慈善捐款是富人的奢侈品吗?来自一个超级多元化大都市的调查和实际行为的证据

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Social Science Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1111/ssqu.13418
Jonas Elis, Sabrina Jasmin Mayer, Achim Goerres
{"title":"慈善捐款是富人的奢侈品吗?来自一个超级多元化大都市的调查和实际行为的证据","authors":"Jonas Elis, Sabrina Jasmin Mayer, Achim Goerres","doi":"10.1111/ssqu.13418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivePrevious studies on charitable giving have emphasized the importance of socioeconomic status in explaining why individuals choose to donate or not to donate money. Other explanations, such as social capital or local contexts, have also been investigated, but these perspectives are rarely combined and tested against an actual behavioral outcome measure. We seek to compare the statistical importance of these explanations for individual‐level donation decisions.MethodsOur study investigates survey respondents’ choices to repeatedly donate their earned incentive after a completed interview in the three waves of the Immigrant German Election Study II from 2021. In each wave, respondents were offered an incentive worth 10 euros, which they could either keep as a gift card or donate to the local food bank. This decision is a measurement of real rather than self‐reported donation behavior. We combine individual‐level variables and neighborhood‐level variables that capture the heterogeneity of our sample to systematically compare explanations for this donation decision.ResultsWe find that the respondents’ self‐assessed economic situation and sociopolitical preferences in favor of more social spending by the state, rather than the respondents’ objective socioeconomic status, have strong positive effects on the total amount donated throughout the survey.ConclusionNot the rich per se, but those who think they are doing well economically, and who are on the redistributive left, give more to others. These findings remain robust after controlling for the strong heterogeneity of our sample.","PeriodicalId":48253,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are charitable donations a luxury good of the rich? Evidence from a survey and actual behavior in a superdiverse metropolis\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Elis, Sabrina Jasmin Mayer, Achim Goerres\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ssqu.13418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivePrevious studies on charitable giving have emphasized the importance of socioeconomic status in explaining why individuals choose to donate or not to donate money. Other explanations, such as social capital or local contexts, have also been investigated, but these perspectives are rarely combined and tested against an actual behavioral outcome measure. We seek to compare the statistical importance of these explanations for individual‐level donation decisions.MethodsOur study investigates survey respondents’ choices to repeatedly donate their earned incentive after a completed interview in the three waves of the Immigrant German Election Study II from 2021. In each wave, respondents were offered an incentive worth 10 euros, which they could either keep as a gift card or donate to the local food bank. This decision is a measurement of real rather than self‐reported donation behavior. We combine individual‐level variables and neighborhood‐level variables that capture the heterogeneity of our sample to systematically compare explanations for this donation decision.ResultsWe find that the respondents’ self‐assessed economic situation and sociopolitical preferences in favor of more social spending by the state, rather than the respondents’ objective socioeconomic status, have strong positive effects on the total amount donated throughout the survey.ConclusionNot the rich per se, but those who think they are doing well economically, and who are on the redistributive left, give more to others. These findings remain robust after controlling for the strong heterogeneity of our sample.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48253,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13418\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13418","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的以往关于慈善捐赠的研究强调社会经济地位在解释个人选择捐赠或不捐赠的原因中的重要性。其他解释,如社会资本或当地环境,也曾被研究过,但这些观点很少被结合起来,并通过实际的行为结果测量进行检验。我们的研究调查了受访者在完成 2021 年德国移民选举研究 II 的三波访谈后,对重复捐赠所获奖励的选择。在每一轮调查中,受访者都会获得价值 10 欧元的奖励,他们可以将其作为礼品卡保存或捐给当地的食品银行。这一决定是对真实而非自我报告的捐赠行为的测量。结果我们发现,在整个调查过程中,受访者自我评估的经济状况和支持国家增加社会支出的社会政治偏好,而不是受访者客观的社会经济地位,对捐赠总额有很强的正向影响。结论不是富人本身,而是那些认为自己经济状况良好、处于再分配左翼的人对他人的捐赠更多。在控制了样本的强烈异质性后,这些发现仍然是可靠的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are charitable donations a luxury good of the rich? Evidence from a survey and actual behavior in a superdiverse metropolis
ObjectivePrevious studies on charitable giving have emphasized the importance of socioeconomic status in explaining why individuals choose to donate or not to donate money. Other explanations, such as social capital or local contexts, have also been investigated, but these perspectives are rarely combined and tested against an actual behavioral outcome measure. We seek to compare the statistical importance of these explanations for individual‐level donation decisions.MethodsOur study investigates survey respondents’ choices to repeatedly donate their earned incentive after a completed interview in the three waves of the Immigrant German Election Study II from 2021. In each wave, respondents were offered an incentive worth 10 euros, which they could either keep as a gift card or donate to the local food bank. This decision is a measurement of real rather than self‐reported donation behavior. We combine individual‐level variables and neighborhood‐level variables that capture the heterogeneity of our sample to systematically compare explanations for this donation decision.ResultsWe find that the respondents’ self‐assessed economic situation and sociopolitical preferences in favor of more social spending by the state, rather than the respondents’ objective socioeconomic status, have strong positive effects on the total amount donated throughout the survey.ConclusionNot the rich per se, but those who think they are doing well economically, and who are on the redistributive left, give more to others. These findings remain robust after controlling for the strong heterogeneity of our sample.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Nationally recognized as one of the top journals in the field, Social Science Quarterly (SSQ) publishes current research on a broad range of topics including political science, sociology, economics, history, social work, geography, international studies, and women"s studies. SSQ is the journal of the Southwestern Social Science Association.
期刊最新文献
Domains of baseless belief and the characteristics of believers Attitudes toward abortion legality and abortion regulation: Insights from a nationally representative study An advanced learning approach for detecting sarcasm in social media posts: Theory and solutions Not ready to make nice: Congressional candidates’ emotional appeals on Twitter Climate‐related disasters and transparency: Records and the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1