Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T15:00:29.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charity and Gift Exchange: Cultural Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Saima Naeem and
Asad Zaman
Saima Naeem*
Affiliation:
State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi, Pakistan
Asad Zaman
Affiliation:
Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad, Pakistan
*
saima_pide@yahoo.com
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our intent in this paper was to provide experimental evidence for the Gift Exchange Mechanism in the context of charitable donations in Pakistan. We chose a simple and elegant experiment of Falk as the basis for our experiment. Due to institutional differences, we replaced his postal campaign for charitable donations by a door-to-door campaign. The additional opportunity for social interaction, and cultural differences, led to substantial and unexpected variation in the results. Most importantly, in direct contrast to results of Falk, both frequency and average size of donations declined with increasing gift size. Thus the GEM failed to operate in this experiment. We provide some potential explanations for this surprising result. Our experiment also provides some information on gender and income effects on charitable donations, which vary from main findings in the literature. In particular, we find that females contribute more in frequency and size, and that the share of giving declines with income.

Résumé

Résumé

Nous voulions, avec le présent article, fournir une preuve expérimentale à l’appui du mécanisme d’échange de don (Gift Exchange Mechanism ou GEM en anglais) dans le contexte des dons de bienfaisance au Pakistan. Nous avons choisi une expérience simple et élégante de Falk comme fondement de notre étude. En raison de différences institutionnelles, nous avons remplacé cette campagne de bienfaisance postale par une campagne de porte-à-porte. La hausse des interactions sociales conséquentes et les différences culturelles ont donné lieu à des écarts importants et imprévus des résultats. Principalement, et en opposition directe aux résultats de Falk, la fréquence et la taille moyenne des dons diminuaient avec la hausse de la taille du cadeau. Le GEM a donc échoué dans cette expérience. Nous offrons des explications possibles pour ce résultat surprenant. Notre expérience a aussi fourni des renseignements sur les effets du sexe et du revenu sur les dons de bienfaisance. Ces derniers s’écartent des principaux résultats exposés dans la littérature. Nous avons découvert que les femmes contribuent davantage, et ce, en fréquence et en taille, et que la part des dons diminue avec le revenu.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieses Beitrags war es, experimentelle Beweise für den Gabentauschmechanismus im Zusammenhang mit gemeinnützigen Spenden in Pakistan zu liefern. Das Experiment beruhte auf einem einfachen und geschmackvollen Experiment von Falk. Aufgrund der institutionellen Unterschiede wurde seine Postkampagne für gemeinnützige Spenden durch eine Haustürkampagne ersetzt. Die zusätzliche Gelegenheit für eine soziale Interaktion sowie kulturelle Unterschiede führten zu einer bedeutenden und unerwarteten Abweichung bei den Ergebnissen. Dabei ist besonders nennenswert, dass im direkten Ggegensatz zu den Ergebnissen von Falk sowohl die Häufigkeit als auch die durchschnittliche Spendenhöhe mit zunehmend größeren Geschenken abnahm. Somit versagte der Gabentauschmechanismus in diesem Experiment. Wir präsentieren einige mögliche Erklärungen für dieses überraschende Ergebnis. Unser Experiment enthält zudem einige Informationen über die Auswirkungen von Geschlecht und Einkommen auf wohltätige Spenden, wobei diese von den wichtigsten Ergebnissen in der Literatur abweichen. Insbesondere zeigt sich, dass Frauen häufiger und größere Beiträge leisten und dass der Spendenanteil mit dem Einkommen abnimmt.

Resumen

Resumen

Mediante el presente documento, nuestra intención era proporcionar evidencia experimental sobre el Mecanismo de Intercambio de Regalos (Gift Exchange Mecanism, “GEM”) en el contexto de las donaciones benéficas en Pakistán. Escogimos un sencillo y elegante experimento de Falk como base para nuestro experimento. Debido a diferencias institucionales, sustituimos su campaña postal solicitando donaciones benéficas por una campaña puerta a puerta. La oportunidad adicional para la interacción social, y las diferencias culturales, llevaron a una variación sustancial e inesperada en los resultados. Lo que es más importante, en contraste directo con los resultados de Falk, tanto la frecuencia como el tamaño promedio de las donaciones disminuyeron con el tamaño creciente de los regalos. De este modo, el GEM no funcionó en este experimento. Proporcionamos algunas explicaciones potenciales de este sorprendente resultado. Nuestro experimento proporciona también alguna información sobre los efectos del género y de los ingresos en las donaciones benéficas, que son variaciones de los principales hallazgos ya mostrados por el material publicado. En particular, encontramos que las mujeres contribuyen más en frecuencia y en tamaño, y que la cuota de lo dado disminuye con los ingresos.

摘要

摘要

本论文的目的是为在巴基斯坦慈善捐赠背景下的“礼物交换机制(Gift Exchange Mechanism (GEM))”提供实验证据。我们选择了一个简洁的福克实验(experiment of Falk),作为我们实验的基础。由于体制上的差异,我们为慈善捐赠运用了挨家挨户活动,用以替代他的邮递活动。社会互动与文化差异上的额外机会导致结果上的实质性与出乎意料的变化。最重要的是,与福克(Falk)结果形成鲜明对比,随着礼品份额的增加,捐赠的频率与平均规模都有所下降。因此,在本实验中,GEM无法运行。我们对可能导致此出人意料结果的原因进行了解释。我们的实验同时也提供了一些关于性别与收入对慈善捐赠的影响的信息;在以往研究文献中的重要结果里,这两个因素是变化因素。特别地,我们发现女性捐赠的频率与规模都更大,而且捐赠的份额也会随着收入的下降而下降。

要約

要約

本論文の意図は、パキスタンにおける慈善寄付での景品交換メカニズム (GEM) の実験的証拠を提供することである。実験の基礎として、フォークのシンプルでエレガントな実験を選んだ。制度の違いにより、訪問キャンペーンでの慈善寄付を郵便キャンペーンに置き換えた。社会的相互作用と文化相違の機会は、結果として予期しない変化につながった。最も重要なことは、フォークの結果とは直接には対照的になるが、寄付の頻度と平均サイズは、景品のサイズの増加とともに減少した。したがって、GEMはこの実験に失敗した。意外な結果において潜在的な説明を提供する。実験では、文献の主要な調査結果のバリエーションとして、慈善寄付における性別と収入の影響に関する情報を提供する。特に女性の寄付に関する頻度と規模は、収入減少の割合に関わることがわかった。

ملخص

ملخص

ان لدينا نية في هذا البحث إلى تقديم الأدلة التجريبية لآلية تبادل الهدايا (GEM) في سياق التبرعات الخيرية في باكستان. إخترنا تجربة بسيطة وأنيقة من (Falk) كأساس لتجربتنا. بسبب الإختلافات المؤسسية، استبدلنا حملته البريدية للحصول على التبرعات الخيرية بحملة الباب إلى الباب. الفرصة الإضافية للتفاعل الإجتماعي، والإختلافات الثقافية، أدت إلى تفاوت كبير وغير متوقع في النتائج. الأهم من ذلك، في تناقض مباشر مع نتائج (Falk)، تم رفض كل من معدل تكرار التبرعات ومتوسط حجم التبرعات مع زيادة حجم الهدية. هكذا فشلت آلية تبادل الهدايا (GEM) في أن تكون لها أهمية في هذه التجربة. نحن نقدم بعض التفسيرات المحتملة لهذه النتيجة المثيرة للدهشة. توفر تجربتنا أيضا” بعض المعلومات عن الآثار بين الجنسين والدخل على التبرعات الخيرية، التي هي إختلافات في النتائج الرئيسية في الأدب. على وجه الخصوص، نجد أن الإناث تساهم أكثر في معدل تكرار التبرع وحجم التبرع، وأن حصة الإعطاء تنخفض مع الدخل.

Keywords

Gift exchangeCharitable givingCulture

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2016, pp. 900 - 919
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andreoni, J. (2004). Economics of philanthropy. In Gerard-Varet, L., Kolm, S., & Ythier, J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of giving, reciprocity and altruism (pp. 11369–11376). North-Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2008). Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 73–93. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2007.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–312. doi: 10.1162/003355301556419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auten, G. E., & Rudney, G. (1990). The variability of individual charitable giving in the US. Voluntas, 1, 80–97. doi: 10.1007/BF01397439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkers, R. (2004). Giving and volunteering in the Netherlands: Sociological and psychological perspectives. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Bell, D. (1991). Modes of exchange: gift and commodity. Journal of Socio-Economics, 20, 155–167. doi: 10.1016/S1053-5357(05)80003-4.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E., & Katok, E. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economic Letters, 48, 287–292. doi: 10.1016/0165-1765(94)00621-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonbright, D., & Azfar, A. (2000). Philanthropy in Pakistan: A report of the initiative on indigenous philanthropy. The Aga Khan Foundation.Google Scholar
Breeze, B. (2004). Widow’s mite or widow’s might? The relative giving of rich and poor in the UK. The 33rd annual conference of the association for research on nonprofit associations and voluntary action. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Brooks, A. (2005). Does social capital make you generous?. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 1–15. doi: 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00287.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlando, R., & Hey, J. D. (1997). Do Anglo-Saxons free-ride more?. Journal of Public Economics, 64(1), 41–60. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(96)01609-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T., Saijo, T., & Yamato, T. (1997). Voluntary participation and spite in public good provision experiments: An international comparison. Working paper, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 1–27. doi: 10.1257/jel.47.2.448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J., & Pyle, R. (1994). Passing the plate in affluent churches: Why some members give more than others. Review of Religious Research, 36, 181–196. doi: 10.2307/3511408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DellaVigna, S., List, J., & Malmendier, U. (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 1–56. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjr050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DellaVigna, S., List, J., Malmendier, U., & Rao, G. (2013). The importance of being marginal: gender differences in generosity. American Economic Review, 103(3), 586–590. doi: 10.1257/aer.103.3.586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 1092–1112. doi: 10.1177/0899764010385949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. (2007). Gift exchange in the field. Econometrica, 75(5), 1501–1511. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00800.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D., Pisani, R., & Purves, R. (1998). Statistics (3rd ed.) (Vol. 13). New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, V. A., & Weitzman, M. (1996). Giving and volunteering in the united states. Washington: Independent Sector.Google Scholar
Hoge, D. R., & Yang, F. (1994). Determinants of religious giving in American denominations: Data from two nationwide surveys. Review of Religious Research, 36, 123–148. doi: 10.2307/3511404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, R. N., & Sharpe, D. L. (2007). The nature and causes of the U-shaped charitable giving profile. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 218–238. doi: 10.1177/0899764006295993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamas, L., Preston, A., & Baum, S. (2008). Altruism in individual and joint-giving decisions: What’s gender got to do with it?. Feminist Economics, 14, 23–50. doi: 10.1080/13545700801986571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landry, C., Lange, A., List, J., Price, M., & Rupp, N. (2006). Toward an understanding of the economics of charity: Evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 747–782. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensberg, T., & Heijden, E. V. (1998). A cross-cultural study of reciprocity, trust and altruism in a gift exchange experiment. Tilburg University, Discussion paper, presented at the Summer 1998 ESA meeting.Google Scholar
Leslie, L. M., Snyder, M., & Glomb, T. M. (2013). Who gives? Multilevel effects of gender and ethnicity on workplace charitable giving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 49–62. doi: 10.1037/a0029943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
List, J. A. (2004). Young, selfish, and male: Field evidence of social preferences. Economic Journal, 114, 121–149. doi: 10.1046/j.0013-0133.2003.00180.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, C. P., & Tashiro, S. (2013). Are women more generous than men? Evidence from the US consumer expenditure survey. Journal of Gender Studies, 22(3), 282–296. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2012.708824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, J. D. (2000). Women and human services giving. Social Work, 45, 27–38. doi: 10.1093/sw/45.1.27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, R., & Brooks, A. C. (2004). What is the real relationship between income and charitable giving?. Public Finance Review, 32(5), 483–497. doi: 10.1177/1091142104266973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I., & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16, 342–355. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesch, D. J., Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K. S., & Denton, B. (2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 565–587. doi: 10.1177/0899764006288288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, S., & Zaman, A. (2014). Gender and ultimatum in Pakistan: Revisited. Pakistan Development Review, 53(1), 1–14.10.30541/v53i1pp.1-14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najam, A. (2007). Portrait of a giving community: Philanthropy by the Pakistani-American diaspora. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Piper, G., & Schnepf, S. V. (2008). Gender differences in charitable giving in great Britain. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(2), 103–124. doi: 10.1007/s11266-008-9057-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razzaque, S. (2009). The ultimatum game and gender effect: experimental evidence from Pakistan. Pakistan Development Review, 48(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnerus, M. D., Smith, C., & Sikkink, D. (1998). Who gives to the poor? The role of religious tradition and political location on the personal generosity of Americans toward the poor. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 481–493. doi: 10.2307/1388055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooney, M. P., Steinberg, K., & Schervish, P. G. (2001). A methodological comparison of giving surveys: Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 551–568. doi: 10.1177/0899764001303011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubiljana, Pittsburgh and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81, 1068–1095.Google Scholar
Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (1995). Explaining the curve in the U-shaped curve. Voluntas, 6, 202–225. doi: 10.1007/BF02353997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seguino, S., & Lovinsky, J. (2009). The impact of religiosity on gender attitudes and outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~sseguino/pdf/Religiosity.pdf.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The gift relationship. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wiepking, P. (2004). Do the poor donate more? The effect of income on philanthropic donations. The 33rd annual Arnova conference. Los Angeles, CA, 2004.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, M. O., Rooney, P. M., & 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, 217–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00352.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, R., Wimer, C., & Owens, L. (2012). Explaining the gender gap in charitable giving: Lower empathy leads men to give less to poverty relief. The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality working paper. http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/x-Gender_Gap_Poverty_Relief.pdf.Google Scholar