New Research Plan: Wealth and Generosity

To what extent does the accumulation of wealth reduce feelings of responsibility for society and behavioral manifestations of generosity, such as charitable giving and bequeathing? Since 2003, the level of generosity of the Dutch population, defined as the proportion of resources donated to charitable causes, has declined by about 40% (Bekkers, Gouwenberg, Koolen-Maas & Schuyt, 2022). At the same time, levels of wealth have increased (Rijksoverheid, 2022) and those with more wealth give considerably less as a proportion of their wealth (Wiepking, 2007; Bekkers, De Wit, & Wiepking, 2017). Why is that? Are more generous persons less likely to accumulate wealth? Or does wealth make people care less about those in need? How can generosity for public welfare among the wealthy in the Netherlands be enhanced?

To answer these understudied questions, I’ve designed a research project with innovative longitudinal analyses of unique administrative and survey data and with field experiments. It will be the first study of wealth and generosity in the Netherlands over the life course as well as after death through bequests. Also we will conduct field experiments in order to increase the amount donated to charities. Today is the deadline for pre-proposals; I’ve submitted one for the Open Competition-L in the Social Sciences and Humanities scheme at NWO. Following through on the commitment to the principle of transparency, I’ve made the plan publicly available at https://osf.io/e3mux/. I will also post evaluations, reviews and responses there.

Update, 18 February 2024: the full proposal is submitted. You can read it here: https://osf.io/59jvk. Also I’ve created a list of Frequently Asked Questions and answers – see here: https://osf.io/45dky.

References

Bekkers, R., Gouwenberg, B., Koolen-Maas, S. & Schuyt, T. (2022, Eds.). Giving in the Netherlands 2022: Summary. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://osf.io/c6pju

Bekkers, R., De Wit, A. & Wiepking, P. (2017). Jubileumspecial: Twintig jaar Geven in Nederland. Pp. 61-94 in: Bekkers, R. Schuyt, T.N.M., & Gouwenberg, B.M. (Eds.). Geven in Nederland 2017: Giften, Sponsoring, Legaten en Vrijwilligerswerk. Amsterdam: Lenthe. https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/bekkers_dewit_wiepking_17.pdf

Rijksoverheid (2022). Licht uit, spot aan: de vermogensverdeling. IBO Vermogensverdeling. Den Haag: Rijksoverheid. https://www.rijksfinancien.nl/sites/default/files/extrainfo/ibos/IBO%20Vermogensverdeling%20rapport%20-v2.pdf

Wiepking, P. (2007). The Philanthropic Poor: In Search of Explanations for the Relative Generosity of Lower Income Households. Voluntas, 18, 339–358 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-007-9049-1

Where did all the time go?

It’s one of those days – at 13.25 I have not yet worked on any of the main tasks I envisioned for myself. Where did all the time go this morning? I do know that I handled a lot of messages I received through e-mail. I can even feel a little satisfaction about having cleared away the clutter in my inbox. At the same time, I see that I am getting behind schedule on three main tasks that I was looking forward to working on. It’s the relatively quiet summer weeks before the new cohort of students comes in. As a professor of philanthropy my first task is research on nonprofit organizations, charitable giving and volunteering. I was looking forward to planning new research on Wealth and Generosity. In another role, as chair of the Research Ethics Review Committee at the Faculty of Social Sciences, my second task is to handle requests for ethics review by researchers. I was looking forward to writing up suggestions that students gave in June to create a culture of ongoing discussion of research integrity. My third main task is directing the two-year research master program at the Faculty. I was looking forward to designing a future course on Digital Society Research.

Yet I have not been working on any of these things this morning. Instead, I’ve been busy with a bunch of small tasks. They are all tangentially related to the tasks I formally agreed to. I know I can leave some of them unanswered, but I also know there’s a limit to that. They all came from emails I received, by people who are waiting for an answer. If I don’t answer them that list of people will only grow further.

• Who will we nominate for the best thesis prize this year? I revisited the theses defended by students in our Research Master program in the past year and agreed to invite a nomination letter from a supervisor.
• Is an Associate Professor in my department worthy of a promotion? I considered the invitation by my Head of Department to act as an internal reviewer substituting a colleague who is temporarily unavailable, read the instructions from the Faculty Board, sent an email agreeing with the request and created an agenda item and reminder to assess the portfolio.
• Should I support a postdoctoral researcher from China who wants me to sign an acceptance letter for a year long stay at my research group funded by the China Scholarship Council? I ignored the request for the moment because I don’t know the researcher, the institution where the person is from, or anyone there. Also the publications indicate the research does not use open science practices.
• Why do we not provide an estimate of the economic value of volunteering? I explained the methodology in Giving in the Netherlands to an interested practitioner who asked this question in an email.
• Am I quoted correctly? I checked quotes in an interview with a journalist, writing an email that all is fine.
• Is the latest paper accepted for publication already on my CV somewhere? No. I added it to my resume.
• Can I do an interview with students for their undergraduate thesis? I considered the request, declined it implicitly by answering their questions with links to some of my published research.
• Can I review an article for a scientific journal? I considered the request, and wrote an email asking for access to the data and code.
• Why can’t I login to the university system with my credentials? I called the IT helpdesk, did not get through, and wrote an email instead.
• Am I being cited correctly? I checked a reference to my work in a new article by a well-known researcher in my field, finding that it is OK. It’s an interesting study, by the way, so I filed it in a folder to read later.

So why not write up this list to tell you that you’re not the only ones who cannot get their work done in the hours that you have?

New PhD project: Learning to Donate

In the new academic year, we’re starting a PhD project at the department of Donor Studies at Sanquin Research and the Center for Philanthropic Studies at Vrije Universiteit (VU). Meanwhile, we’ve completed interviews and selected Alexandra Ciauşescu for the position.

Social relations (e.g., with family members, teachers or friends) are critical to the onset and maintenance of different types of prosocial behaviour, e.g., charitable giving or volunteer work. Solicitations by others, observation of prosocial behaviour in others, awareness of need, and norms about prosocial behaviour all travel through social relations and may result in social ‘contagion’. Parental role-modeling for example and conversations about giving behaviour are strongly related to adolescents’ giving and volunteering. Evidence about whether and how social relations shape blood donation behavior, however, is scarce. Previous research shows that one of the most effective recruitment strategies for blood donors is the donor-recruits-donor strategy. But we do not know which specific relationships are producing this effect: romantic relations, parent-child relations, friends and/or colleagues? In addition, the specific mechanisms at work, such as social learning, awareness of need, and value transmission, remain elusive. Knowledge about such mechanisms increase possibilities for more effective recruitment of new donors.

With this project we address three objectives:
•    Examine learning and inter/intragenerational transmission in blood donor behavior 
•    Develop and test educational material about donation for children and adolescents (e.g., Science exhibition)
•    Develop and test interventions for blood donor recruitment by using social information (i.e., information about donor status and donation behaviour of others)

The project duration is four years and the PhD candidate will participate in the VU Graduate School for Social Sciences as well as in the PhD network at Sanquin. Supervisors are dr. Eva-Maria Merz (VU/Sanquin) and prof. dr. René Bekkers (VU). The research proposal is here.

Organizations
This project is a collaboration between the department of Donor Studies at Sanquin Research and the Center for Philanthropic Studies at VU, both located in Amsterdam. The department of Donor Studies is an internationally recognized center for high-quality (blood) donor research. Staff at the department consists of about 15 researchers, including 5 PhD students. The Center for Philanthropic Studies at VU conducts research and educates professionals in all areas of the Dutch philanthropic sector. Since 1995, the Center has been the leading unit for research on philanthropy in the Netherlands and in Europe. 

Nonprofit Trends Survey – Nederland

Heeft jouw organisatie de afgelopen maanden de nieuwste technologie ingezet om tijdens de Coronacrisis door te kunnen gaan? Of zou jouw organisatie beter met technologie moeten leren omgaan? Hoe veel vertrouwen heb je dat jouw organisatie sterker uit de pandemie zal komen? Welke zorgen heb je voor de komende maanden?

Over deze zaken horen we graag jouw mening en ervaringen in de internationale Nonprofit Trends Survey. Deze enquête wordt uitgevoerd door het Urban Institute in Washington DC onder goededoelenorganisaties en andere nonprofits en vindt plaats in 6 landen: in de Verenigde Staten, het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Canada, Duitsland, Frankrijk, en in Nederland. Het Centrum voor Filantropische Studies van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam heeft de vragenlijst vertaald voor het onderzoek in Nederland. We hopen in het nieuwe onderzoek een beeld te krijgen van het gebruik van data en technologie in Nederland, zodat we het kunnen vergelijken met andere landen.

Respondenten maken kans op Amazon gift cards. Klik hier om aan het onderzoek deel te nemen: https://urbaninstitute.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_86S09YMGgaT2EpD?Q_Language=NL

Hartelijk dank alvast!

The Work & Worries of a Webinar

Can everyone hear me? Does my hair look OK? What does the audience think about what I just said? Did I answer the most important questions? Some of these worries are the same now in the Webinar Age as for an old style Pre-COVID-19 in-person conference presentation, but many are new. In a webinar setting it is very difficult to get cues from the audience. Solution: organize an honest feedback channel, separate from your audience.

This is just one of the things we have learned at the Center for Philanthropic Studies at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam from transforming an in-person conference to an online webinar. The day before yesterday we organized our Giving in the Netherlands conference entirely online. We had planned this conference to be an in-person event for 260 participants – the maximum capacity of the room that a sponsor kindly offered to us. We were fully booked. Registration was free, with a €50 late cancellations penalty.

Then the ‘intelligent lockdown’ and physical distancing measures imposed by the government in the Netherlands made it impossible to do the conference as planned. After some checks of various presentation platforms, we decided to move the conference online, using Zoom. We reworked the program, and made it shorter. We removed the opening reception, break, and drinks afterward. We first did 3 plenary presentations, and then a panel discussion. Total length of the program was 90 minutes.

We pre-recorded two of the three the presentations (using Loom) so we could broadcast them in a zoom-session. This worked well, though it was a lot of work to create good quality sound and a ‘talking head’ image in the presentations. We have learned a lot about audio feedback loops, natural light effects, and the importance of a neutral background for presentations.

In the preparations for the symposium, I also benefited from the experience moderating the opening plenary at the ARNOVA conference last year. In our online format, instead of having volunteers going around the room, I gave the audience the opportunity to pose questions through a separate online channel, www.menti.com. The online format even had an advantage compared to the hotel ballroom stage setting. During the interview I was able to keep an eye on the questions channel, and I could secretly look at my phone as colleagues sent me texts and emails identifying the questions as they came in. As a result, the discussion went smoothly, and the audience was engaged. After the unilateral research presentations, the panel discussion was a lively change of scene. I interviewed three sector leaders in the Netherlands about COVID-19 effects, and again presented questions from the audience.

Overall, this was a good experience for us, proving that it is possible to do a traditional symposium in an online setting. We also learned that it was a lot of work. You need new audiovisual skills that you don’t learn in graduate school.

You need a team of people working behind the scenes to make it work. We had a moderator, Barry Hoolwerf, introducing the house rules, broadcasting the pre-recorded presentations, and giving the floor to the live speakers – unmuting their microphones and allowing their video to be visible on screen. We had two people, Arjen de Wit and Claire van Teunenbroek, monitoring the questions channel, selecting the most important ones.

Finally, we learned how important it is to test, learn and adapt. We tested the presentations for a smaller audience that we gave a ‘sneak preview’ and learned about technical issues. The test was additional work, but worth it because it took away most of our worries.

You can watch the presentations (in Dutch) here: https://www.geveninnederland.nl/presentatie-geven-in-nederland-2020/. If you’re interested in the book you can download it here: https://www.geveninnederland.nl/publicatie-geven-in-nederland-2020/. A visual summary of the book in English is here: https://renebekkers.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/giving-in-the-netherlands-2020-summary.pdf

Gevonden: student-assistent Geven in Nederland 2020

De werkgroep Filantropische Studies van de Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is het expertisecentrum op het gebied van onderzoek naar filantropie in Nederland. De werkgroep houdt zich bezig met vragen zoals: Waarom geven mensen vrijwillig geld aan goede doelen? Waarom verrichten mensen vrijwilligerswerk? Hoeveel geld gaat er om in de filantropische sector? Voor het onderzoek Geven in Nederland heeft de werkgroep een student-assistent gevonden: Florian van Heijningen. Welkom!

Research on giving in the Netherlands continues, funding secured

We are pleased to announce that the Center for Philanthropic Studies has been able to secure funding for continued research on giving in the Netherlands. The funding enables data collection for the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey among households, as well as data collection on corporations, foundations, charity lotteries, and bequests.

In the past 20 years, Giving in the Netherlands has been the prime source of data on trends in the size and composition of philanthropy in the Netherlands. Continuation of the research was uncertain for more than a year because the ministry of Justice and Security withdrew 50% of its funding, calling upon the philanthropic sector to co-fund the research. In an ongoing dialogue with the philanthropic sector, the VU-Center sought stronger alignment of the research with the need for research in practice. The Center has organized round table discussions and an advisory group of experts from the sector has been composed. The Center will use the insights from this dialogue in the research.

Meanwhile the fieldwork has started. Preliminary estimates of giving in the Netherlands will be discussed at a symposium for members of branch organizations in the philanthropic sector in the Fall of 2019. Full publication of the results is scheduled mid-April 2020, at the National Day of Philanthropy.

Uncertain Future for Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey

By Barbara Gouwenberg and René Bekkers

At the Center for Philanthropic Studies we have been working hard to secure funding for three rounds of funding for the Giving in the Netherlands Study, including the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey for the years 2020-2026. During the previous round of the research, the ministry of Justice and Security has said that it would no longer fund the study on its own, because the research is important not only for the government but also for the philanthropic sector. The national government no longer sees itself as the sole funder of the research.

The ministry does think the research is important and is prepared to commit funding for the research in the form of a 1:1 matching subsidy to contributions received by VU Amsterdam from other funders. To strengthen the societal relevance and commitment for the Giving in the Netherlands study the Center has engaged in a dialogue with relevant stakeholders, including the council of foundations, the association of fundraising organizations, and several endowed foundations and fundraising charities in the Netherlands. The goal of these talks was to get science and practice closer together. From these talks we have gained three important general insights:

• The Giving in the Netherlands study contributes to the visibility of philanthropy in the Netherlands. This is important for the legitimacy of an autonomous and growing sector.
• It is important to engage in a conversation with relevant stakeholders before the fieldwork for a next round starts, in order to align the research more strongly with practice.
• After the analyses have been completed, communication with relevant stakeholders about the results should be improved. Stakeholders desire more conversations about the application of insights from the research in practice.

The center includes these issues in the plans for the upcoming three editions. VU Amsterdam has been engaged in conversations with branch organizations and individual foundations in the philanthropic sector for a long time, in order to build a sustainable financial model for the future of the research. However, at the moment we do not have the funds together to continue the research. That is why we did not collect data for the 2018 wave of the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey. As a result, we will not publish estimates for the size and composition of philanthropy in the Netherlands in spring 2019. We do hope that after this gap year we can restart the research next year, with a publication of new estimates in 2020.

Your ideas and support are very welcome at r.bekkers@vu.nl.

Onderzoek Geven in Nederland in gevaar

Door Barbara Gouwenberg – uit de nieuwsbrief van de werkgroep Filantropische Studies aan de VU (december 2018)

Het Centrum voor Filantropische Studies werkt momenteel met man en macht om de financiering voor het onderzoek Geven in Nederland voor de komende 6 jaar (3 edities) veilig te stellen. Het Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid (J&V) heeft bij de opzet van Geven in Nederland 2017 medio 2015 te kennen gegeven dat het onderzoek niet langer alleen door de overheid zal worden gefinancierd, met als belangrijkste argumentatie dat het onderzoek van belang is voor overheid én sector filantropie. De overheid ziet zichzelf niet langer als enige verantwoordelijke voor de financiering van het onderzoek.

Het Ministerie van J&V wil zich wel voor een langere tijd structureel verbinden aan Geven in Nederland en geeft 1:1 matching voor financiële bijdragen die de VU vanuit de sector ontvangt.

Om de maatschappelijke relevantie van – en commitment voor – het onderzoek Geven in Nederland te versterken heeft de VU de afgelopen maanden de dialoog opgezocht met diverse relevante doelgroepen. Doel: wetenschap en praktijk dichter bij elkaar brengen.

Deze rondgang heeft ons – naast specifieke inzichten – drie belangrijke algemene inzichten opgeleverd; te weten:

• ‘Geven in Nederland’ draagt bij aan de zichtbaarheid van maatschappelijk initiatief in Nederland. Belangrijk ter legitimatie van een zelfstandige en snel groeiende sector.
• Communicatie met relevante doelgroepen vóór de start van het onderzoek dient verbeterd te worden met als doel om inhoudelijk beter aansluiting te vinden bij praktijk en beleid.
• Communicatie over onderzoeksresultaten naar relevante doelgroepen dient verbeterd te worden. Het gaat dan om de praktische toepasbaarheid van het onderzoek, de vertaling van de onderzoeksresultaten naar de praktijk.

De onderzoekers nemen deze verbeterpunten mee in hun plan van aanpak voor de komende drie edities. De VU is al enige tijd in gesprek met de brancheorganisaties en individuele fondsen om tot een duurzaam financieringsmodel voor de toekomst te komen. Op dit moment is de continuering van het onderzoek echter nog niet gegarandeerd. Dat betekent dat er helaas geen Geven in Nederland 2019 komt en dus ook geen presentatie van de nieuwe onderzoeksresultaten zoals u van ons gewend bent op de Dag van de Filantropie. We spreken echter onze hoop uit dat we zeer binnenkort met een Geven in Nederland 2020 kunnen starten!

Four misunderstandings about research on philanthropy

“What do people misunderstand about your research?” A great question that allows me to correct a few popular ideas about our research on philanthropy.

1. Who pays you? The first misunderstanding is that charities pay for our research on philanthropy. We understand that you would think that, because for charitable organizations it is useful to know what makes people give. After all, they are in the business of fundraising. On the other hand, you would not assume that second hand car dealers or diamond traders fund research on trust or that ski resort owners would fund climate change research. We are talking to foundations and fundraising organizations about the insights from our work that may help them in their business, but the work itself is funded primarily by the Ministry of Justice and Security of the government of the Netherlands and by the DG Research & Innovation of the European Commission.

Update: since 2019 the branch organization of fundraising organizations contributes about one quarter of the budget of “Giving in the Netherlands”.

2. What is the best charity? The second misunderstanding is that we vet charities and foundations, like we are some sort of philanthropy police. We don’t rate effective charities or give prizes for the best foundations, nor do we keep lists of bad apples in the philanthropy sector. We don’t track the activities that charities spend their funds on, or how much is ‘actually going to the cause’. If you need this kind of information, check the annual reports of organizations. We do warn the public that raising money costs money and that organizations saying they have no overhead costs are probably doing something wrong.

3. What is altruism? The third misunderstanding is that altruism is a gift that entails a sacrifice. You can hear this when people give each other compliments like: “That is very altruistic of you!” When people give to others despite the fact that they have little themselves and giving is costly, we tend to think this gift is worth more than a relatively small gift by a wealthy person. The term you are looking for here is generosity, not altruism. Altruism is a gift motivated by a concern for the well-being of the recipient. How much of the giving we see is altruism is one of the key questions on philanthropy. Which conditions make people give out of altruism, and what kind of people are more likely to do so, is a very difficult question to answer, because it is so difficult to isolate altruism from egoistic motivations for giving.

4. Crowding-in. The fourth misunderstanding is that less government implies more philanthropy. You can hear this in statements like “Americans give so much because the government there does so little”. The desire to have a small government is a political goal in itself, not an effective way to increase philanthropy. As government spending increases, citizens do not give less, and conversely, as government spending decreases, citizens do not give more. In the past decades, giving in the USA as a proportion of GDP is essentially a flat line with some fluctuation around 2%, even though government spending has increased enormously in this period. Also countries in which government spending as a proportion of GDP is higher are not necessarily countries in which people give more. In Europe, we even see a negative relationship: as citizens pay more taxes, a higher proportion of the population gives to charity. Learn more about this by reading my lecture ‘Values of Philanthropy’ at the 13th ISTR Conference we organized at VU Amsterdam.

PS – It was the tweet below (link here) that prompted this post: