Subsidizing charitable contributions: a natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies

被引:94
作者
Eckel, Catherine C. [1 ]
Grossman, Philip J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Dallas, Sch Econ Polit & Policy Sci, Richardson, TX 75080 USA
[2] St Cloud State Univ, Dept Econ, St Cloud, MN 56301 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
field experiment; rebate subsidy; matching subsidy; charitable giving;
D O I
10.1007/s10683-008-9198-0
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We report the results of a field experiment conducted in conjunction with a mailed fundraising campaign of a nonprofit organization. The experiment is designed to compare the response of donors to subsidies in the form of matching amounts or rebated amounts. Matching subsidies are used by many corporations as an employee benefit; the US federal tax system encourages giving using a rebate subsidy by making donations tax deductible. The design includes a control group and two levels of subsidy of each type. Our main result is that matching subsidies result in larger total donations to charities than rebate subsidies, a result that is qualitatively similar to the lab findings. The estimated price elasticities for the matching subsidy are very similar to (and insignificantly different from) the lab experiments, while rebate subsidies lead to lower contributions in the field than in the lab. Since rebates in the field involve substantial lags and additional complications as compared with the "instant rebates" of the lab, this latter difference is not unexpected. The matching results are an important step in validating lab estimates of responsiveness to subsidies of charitable giving.
引用
收藏
页码:234 / 252
页数:19
相关论文
共 16 条
  • [1] Incentives and prosocial behavior
    Benabou, Roland
    Tirole, Jean
    [J]. AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2006, 96 (05) : 1652 - 1678
  • [2] *CTR PHIL, 2007, PATT HOUS CHAR GIV I
  • [3] Rebates, matches, and consumer behavior
    Davis, DD
    Millner, EL
    [J]. SOUTHERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2005, 72 (02) : 410 - 421
  • [4] Subsidy schemes and charitable contributions: A closer look
    Davis, DD
    Millner, EL
    Reilly, RJ
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS, 2005, 8 (02) : 85 - 106
  • [5] Davis DD, 2006, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V1, P13
  • [6] Dillman DA., 2000, Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method
  • [7] Eckel CC, 2006, RES EXP ECO, V11, P157
  • [8] Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence
    Eckel, CC
    Grossman, PJ
    [J]. SOUTHERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2006, 72 (04) : 794 - 807
  • [9] Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?
    Eckel, CC
    Grossman, PJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 2003, 87 (3-4) : 681 - 701
  • [10] Groves R.M., 1998, NONRESPONSE HOUSEHOL, DOI DOI 10.1002/9781118490082