VU-GSSS PhD Evaluation Day, February 11, 2014

1. Mechanisms of
crowding-out and crowding-in
How and when does government support affect
private contributions?
Arjen de Wit
VU-GSSS PhD Evaluation Day
February 11, 2014

2. Thanks to…
René Bekkers
Marjolein Broese van Groenou

4. Crowding-out



Lower government support, higher private
contributions (giving and volunteering)
Previous studies are not conclusive
Estimated effects of a change in government
support vary strongly between studies

5. What do economists say?



You have a preferred level of public good
provision (PREF)
The government provides a certain level of the
public good (GOV)
You provide what’s left (PRIV = PREF – GOV)

6. What do economists say?



You have a preferred level of public good
provision (PREF)
The government provides a certain level of the
public good (GOV)
You provide what’s left (PRIV = PREF – GOV)
‘Perfect crowding-out’

7. But there is more (1)

The need in society changes because of
changes in government support

8. But there is more (2)


Non-profit organizations increasingly raise
funds and recruit volunteers when receiving
less subsidies
Subsidies change the reputation of non-profit
organizations

9. But there is more (3)


Government support changes your awareness
of the need
Government support changes resources like
income and education

10. The model

11. Paper 1: A meta-analysis

Systematic review of previous studies

12. Paper 1: A meta-analysis

Systematic review of previous studies

First results in a minute!

13. Paper 1: A meta-analysis

Systematic review of previous studies

First results in a minute!

14. Paper 2: Dutch charities




Y = Giving to 15 charitable organizations
Tests mechanisms of solicitation, efficacy and
awareness of need
Micro data: Giving in the Netherlands Panel
Survey 2002-2012 (6 waves)
Meso data: Dutch Bureau on Fundraising (CBF)

15. Paper 3: Need or demand?




Y = Giving and volunteering in public/social
sector
Tests mechanisms of need and resources
Micro data: Giving in the Netherlands Panel
Survey 2002-2012 (6 waves)
Macro data: Statistics Netherlands (CBS)

16. Paper 4: Volunteering in Germany

Y = Volunteering in education and childcare

Tests mechanisms of need


Micro data: German Survey on Volunteering
1999-2014 (4 cross-sections, nested in 16
states)
Macro data: Federal Statistical Office (Destatis)

17. Paper 5: Field experiment




Y = Giving to cultural organizations
Tests conditions under which mechanism of
need is stronger
Information vs. no information about giving law
(‘Geefwet’)
Specific need (stage lights) vs. infinite need (the
future of the theatre) to donate to

18. Meta-analysis

19. Meta-analysis



Systematic literature review
We collect effect sizes published in previous
research
We seek to explain differences in effect sizes
between studies by characteristics of samples
and publications

20. Meta-analysis: collecting studies

Y = Amount of private donations

X = Government support

Retrieval in Web of Science through EndNote

Our search now extends back to 1990


We include only original empirical quantitative
results
N = 259 in 47 studies

23. Our meta-analysis
sample

24. Books
Our meta-analysis
sample

25. Books
Dissertations
Our meta-analysis
sample

26. Books
Dissertations
Theses
Our meta-analysis
sample

27. Books
Dissertations
Theses
Not in Web of Science
Our meta-analysis
sample

28. Books
Dissertations
Theses
Not in Web of Science
Not accepted
Our meta-analysis
sample

29. Books
Dissertations
Theses
Not in Web of Science
Not accepted
Not submitted
Our meta-analysis
sample

30. Books
Dissertations
Theses
Not in Web of Science
Not accepted
Not submitted
Our meta-analysis
sample
Non-English

31. Crowding-out estimates

32. Mean crowding-out effect

33. Stronger crowding-out in lab
experiments…

34. …in studies outside the USA…

35. …and in the public/social sector.

36. Discussion

Random sample?

Are we comparing apples and oranges?

‘Bad studies’ in the sample?

Multicollinearity

37. Between-study variance
Multilevel random-effects model on
crowding-out estimates (excl. outliers)
(Constant)
-0.236
Between-study SD
0.38
Rho
0.58
No. of studies
35
Observations
191

38. Conclusions of meta-analysis (so far)
• On average, a $1 reduction in government support
is associated with a $0.21 increase in private
contributions.
• However, crowding-out estimates vary considerably
from study to study.
• Differences in the methodology used to measure
the influence of government contributions on
private giving are driving these differences.

39. To be continued
Arjen de Wit
Center for Philanthropic Studies
Room Z-439
a.de.wit@vu.nl