to €180 per year or 0,4% of household income. The median gift is €50 (De Wit & Bekkers, 2017). In the past fifteen years, the trend in generosity is downward: the proportion of income has declined slowly but steadily since 1999 (Bekkers, De Wit & Wiepking, 2017). In 2015, giving as a proportion of income has declined by one-fifth of its peak in 1999 (see Figure 1).

GIV_CEX

Figure 1: Household giving as a proportion of consumer expenditure (Source: Bekkers, De Wit & Wiepking, 2017)

 

Why has generosity of households in the Netherlands declined?

The first explanation is declining religiosity. Because giving is encouraged by religious communities, the decline of church affiliation and practice has reduced charitable giving, as in the US (Wilhelm, Rooney & Tempel, 2007). The disappearance of religiosity from Dutch society has reduced charitable giving because the non-religious have become more numerous. The decline in religiosity explains about 40% of the decline in generosity we observe in the period 2001-2015. In Figure 2 we see a similar decline in generosity to religion (the red line) as to other organizations (the blue line).

REL_NREL

Figure 2: Household giving to religion (red) and to other causes (blue) as a proportion of household income (Source: Bekkers, De Wit & Wiepking, 2017)

 

We also find that those who are still religious have become much more generous. Figure 3 shows that the amounts donated by Protestants (the green line) have almost doubled in the past 20 years. The amounts donated by Catholics (the red line) have also doubled, but are much lower. The non-religious have not increased their giving at all in the past 20 years. However, the increasing generosity of the religious has not been able to turn the tide.

REL_DEN

Figure 3: Household giving by non-religious (blue), Catholics (red) and Protestants (green) in Euros (Source: Bekkers, De Wit & Wiepking, 2017)

The second explanation is that prosocial values have declined. Because generosity depends on empathic concern and moral values such as the principle of care (Bekkers & Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2016), the loss of such prosocial values has reduced generosity. Prosocial values have lost support, and the loss of prosociality explains about 15% of the decline in generosity. The loss of prosocial values itself, however, is closely connected to the disappearance of religion. About two thirds of the decline in empathic concern and three quarters of the decline in altruistic values is explained by the reduction of religiosity.

In addition, we see that prosocial values have also declined among the religious. Figure 4 shows that altruistic values have declined not only for the non-religious (blue), but also for Catholics (red) and Protestants (green).

REL_AV

Figure 4: Altruistic values among the non-religious (blue), Catholics (red) and Protestants (green) (Source: Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey, 2002-2014).

Figure 5 shows a similar development for generalized social trust.

REL_TRUST

Figure 5: Generalized social trust among the non-religious (blue), Catholics (red) and Protestants (green)  (Source: Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey, 2002-2016).

Speaking of trust: as donations to charitable causes rely on a foundation of charitable confidence, it may be argued that the decline of charitable confidence is responsible for the decline in generosity (O’Neill, 2009). However, we find that the decline in generosity is not strongly related to the decline in charitable confidence, once changes in religiosity and prosocial values are taken into account. This finding indicates that the decline in charitable confidence is a sign of a broader process of declining prosociality.

 

What do our findings imply?

What do these findings mean for theories and research on philanthropy and for the practice of fundraising?

First, our research clearly demonstrates the utility of including questions on prosocial values in surveys on philanthropy, as they have predictive power not only for generosity and changes therein over time, but also explain relations of religiosity with generosity.

Second, our findings illustrate the need to develop distinctive theories on generosity. Predictors of levels of giving measured in euros can be quite different from predictors of generosity as a proportion of income.

For the practice of fundraising, our research suggests that the strategies and propositions of charitable causes need modification. Traditionally, fundraising organizations have appealed to empathic concern for recipients and prosocial values such as duty. As these have become less prevalent, propositions appealing to social impact with modest returns on investment may prove more effective.

Also fundraising campaigns in the past have been targeted primarily at loyal donors. This strategy has proven effective and religious donors have shown resilience in their increasing financial commitment to charitable causes. But this is not a feasible long term strategy as the size of this group is getting smaller. A new strategy is required to commit new generations of donors.

 

 

References

Bekkers, R. (2012). Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence from a Four Year Panel Study. Political Behavior, 32 (2): 225-247.

Bekkers, R., Boonstoppel, E. & De Wit, A. (2017). Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey – User Manual, Version 2.6. Center for Philanthropic Studies, VU Amsterdam.

Bekkers, R. & Bowman, W. (2009). The Relationship Between Confidence in Charitable Organizations and Volunteering Revisited. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38 (5): 884-897.

Bekkers, R., De Wit, A. & Wiepking, P. (2017). Jubileumspecial: Twintig jaar Geven in Nederland. In: Bekkers, R. Schuyt, T.N.M., & Gouwenberg, B.M. (Eds.). Geven in Nederland 2017: Giften, Sponsoring, Legaten en Vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam: Lenthe Publishers.

Bekkers, R. & Ottoni-Wilhelm, M. (2016). Principle of Care and Giving to Help People in Need. European Journal of Personality, 30(3): 240-257.

Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T.N.M., & Gouwenberg, B.M. (Eds.). Geven in Nederland 2017: Giften, Sponsoring, Legaten en Vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam: Lenthe Publishers.

De Wit, A. & Bekkers, R. (2017). Geven door huishoudens. In: Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T.N.M., & Gouwenberg, B.M. (Eds.). Geven in Nederland 2017: Giften, Sponsoring, Legaten en Vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam: Lenthe Publishers.

O’Neill, M. (2009). Public Confidence in Charitable Nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38: 237–269.

Van Ingen, E. & Bekkers, R. (2015). Trust Through Civic Engagement? Evidence From Five National Panel Studies. Political Psychology, 36 (3): 277-294.

Wilhelm, M.O., Rooney, P.M. and Tempel, E.R. (2007). Changes in religious giving reflect changes in involvement: age and cohort effects in religious giving, secular giving, and attendance. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46 (2): 217–32.

Van Leeuwen, M. (2012). Giving in early modern history: philanthropy in Amsterdam in the Golden Age. Continuity & Change, 27(2): 301-343.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Center for Philanthropic Studies, data, household giving, Netherlands, survey research, trends

Four Reasons Why We Are Converting to Open Science

The Center for Philanthropic Studies I am leading at VU Amsterdam is converting to Open Science.

Open Science offers four advantages to the scientific community, nonprofit organizations, and the public at large:

  1. Access: we make our work more easily accessible for everyone. Our research serves public goods, which are served best by open access.
  2. Efficiency: we make it easier for others to build on our work, which saves time.
  3. Quality: we enable others to check our work, find flaws and improve it.
  4. Innovation: ultimately, open science facilitates the production of knowledge.

What does the change mean in practice?

First, the source of funding for contract research we conduct will always be disclosed.

Second, data collection – interviews, surveys, experiments – will follow a prespecified protocol. This includes the number of observations forseen, the questions to be asked, measures to be included, hypotheses to be tested, and analyses to be conducted. New studies will be preferably be preregistered.

Third, data collected and the code used to conduct the analyses will be made public, through the Open Science Framework for instance. Obviously, personal or sensitive data will not be made public.

Fourth, results of research will preferably be published in open access mode. This does not mean that we will publish only in Open Access journals. Research reports and papers for academic will be made available online in working paper archives, as a ‘preprint’ version, or in other ways.

 

December 16, 2015 update:

A fifth reason, following directly from #1 and #2, is that open science reduces the costs of science for society.

See this previous post for links to our Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey data and questionnaires.

 

July 8, 2017 update:

A public use file of the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey and the user manual are posted at the Open Science Framework.

Leave a comment

Filed under academic misconduct, Center for Philanthropic Studies, contract research, data, fraud, incentives, methodology, open science, regulation, survey research

De veerkracht van de filantropie

[*]

Deze tekst als pdf downloaden

Burgerkracht, lokale actie, de doe-democratie, de participatiesamenleving: we komen deze termen steeds vaker tegen in de politiek, de media en beleidsstukken van de overheid en adviesorganen. De termen fungeren in een fundamenteel debat over de verdeling van verantwoordelijkheid van burgers en de overheid voor het welzijn van anderen en de samenleving. Het uitgangspunt van deze stukken is de autonome, zelfredzame burger, die geen overheidsregeling nodig heeft om voor zichzelf, de eigen omgeving en de samenleving te zorgen.

Bij dit uitgangspunt past de filantropie, gedefinieerd als vrijwillige bijdragen van geld en tijd aan het algemeen nuttige doelen zoals gezondheid, cultuur, onderwijs, natuur en levensbeschouwing. Die bijdragen komen niet alleen van levende burgers, maar ook van overledenen (via nalatenschappen), van bedrijven, vermogensfondsen, en van goededoelenloterijen. In 2013 ging er in de filantropie in totaal zo’n €4,4 miljard om. In 2011 spraken het kabinet en de sector filantropie af intensiever samen te werken aan de kwaliteit van de samenleving. Door het activerende beleid doet de overheid een groter beroep op vrijwillige bijdragen in de vorm van geld en tijd en neemt de maatschappelijke betekenis van filantropie toe.

In theorie biedt voorziening van maatschappelijke doelen en collectieve arrangementen uit vrijwilligheid een voordeel boven verplichting via belasting of een andere vrijheidsbeperking. Via vrijwillige bijdragen krijgen burgers meer controle over de kwaliteit van de samenleving en kunnen ze daar ook met recht trots op zijn. Burgers dragen liever vrijwillig bij aan maatschappelijke doelen dan via een verplichte belasting of via verplichte maatschappelijke dienstverlening.

De voorkeur voor vrijwillige bijdragen is niet alleen psychologisch in de vorm van een ‘goed gevoel’. Een experiment van Harbaugh, Mayr en Burghart (2007) maakte deze voorkeur zichtbaar door middel van hersenscans van Amerikaanse vrouwen die een grotere activiteit in het ‘genotscentrum’ in de hersenen vertoonden als zij een bedrag aan een goed doel gaven dan wanneer hetzelfde bedrag namens hen door de experimentleiders werd gegeven. Er kan ook voor burgers een materieel voordeel zitten aan vrijwillige bijdragen in de vorm van vrijwilligerswerk. Er is veel onderzoek dat laat zien dat vrijwilligers gelukkiger zijn, grotere sociale netwerken hebben, langer gezond blijven en uiteindelijk langer leven dan maatschappelijk minder betrokken burgers.

Filantropie verhoogt de kwaliteit van leven omdat zij zich richt op de aanpak van maatschappelijke problemen en de realisatie van maatschappelijke idealen. Het besef groeit dat effectieve oplossingen een goede samenwerking tussen overheden, bedrijven en burgers vereisen. Een eenzijdige aanpak van bovenaf door een nationale overheid ligt steeds minder voor de hand. Bijdragen van burgers en bedrijven, in de vorm van maatschappelijk verantwoord ondernemen, vrijwilligerswerk, crowdfunding en actieve burgerparticipatie zijn welkom op uiteenlopende gebieden als integratie, cultuur, zorg, veiligheid, natuurbehoud en duurzaamheid.

De aandacht voor filantropie van de overheid is een herontdekking van een rijk verleden. Een mooi historisch voorbeeld is de manier waarop volgens de Amerikaanse journalist Russell Shorto (2005) de bouw van de Walstraat in Nieuw Amsterdam werd gefinancierd. Op Wall Street in New York, waar nu het centrum van het kapitalisme is gevestigd, stond ooit een muur die de inwoners van de stad tegen de indianen, de Engelsen en de Zweden moest beschermen. Omdat er geen overheid was die belasting kon heffen werd de bouw van de wal gefinancierd met vrijwillige bijdragen van de burgers van Nieuw Amsterdam, waarbij van de meer vermogende inwoners een grotere bijdrage werd verwacht. Zij hadden ook meer te verliezen bij een inval. Latere voorbeelden, dichterbij huis, zijn het Vondelpark, de Vrije Universiteit en de grote musea in Amsterdam: voor een groot deel gefinancierd met schenkingen van vermogende particulieren.

Met het beroep op burgers keert de overheid terug naar deze tijden. De omstandigheden zijn in sommige opzichten gelijkaardig. Opnieuw is er grote welvaart in Nederland, die opnieuw zeer ongelijk verdeeld is. Er zijn echter ook grote verschillen. De vraag om vrijwillige bijdragen komt in een tijd waarin burgers gewend zijn aan een overheid die voor hen zorgt. Bovendien komt de vraag in een tijd van economische onzekerheid en bezuinigingen op overheidsuitgaven. Het beroep op vrijwillige bijdragen vraagt veerkracht van burgers. De Rockefeller Foundation (2015) definieert veerkracht als de capaciteit van mensen, gemeenschappen en instituties om zich voor te bereiden op schokken en langdurige belasting, zich daar tegen te verzetten en ervan te herstellen. Veerkracht komt niet alleen tot uiting in zelfredzaamheid, maar ook in het mobiliseren van hulp en het aanboren van nieuwe hulpbronnen. Het gevoel van gemeenschap, het besef dat je met elkaar meer kunt bereiken dan alleen, en het vertrouwen in anderen helpen daar bij. Deze factoren zijn ook cruciaal voor de filantropie.

De sector filantropie is in Nederland in de afgelopen decennia niet gegroeid vanuit tegenslag en bedreiging. Integendeel. In de jaren ’90 hadden we geen last van crisis en groeide de sector als kool, nog veel harder dan de economie. De sector organiseerde en professionaliseerde zich. Er kwamen brancheverenigingen, gedragscodes, keurmerken, toezichthouders, er kwamen opleidingen en er kwam onderzoek dat de sector filantropie in kaart bracht. Die gehele ontwikkeling vond plaats in het laatste decennium van de jaren ’90 zonder dat er grote problemen waren. De filantropie is groot geworden in een tijd van voorspoed, zonder veel bemoeienis en grotendeels buiten het blikveld van de overheid. Vanuit de betrokkenheid van Nederlanders. Niet zozeer om maatschappelijke problemen op te lossen, maar ook – en misschien wel vooral – om idealen te verwezenlijken. Filantropie is de uiting bij uitstek van de veerkracht van de samenleving. Uit de filantropie van een samenleving blijkt waar burgers om geven, wat zij goede doelen vinden en hoeveel zij ervoor over hebben.

De economische crisis waarin Nederland in 2009 terecht is gekomen heeft een beroep gedaan op de veerkracht van burgers. Het zijn niet zozeer de korte termijn fluctuaties in de hoogte van inkomens, de werkloosheid of het consumentenvertrouwen die samenhangen met de lange termijn trend in het geefgedrag. Het gaat eerder om de economische zekerheid op de lange termijn: de waarde van giften van geld aan goede doelen houdt sinds 1965 gelijke tred met de ontwikkeling van de vermogens van Nederlanders. Sinds 1985 volgt de ontwikkeling in de hoogte van de giften in Nederland vrijwel exact de ontwikkeling in de hoogte van de waarde van onroerend goed.

consumptie_filantropie_onroerendgoed_08_13

Consumptieve bestedingen van huishoudens (nationaal) en totaal vermogen van huishoudens in de vorm van onroerend goed volgens het CBS en de waarde van filantropie door huishoudens volgens Geven in Nederland (niet gecorrigeerd voor inflatie)

De filantropie in Nederland lijkt minder gevoelig te zijn voor economische tegenwind dan die van de Verenigde Staten en het Verenigd Koninkrijk, waar de inkomsten voor goededoelenorganisaties flink daalden in 2008 en 2009 en daarna nauwelijks stegen. Pas in 2012 zagen de goededoelenorganisaties in de VS hun inkomsten weer toenemen. In Nederland bleef het recessie-effect uit tot 2011. Bovendien was het effect beperkt. We zien nu in 2013 weer een stijging van de giften. Dit is opmerkelijk omdat de waarde van onroerend goed in 2013 nog daalde. Ook de betrokkenheid van bedrijven bij goede doelen blijft hoog, ondanks de crisis. Het totaalbedrag aan giften en sponsoring is vrijwel gelijk gebleven.

Ook het overheidsbeleid van de afgelopen jaren heeft voor terugslag gezorgd. De overheid heeft taken gedecentraliseerd naar gemeenten, waardoor een groter beroep wordt gedaan op burgers om voor henzelf en hun naasten te zorgen. In de nieuwe cijfers over vrijwilligerswerk zien we een achteruitgang. In 2010 deed nog 41% vrijwilligerswerk, in 2014 is dat gedaald naar 37%. Ook het aantal uren dat vrijwilligers actief zijn is gedaald, naar 18 uur per maand. In 2012 was dit nog 21 uur. We zien wel veerkracht onder de loyale groep vrijwilligers, die juist actiever is geworden. Er is echter een grens aan de inzet van de trouwe vrijwilliger. Het toenemende belang dat de overheid in de participatiesamenleving aan mantelzorg en informele hulp hecht vormt op termijn een bedreiging voor het vrijwilligerswerk. We zien in het Geven in Nederland onderzoek dat informele hulp, mantelzorg en vrijwilligerswerk communicerende vaten zijn. Het hemd is dan nader dan de rok. Mensen stoppen vaker met vrijwilligerswerk als ze mantelzorgtaken erbij krijgen.

De overheid heeft bezuinigd op subsidies voor specifieke goededoelenorganisaties. Met name in de cultuursector hebben instellingen lastige keuzes moeten maken. Door de bezuinigingen op culturele instellingen is een beroep gedaan op de veerkracht in de sector cultuur. We zien hier grote verschillen tussen instellingen. De grotere musea van ons land zijn met behoud van subsidie in staat geweest om ook nog meer geld uit de markt te halen. Voor veel andere instellingen staan de inkomsten door bezuinigingen onder druk en zij lijken nog niet goed in staat meer inkomsten uit fondsenwerving en commerciële inkomsten te halen. Helaas blijkt ook bij de gevers de veerkracht beperkt te zijn. Vooralsnog zijn de bezuinigingen op culturele instellingen veel groter dan de toename in de giften aan culturele instellingen. Vermogende gevers zijn niet van plan meer te gaan geven aan cultuur.

De komende jaren zal duidelijk worden of vrijwillige bijdragen voldoende zijn om de schokken op te vangen die de economische crisis en de bezuinigingen door de overheid hebben veroorzaakt.  Zijn we als samenleving in staat deze betrokkenheid te mobiliseren? De aantrekkingskracht van het werk van goededoelenorganisaties is daarbij niet voldoende. Vermogende particulieren verlangen een meer zakelijke manier van werken dan gebruikelijk is bij veel goede doelen en hebben behoefte aan nieuwe financiële instrumenten die zakelijke investeringen in de kwaliteit van de samenleving mogelijk maken. Denk daarbij aan crowdfunding, social impact bonds, en ‘venture philanthropy’. De lage rentestand maken deze alternatieve vormen van investeren aantrekkelijker. In de geest van het convenant uit 2011 zou de sector filantropie in overleg met de overheid en het bedrijfsleven deze instrumenten verder moeten ontwikkelen.

Literatuur

Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T.N.M. & Gouwenberg, B.M. (2015, Red). Geven in Nederland 2015: Giften, Nalatenschappen, Sponsoring en Vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam: Reed Business.

Harbaugh, W.T. , Mayr , U., & Burghart, D.R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316: 1622-1625.

Rockefeller Foundation (2015). Resilience. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/our-work/topics/resilience/

Shorto, R. (2005). The Island At the Center of the World. New York: Random House/Vintage.

[*] Deze bijdrage is deels gebaseerd op gegevens uit Geven in Nederland 2015 (Bekkers, Schuyt & Gouwenberg, 2015).

1 Comment

Filed under altruism, Center for Philanthropic Studies, charitable organizations, economics, foundations, household giving, Netherlands, philanthropy, taxes, Uncategorized, volunteering

Giving in the Netherlands 2015: Summary of Principle Findings

This is a summary in English. Download this post in PDF here.

Prof. R.H.F.P. Bekkers, Ph.D., Prof. Th.N.M. Schuyt, Ph.D., & Gouwenberg, B.M. (Eds., 2015). Giving in the Netherlands: Donations, Bequests, Sponsoring and Volunteering. Amsterdam: Reed Business. ISBN 978 90 352 4818 2

I – Results for 2013

Total amount donated in 2013

In the Netherlands, about € 4.4 billion was donated to charitable causes in 2013.

The total figure is the sum of estimated contributions made in the course of the calendar year by households, bequests, foundations (both fundraising foundations and endowed foundations), businesses and lotteries. The amount is an underestimate because data on bequests and endowed foundations are known to be incomplete.

 In the Netherlands, approximately 0.7% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is donated to charitable causes (€ 643 billion in 2013)

This low percentage seems to contradict the general impression that the Dutch are generous givers. By comparison: In the United States, the percentage of the GDP given to charitable causes in the period 1965-2013 fluctuated around 2% (Giving USA, 2014). However, the Dutch contribute to public, social and charitable causes primarily by paying taxes, while Americans do so to a far lesser extent, given the considerably lower tax burden in the United States. Furthermore, in contrast to ‘Giving In the Netherlands’, ‘Giving USA’ does seem to have a clear image of contributions from bequests and endowed foundations.

Sources of contributions in 2013

Households (money and goods)  € 1,944 million 45%
Bequests  € 265 million 6%
Foundations: Fundraising foundationsEndowed foundations € 106 million€ 184 million 2%4%
Corporations (gifts and sponsoring) € 1,363 million 31%
Lotteries € 494 million 11%
Total € 4,356 million 100%

The figures for households and corporations are estimates based on representative samples and generalized to the entire population (n = 1,505 and n = 1,164, respectively). The figures relating to bequests and foundations (fundraising and endowed foundations) are based on archival records. Since these available archival records are far from complete, we do not make generalizations to the entire sector for bequests and foundations, resulting in an underestimation being based only on information available to us.

Figures on bequests are taken from the Central Bureau of Fundraising (CBF), to which national fundraising foundations submit financial statements regarding their received contributions. 196 of 584 CBF-registered fundraising foundations reported bequests. Far from all fundraising foundations report their income to the CBF, churches and nonprofit organizations such as hospitals, museums and educational institutions for example do not. Therefore, the total amount donated through bequests is likely to be much higher than reported.

The figures on fundraising foundations are derived from the CBF as well. In total, 516 fundraising foundations contributed €3,097 million to good causes in 2013. The contributions of fundraising foundations as mentioned in the table above (€106 million) consists only of ‘income from investments’. The remaining income – such as fundraising among the Dutch population, and the commercial sector – are only included in figures from the respective chapters (households, corporations) in order to prevent double counting.

An issue for concern in our analysis on endowed foundations is the lack of complete data on grant making by this group of interest. It remains unknown how many endowed foundations there are, what they contribute as a group and what their combined assets are. There are 810 endowed foundation registered with a national data archive on philanthropy called ‘Kennisbank Filantropie’, through which they were asked to fill out an online questionnaire. The figures are based on the resulting sample of 141 endowed foundations that took the time and effort to report about their contributions. However, these foundations constitute only a small proportion of the total number of charitable endowed foundations in de Netherlands, since many foundations operate anonymously.

Six national permanent and semi-permanent gambling and lottery license holders support charitable causes with part of their proceeds. Since 2004, de BankGiroloterij N.V., de VriendenLoterij N.V. (formerly Sponsor Bingo Loterij) and De Nationale Postcode Loterij N.V. are classified under the N.V. Holding Nationale Goede Doelen Loterijen. The other three license holders are Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator (De Lotto), Sportech B.V. and Samenwerkende Non-profit Loterijen (SNL). Figures used in Giving In the Netherlands were derived from the annual reports of these license holders.

 

Recipient organizations in 2013

million € Percentage
Religion 977 22
International aid 578 13
Sports and recreation 554 13
Public/social benefit 547 13
Health 535 12
Environment, nature en animals 356 8
Other (not specified) 321 7
Culture 281 6
Education and research 208 5
Totala 4,356 100%

a All figures are rounded off. This may lead to a discrepancy between the sum of the sub-categories and the total amount displayed.

 In 2013, the Dutch donated by far the highest amount to religion (€806 million). Education and research remains the smallest sector in terms of charitable contributions (5%).

 

Sources and recipient organizations in 2013

The total amount donated by households, individuals (bequests), both fundraising and endowed foundations, businesses/corporations and lotteries to public or social causes is subdivided as follows:

House-holds a Bequests Foundations b Corpo-rations a Lotteries Total %
(€x million) FF EF Total
Religion 787 6 2 4 6 177 977 22
Health 213 83 24 23 48 155 36 535 12
International aid 304 61 15 16 31 67 115 577 13
Environment/nature/ animals 150 42 20 6 26 47 91 356 8
Education/ research 41 1 1 17 18 148 208 5
Culture 57 3 26 52 79 80 63 281 6
Sports/recreation 42 0 0 11 11 433 68 554 13
Public and social benefit 190 70 17 45 62 139 86 547 13
Other (not specified) 160 0 0 9 9 117 35 321 7
Total 1,944 265 106 184 290 1,363 494 4,356 100

a The figures on households and corporations are based on generalizations. That is: The total amount of contributions made by households and corporations in the Netherlands are derived from amounts reported in a sample of the respective groups. For bequests and foundations this is not the case, since the necessary information  needed to make these estimations is missing.

b FF = fundraising foundations; EF = endowed foundations

  •  Households give the highest amount to religious organizations.
  • Bequests primarily benefit health.
  • Fundraising foundations give from their own resources (investments), particularly to health and international aid.
  • Culture is an important sector for endowed foundations.
  • Sports and recreation is the favored sector of choice by businesses and corporations.
  • The lotteries supporting good causes give most of their money to international aid and environment, nature and animals.

 

 

Volunteer work in 2013/2014

In 2014, 37% of the population had performed unpaid volunteering activities for an organization in the preceding year.
  • Sports associations and religious organizations attract the highest amount of volunteers.
  • Volunteers spent an average of 18 hours per month on their volunteer work.
  • Most volunteers perform managerial tasks (26%), do chores (20%), do office work and administration (18%), give advice and training (17%) or offer transportation (14%).
  • There is an increased likelihood of finding volunteers among the elderly, parents, the religious, those who attend church regularly and the higher educated. People with a full time employment and those living in one of the three largest Dutch cities volunteer less often.

II – Trends 1995-2013

Total amounts donated, 1995-2013 (Million €)a

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
2,279 2,164 3,426 3,614 4,925 4,379 4,562 4,708 4,255 4,356

a Due to applied corrections, figures differ slightly from previous editions of ‘Giving in the Netherlands’.

  • After a period with an upward trend starting in 2005, 2009 commenced a downward trend in total contributions to good causes. In 2013, we see total giving bounce back with a 2,3% increase compared to 2011.
  • It is important to note that trends should be interpreted with caution due to incomplete data on bequests and contributions of endowed foundations.

Giving as percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 1995-2013a

 

Billion €
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
GDP 324 363 413 476 506 541 609 617 643 643
Total giving 2,3 2,2 3,4 3,6 4,9 4,4 4,6 4,7 4,3 4,4
Donations % GDP 0,7 0,6 0,8 0,8 1,0 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,7 0,7

a Due to applied corrections, figures differ slightly from previous editions of ‘Giving in the Netherlands’.

  • As a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, donations have hovered around 0.8% since 1995. From 2003 onwards there is a downward trend.
  • Again, trends should be interpreted with caution because of incomplete data on bequests and contributions of endowed foundations.

Sources of contributions 1995-2013 (in millions of €) a,b

Million €
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Households 1,419 1,121 1,414 1,788 1,899 1,854 1,945 1,938 1,829 1,944
Corporations 610 693 1,466 1,359 2,271 1,513 1,639 1,694 1,378 1,363
Lotteries -,- -,- -,- -,- 369 396 394 461 498 494
Foundations 163 214 329 237 196 431 339 387 294 290
Bequests 87 135 213 231 189 182 240 232 256 265
Total 2,279 2,163 3,422 3,615 4,924 4,376 4,557 4,712 4,255 4,356

a Due to applied corrections to the figures on households, corporations, lotteries, foundations and bequests, figures differ slightly from previous editions of ‘Giving in the Netherlands’.

b The figures on households and corporations are based on generalized numbers. That is: The total amount of contributions made by households and corporations in the Netherlands are derived from amounts reported in a sample of the respective groups. For bequests and foundations, this is not the case, since the necessary information  needed to make these estimations is missing.

Households

  • In 2013, Households donated a total of €1,944 million in money and goods. This amount exceeds that of 2011 (€1,829 million) with 6%. Adjusted for inflation, the value of gifts and goods donated by households has increased with 1,2% since 2011. Household giving represents 0.3% of GDP and 0,67% of household consumption expenditure in  2013

Bequests

  • The amount of income from bequests as reported by fundraising foundations in their financial statements has risen sharply since 1995.

Foundations

  • The figures are based on the sum of contributions from equity earnings of a non-representative group of endowed foundations (n=141) and the contributions from 448 fundraising foundations. It is difficult to make definitive statements about trends on contributions by foundations because the data concern only a small group of endowed foundations and the figures for the years 1995-2013 are calculated in different ways.

Corporations

  • The figures on contributions by corporations through sponsoring and gifts resemble those of 2011. According to our estimations, we see a slight decrease in sponsoring and a slight increase in making gifts, compared to 2011. In 2011, we reported a decline of contributions by corporations compared to 2009. In 2013 however, this decline seems to have halted. Contributions from corporations remain an important source of income for the different sectors.

 

Lotteries

  • Charitable contributions by lotteries have seen a strong increase in recent years. We do see a minor decline of contributions in 2013 compared to 2011, mainly caused by a decrease in contributions from the Lotto.

 

Recipient sectors 1995-2013

Trends in contributions to the different recipient sectors in terms of total amounts (in € million) and relative ranking (1-8)a,b

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Religion 587 (1) 511 (1) 490 (4) 750 (1) 938 (1) 772 (1) 1,001 (1) 892 (1) 806 (1) 977 (1)
Health 411 (2) 290 (4) 640 (1) 398 (4) 580 (4) 467 (5) 468 (5) 629 (3) 471 (5) 535 (5)
International aid 361 (3) 299 (3) 542 (3) 531 (3) 480 (6) 756 (2) 561 (4) 576 (4) 564 (3) 578 (2)
Environment/ nature/animals 204 (6) 183 (6) 309 (6) 251 (7) 309 (7) 356 (6) 376 (7) 438 (7) 378 (6) 356 (6)
Education/ research
58 (8) 83 (8) 232 (7) 125 (-) 301 (8) 277 (8) 295 (8) 285 (8) 150 (8) 208 (8)
Culture 83 (7) 87 (7) 165 (8) 335 (6) 610 (3) 326 (7) 386 (6) 453 (6) 293 (7) 281 (7)
Sports/recreation 246 (5) 410 (2) 579 (2) 686 (2) 930 (2) 686 (3) 687 (3) 715 (2) 702 (2) 554 (3)
Public and social benefit 283 (4) 257 (5) 422 (5) 373 (5) 554 (5) 519 (4) 572 (2) 469 (5) 538 (4) 547 (4)
Other (not specified) 46 (-) 44 (-) 47 (-) 158 (8) 223 (-) 220 (-) 216 (-) 251(-) 349 (-) 321 (-)
Total* 2,279 2,164 3,426 3,614 4,925 4,379 4,562 4,708 4,251 4,356

a Due to differences in rounding off, the total amounts can deviate slightly from the total amounts given in the previous table.

b Due to applied corrections to the figures on households, corporations, lotteries, foundations and bequests, figures differ slightly from previous editions of ‘Giving in the Netherlands’.

Ranking of recipient sectors, averaged over the period 1995 – 2013
1. Religion
2. Sports and recreation
3. International aid
4. Health
5. Public and social benefit
6. Environment, nature and animals
7. Culture
8. Education and research

Over the 18 year period, religion receives the highest contribution and education and research receive the lowest contributions.

Volunteer work 2002-2014

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010*

2012*

2014*

Volunteer work

46%

41%

42%

45%

41%

38%

37%

* Estimates include non-native Dutch citizens.

  • The declining trend in volunteering rates we reported in the previous ‘Giving in the Netherlands’ books seems to have persisted in 2014.
  • In the past two years, the average hours a volunteer spends volunteering per month decreased slightly, from 21 to 18 hours.
  • During the past years, volunteers seems to have specialized by dedicating themselves to a smaller number of tasks. The share of volunteers that is working on three or more tasks declined from about a half of all volunteers in 2002 to about a quarter of all volunteers in 2014.
  • The dynamics in volunteering seems to have worn off a little. In the past two years, less people started volunteering. Those that do start volunteering tend to spend significantly less time on volunteering than the loyal, continuous volunteers. There seems to be a positive relationship between continuous volunteering and experienced social pressure. Those who perceive stronger social pressure tend to be the more persistent volunteers and remain more loyal to the organization they volunteer for.

III – Highlights

Households/individuals
  • A total of 1,505 households were surveyed in the 2012 wave of the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (GINPS). 1,320 of the respondents also participated in the GINPS 2010 wave.
  • The average amount donated in money and in kind by Dutch households in the calendar year 2013 was €204, virtually identical to that of 2011. In 2013, 88% of Dutch households gives to charitable organizations with an average of €232 over the entire calendar year. 47% gives in kind, with an average value of €113. While we see an increasing popularity of giving money and goods to charitable causes, the average amount these households contribute seems to decrease.
  • Households most often give to health (74%), followed by environment, nature and animals (44%) and international aid (41%). While less than a third of Dutch households (29%) give to religion, it receives the highest amount. Donations to religion represent 43% of the total amount donated by Dutch households. Organizations which provide international aid and health organizations receive 12% and 13% of the total amount of household gifts, respectively.
  • Although the traditional door-to-door collection remains the most popular way to donate money in the Netherlands, its popularity decreased. While in 2005 90% of households donated to a door-to-door collection, in 2013 this declined to 78%. Many other ways to donate also decreased in popularity since 2011. New forms of giving such as giving through text messaging or via the internet barely gained popularity during the past years.
  • Similar to the previous ‘Giving in the Netherlands’ edition, we find that giving behavior of Dutch households follows the 80/20 rule: 20% of the households is responsible for 80% of the total amount donated. There are large differences in giving behaviors between households. 12% percent of Dutch households does not donate to charitable causes and over a quarter of the households (26%) donated less than €25 in 2013. At the other end of the spectrum, one in every seventy (1,5%) Dutch give more than €2000. This group accounts for over a quarter (27%) of the total amount of charitable contributions in the Netherlands. A substantial proportion of these large donations comes from the wealthy Dutch.
  • Differences between households in giving behavior are associated with socioeconomic characteristics such as age (older people donate more), education (higher educated donate more), income and wealth (the more financial resources, the higher the donated amounts) and religion (religious Dutch, especially Protestants, donate more). Households seem to do more charitable giving as they hold more altruistic values and as the frequency with which they are asked for donations increases.
  • Although total charitable giving appears to be relatively stable across time, we find an interesting dynamic underlying the surface. Many households remain loyal donors to organizations operating in health, while the other sectors are comprised out of more incidental than loyal donors.
Giving by Corporations
  • In 2013, 70% of the corporations gave money by donating directly or sponsoring activities organized by nonprofit organizations. This percentage is similar to that of two years ago, when 71% of corporations donated directly or sponsored activities organized by nonprofit organizations. According to our estimations, the relative proportion of sponsoring decreased and the proportion of corporations giving increased, compared to 2011. However, we do not see a further decline as seen in 2011 compared to 2009. Corporations remain an important source for charitable contributions in the array of sectors.
  • Sports and recreation is the most popular sector for sponsoring and gift making among corporations. Simultaneously, we find that in absolute terms, sports and recreation received less money than previous years and the breadth of the support for this sector in our sample also decreased. The percentage of corporations that give to or sponsor activities in sports and recreation is lower than previous editions of ‘Giving in the Netherlands’
  • It seems that corporations do not utilize philanthropy strategically. A vast majority of the corporations does not have a specific giving policy, and only a small group of corporations communicates about their philanthropic activities to internal or external parties. Corporations that do utilize a charitable giving policy strategy operate more ‘strategically’: they communicate more often, but also tend to give higher amounts to charitable causes.
  • Corporations that sponsor and/or give mostly do so to a limited number of sectors.
  • Sponsoring and donating man hours remains an important way of giving by corporations in 2013 and seems to have steadily gained in popularity over the past years. Corporations thus explicitly aim to promote their employees’ active participation in societal projects.
  • Although corporations seem to be increasingly aware of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), we do not see an increase in corporations engaging in CSR. Many corporations have initiated new CSR initiatives, but these do not seem to displace sponsoring or gift making.


Specials

 

The multiplier in the ‘Geefwet’ and giving to culture

Giving in the Netherlands 2015 contains one ‘special’. Since January 2012, gifts to cultural nonprofit organizations are 125% tax deductible, instead of the 100% deductibility of gifts to nonprofit organizations in other sectors. The Dutch government seeks to encourage donations to cultural nonprofits. In this chapter, we report on changes in the charity law (the ‘Geefwet’) and changes in giving to cultural nonprofit organizations.

  • Government cut backs on the cultural sector have necessitated a diversification of income sources for cultural nonprofit organizations.
  • It is too early to assess the effect of the tax law reform with sufficient accuracy.
  • Of all households, 11% gave to cultural nonprofit organizations, similar to 2011.
  • Wealthy Dutch households give more often (36%) to cultural nonprofit organizations than the average households do (11%), and also gives more (median gift of €100, compared to €8).
  • The proportion of wealthy households planning to give more to cultural nonprofit organizations the next year is lower than the proportion of wealthy households intending to give more.
  • The multiplier may be able to increase giving to cultural organizations. Among wealthy households that give to cultural nonprofit organizations, awareness of the multiplier is positively related to the intention to give more. About half of wealthy households do not know how the multiplier works. Raising awareness about the multiplier among donors could therefore increase the number and size of gifts to cultural nonprofit organizations.

 

References

Giving USA 2014. The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2013. Indianapolis: Indiana  University, Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

Schuyt, Th.N.M. (Ed.), (2001). Geven in Nederland 2011: giften, legaten, sponsoring en vrijwilligerswerk. Houten/Diegem: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.

‘Giving in the Netherlands’ is published biennially by the Center for Philanthropic Studies at VU University Amsterdam.

Email: gin.fsw@vu.nl or visit www.giving.nl

[1] In contrast to donation behavior, volunteer work has been measured for the years 2013/2014. In June 2014, respondents were asked if they had performed volunteer work in the previous 12 months.

[2] Contrary to charitable contributions, volunteering was measure biyearly in years 2002, 2004, 2006, 1008, 2012 and 2014. In the month May of 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014, respondents were asked whether they volunteered or performed unpaid work in the past 12 months.

Leave a comment

Filed under Center for Philanthropic Studies, data, foundations, household giving, philanthropy

Vrijwilligerswerk in Nederland neemt af

Deze post als pdf

Het percentage van de Nederlanders dat vrijwilligerswerk doet is de afgelopen jaren afgenomen. In 2010 deed nog 41% vrijwilligerswerk, in 2014 is dat gedaald naar 37%. Ook het aantal uren dat vrijwilligers actief zijn is gedaald, naar 18 uur per maand. In 2012 was dit nog 21 uur. Dit blijkt uit uit het onderzoek Geven in Nederland 2015, dat op 23 april op de Dag van de Filantropie verschijnt. Het onderzoek is uitgevoerd door de Werkgroep Filantropische Studies van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Minder uren

Het meest actief zijn vrijwilligers die trouw zijn aan de organisatie waar zij zich voor inzetten. Zij besteden bijna 24 uur per maand aan vrijwilligerswerk. Nieuwe vrijwilligers en vrijwilligers die van club gewisseld zijn, zetten zich het minst aantal uren in: zij besteedden in 2014 gemiddeld 15 en 10 uur per maand. De uren die nieuwe vrijwilligers besteden kunnen de inzet vrijwilligers die gestopt zijn niet helemaal compenseren: zij zetten zich 18 uur per maand in (zie figuur).   uren_vrw_GIN2015Motieven

De motieven voor vrijwilligerswerk zijn niet sterk veranderd. Nog steeds zegt een meerderheid van de vrijwilligers dat zij het belangrijk vinden om anderen te helpen en via vrijwilligerswerk nieuwe vaardigheden leren. Wel is het percentage van de vrijwilligers dat zegt dat vrijwilligerswerk goed staat op het CV toegenomen, van 29% in 2002 naar 36% in 2014. De daling van de inzet in vrijwilligerswerk bedreigt de kansen voor de participatiesamenleving. De overheid hoopt juist dat burgers zich vaker actief inzetten voor de samenleving. De toenemende behoefte aan mantelzorg zal de deelname aan vrijwilligerswerk in de toekomst verder onder druk zetten.

Leave a comment

Filed under Center for Philanthropic Studies, helping, volunteering

VU University Amsterdam is seeking applications for a fully funded PhD dissertation research position on ‘Philanthropic Crowdfunding for the Cultural Heritage Sector’

The PhD project will focus on characteristics of individual crowdfunders and of crowdfunding projects that influence donation behavior. Specifically, the research investigates the effects of online context characteristics on motivations and giving behavior of crowdfunders as well as the organizational arrangements in which crowdfunding campaigns are embedded. The central question of this research project is: which crowdfunders’ or project characteristics affect donation behaviour and will contribute to more effective donation-based crowdfunding projects?

 

Tasks

The PhD student is expected to:

• Collaborate in a multidisciplinary research team;

• Organize large scale field experiments;

• Analyze behaviour in crowdfunding projects with multiple quantitative research methods;

• Write articles for international peer reviewed scientific journals;

• Write a PhD thesis;

• Contribute to some teaching tasks of the Department.

 

Requirements

• MSc in social and/or behavioral sciences with a focus on organizational and/or philanthropic     studies;

• Strong interest in field experiments;

• The PhD research candidate needs to be proficient in spoken and written English.

 

Further particulars

Job title:  PhD-position Organization Science ‘Philanthropic Crowdfunding for the Cultural Heritage Sector’

Fte: 0.8-1.0

VU unit: Faculty of Social Sciences
Vacancy number: 14127
Date of publication: April 3, 2014
Closing date: April 24, 2014

 

The initial appointment will be for 1 year. After satisfactory evaluation of the initial appointment, it can be extended for a total duration of 4 years. The candidate will participate in the PhD programme of the Faculty of Social Sciences. The research will be supervised by Prof. Dr. Marcel Veenswijk, Dr. Irma Borst (Organization Sciences) and Prof. Dr. René Bekkers (Center for Philanthropic Studies).

 

The preferred starting date is the 1st of June 2014 and no later than September 2014. You can find information about our excellent fringe benefits of employment at www.workingatvu.nl like:

• remuneration of  8,3% end-of-year bonus and  8% holiday allowance;

• a minimum of 29 holidays in case of full-time employment;

• generous contribution (70%) commuting allowance based on public transport;

• discounts on collective insurances (healthcare- and car insurance).

 

Salary

The salary is € 2083,00 gross per month in the first year, increasing to € 2664,00 (salary scale 85) in the fourth year based on full-time employment.

 

About the VU Amsterdam Faculty of Social Sciences

VU University Amsterdam is one of the leading institutions for higher education in Europe and aims to be inspiring, innovative, and committed to societal welfare. It comprises twelve faculties and has teaching facilities for 25.000 students.

The Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS) is one of the larger faculties of the VU-University. Over 2700 students and more than 300 employees are engaged in teaching and research on social-science issues. The faculty has 5 bacherlor- and 7 masterprogramme’s, which are characterized by their broad and often multidisciplinary character.

 

The department of Organization Sciences focuses on the processes and phenomena that result in effective and efficient functioning of organizations. Among the topics studied are entrepreneurship, innovation, university-industry cooperation and valorization of research (results). For this specific research project, the department of Organization Sciences and the Center for Philanthropic Studies received a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific research (NWO).

For additional information, please contact Dr. Irma Borst (e-mail: w.a.m.borst@vu.nl), Prof. Dr. Marcel Veenswijk (e-mail: m.b.veenswijk@vu.nl) or Prof. Dr. René Bekkers (e-mail: r.bekkers@vu.nl)

 

Application

Applicants are requested to write a letter in which they describe their abilities and motivation, accompanied by a curriculum vitae and one or two references. The written applications, mentioning the vacancy number in the e-mail header or at the top left of the letter and envelope, should be submitted before April 24, 2014 to:

VU University Amsterdam
Faculty of Social Sciences
to the attention of Mrs. Dr. J.G.M.Reuling, managing director
De Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Or preferably by e-mail: vacature.org.fsw@vu.nl

Leave a comment

Filed under Center for Philanthropic Studies, crowdfunding, economics, experiments, household giving, incentives, philanthropy

New Director at Center for Philanthropic Studies

The Center for Philanthropic Studies at VU University Amsterdam has a new director. As of January 1, 2014, René Bekkers continues the work of the Center’s founder, Theo Schuyt. Schuyt remains Professor of Philanthropic Studies and Bekkers remains Professor Social Aspects of Prosocial Behavior. As the new director, Bekkers will continue the Center’s research on Philanthropy in the Netherlands, that Schuyt started at VU University Amsterdam. Since 1995 the Center publishes ‘Giving in the Netherlands’, the biennial macroeconomic study of sources and destinations of philanthropy, based on microdata about households, corporations and endowed foundations, and on additional data on charity lotteries and bequests. The Dutch government funds the research. The next edition is planned for publication in 2015. Bekkers: “I am extremely proud that I can continue this line of research. Giving in the Netherlands shows the societal significance of philanthropy. Because of its longitudinal design and its rich set of measures it is unique in the world, and of great scientific value.”

In the past years the research at the Center for Philanthropic Studies has increasingly focused on Europe. In 2007 the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP) was founded at VU University Amsterdam. The ERNOP counts about 100 members in 20 countries. In 2011 the Center published ‘Giving in Evidence’, a comparative study of philanthropic sources of funding for universities and other higher education institutions. Currently the Center coordinates the EUFORI study on European Funding for Research and Innovation, conducted by a consortium of experts in 29 countries in Europe. The Center will continue this international line of research in the coming years. Schuyt remains the chair of ERNOP until 2018. In 2014 Bekkers will start a two-year European study on the impact of volunteering on volunteers and society at large.

Bekkers is Professor Social Aspects of Prosocial Behavior since January 2013, supported by the Van der Gaag Foundation of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has been involved in the Giving in the Netherlands research since 2001, obtained his PhD at the Department of Sociology at Utrecht University in 2004, and came to VU University Amsterdam in 2008. His research examines causes and consequences of philanthropic behavior using a combination of longitudinal panel surveys and experiments. Theo Schuyt is professor of Philanthropic Studies at VU University Amsterdam since 2001. Schuyt will remain actively involved in the Giving in the Netherlands research and remains responsible for the postgraduate education program in Philanthropic Studies.

More information about the Center for Philanthropic Studies is available at www.giving.nl.

Comments Off on New Director at Center for Philanthropic Studies

Filed under Center for Philanthropic Studies, VU University