Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T12:54:14.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visible Minorities and Majority Giving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Benic Amankwaa and
Rose Anne Devlin
Benic Amankwaa
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, Social Sciences Building, Suite 5039E, 120 University Private, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
Rose Anne Devlin*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Ottawa, Social Sciences Building, Suite 5039E, 120 University Private, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
*
radevlin@uottawa.ca
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine if the presence of minority individuals in the community affects the decision to give to charities by majority individuals. We focus on two giving decisions by the majority population. The first is giving to any charitable organization; the second is giving to organizations geared to international causes. We also examine these two decisions when the sample is split into religious and non-religious individuals. We find that the larger the proportion of minorities in a given community, the less likely that members of the majority group give to charity in general—supporting the idea that heterogeneous communities deter outreach—but the more likely they are to give to international causes, giving credence to Allport’s ‘contact’ hypothesis.

Résumé

Résumé

Nous cherchons à savoir si la présence d’individus minoritaires dans la communauté influence la décision des individus majoritaires à faire des dons aux organismes de bienfaisance. Nous nous concentrons sur deux décisions prises par la population majoritaire. La première est celle de faire des dons à un organisme de bienfaisance et la seconde celle d’offrir à des organisations axées sur des causes mondiales. Nous étudions aussi ces deux décisions là où l’échantillon contient des individus religieux et non religieux. Nous découvrons que plus la proportion de minorités dans une communauté donnée est importante, moins les membres du groupe majoritaire auront tendance à faire des dons à des organismes de bienfaisance en général, appuyant l’idée que la sensibilisation est moins présente dans les communautés hétérogènes, mais plus ils auront tendance à faire des dons à l’intention de causes mondiales, accréditant ainsi l’hypothèse du contact d’Allport.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Man untersucht, ob sich in einer Gemeinde die Präsenz von Minderheiten auf die Entscheidung zur Leistung wohltätiger Spenden von der Mehrheit angehörenden Personen auswirkt. Dabei konzentriert man sich auf zwei Spendenentscheidungen seitens der Mehrheitsbevölkerung. Erstens, die Entscheidung, an jegliche wohltätige Organisationen zu spenden, und zweitens, die Entscheidung, an Organisationen zu spenden, die auf internationale Zwecke ausgerichtet sind. Beide Entscheidungen werden zudem nach einer Aufteilung der Stichprobe in religiöse und nicht-religiöse Personen untersucht. Man kommt zu folgendem Ergebnis: Je größer der Anteil von Minderheiten in einer Gemeinde ist, desto unwahrscheinlicher ist es, dass die der Mehrheit zugehörigen Personen generell spenden—was das Konzept unterstützt, dass heterogene Gemeinden Outreach-Aktivitäten hindern—, jedoch dass sich die Wahrscheinlichkeit von Spenden für internationale Zwecke erhöht, was die Allports Kontakthypothese untermauert.

Resumen

Resumen

Examinamos si la presencia de individuos minoritarios en la comunidad afecta a la decisión de donar a organizaciones benéficas por parte de individuos mayoritarios. Nos centramos en dos decisiones de donación por parte de la población mayoritaria. La primera es donar a cualquier organización benéfica; la segunda es donar a organizaciones orientadas a causas internacionales. También examinamos estas dos decisiones cuando la muestra está dividida en individuos religiosos y no religiosos. Encontramos que cuanto mayor es la proporción de minorías en una comunidad dada, menos probabilidades hay de que los miembros del grupo mayoritario donen a organizaciones benéficas en general—lo que apoya la idea de que las comunidades heterogéneas disuaden del compromiso con la comunidad—pero hay más probabilidades de que donen a causas internacionales, dando credibilidad a la hipótesis del ‘contacto’ de Allport.

摘要

摘要

我们调查社区中存在少数民族个体是否会影响主体民族个体关于进行慈善行为的决策。我们的重点在于由主体民族人群作出的两项给予决策。第一项是给予任意慈善机构;第二项是给予由国际原因而形成的组织。我们还调查了将样本分为宗教和非宗教个体后的这两项决策。我发现,在给定社区中少数民族的比例越大,通常主体民族族群成员进行慈善行为的可能性就越小—支持了多样化社区阻止向外延伸的理念—但他们为国际原因而进行慈善行为的可能性会越大,相信奥尔波特的“接触”假设。

要約

要約

コミュニティにおける少数の個人の存在が、大半の個人による慈善事業の決定に影響を与えるかどうかを調査する。人口の大半は慈善活動における2つの決定に焦点を当てる。まず慈善活動団体、2番目に国際的要因を目指す組織である。サンプルでは宗教的、非宗教的な個人に分割して、これらの2つの決定について調査した。上記コミュニティにおけるマイノリティの割合が多くなればなるほど、大半のグループのメンバーは―異種コミュニティがアウトリーチという考え方をサポートするような― 一般的な慈善事業を行わなくなるが、国際的要因をあげると、オール・ポートの「接触」の仮説に信憑性があることがわかった。

ملخص

ملخص

ندرس إذا كان وجود أفراد أقلية في المجتمع يؤثرعلى قرارمنح للجمعيات الخيرية عن طريق غالبية الأفراد. نحن نركزعلى قرارين إعطاء من غالبية السكان. الأول هو إعطاء أي منظمة خيرية. الثاني هو إعطاء المنظمات الموجهة لأسباب دولية. ندرس أيضا” إثنين من هذه القرارات عندما يتم تقسيم العينة إلى أفراد دينيين وغير دينيين. نجد أن أكبر نسبة لأقليات في مجتمع معين، أقل إحتمالا” أن أعضاء مجموعة الأغلبية تعطي للأعمال الخيرية بشكل عام- دعم فكرة أن المجتمعات الغير متجانسة تمنع زيادة التواصل- - لكن الأرجح أنهم يعطون لأسباب دولية ، وإعطاء مصداقية لفرضية “الإتصال.”

Keywords

Charitable givingMinoritiesInternational givingPhilanthropy

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2017, pp. 510 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

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

Footnotes

The analysis presented in this paper was conducted at the COOL RDC which is part of the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN). The services and activities provided by the COOL RDC are made possible by the financial or in-kind support of the SSHRC, the CIHR, the CFI, Statistics Canada, Carleton University, the University of Ottawa, and the Université du Québec en Outaouais. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the CRDCN’s or that of its partners.’

References

Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847–904. doi: 10.1162/003355300554935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 207–234. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00084-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides and why does it matter? Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111–133. doi: 10.2307/1558758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Payne, A. A. (2013). Charitable giving. In Auerbach, A., Chetty, R., Feldstein, M. & Saez, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Public Economics (Vol. 5, pp. 1–50). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53759-1.00001-7Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., Payne, A., Smith, J. D., & Karp, D. (2011). Diversity and donations: The effect of religious and ethnic diversity on charitable giving (Working Paper No. 17618). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17618Google Scholar
Apinunmahakul, A., & Devlin, R. A. (2008). Social networks and private philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1), 309–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkers, R., & Schuyt, T. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74–96.Google Scholar
Berger, I. E. (2006). The influence of religion on philanthropy in Canada. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2), 115–132. doi: 10.1007/s11266-006-9007-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, A. C. (2005). Does social capital make you generous? Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00287.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E., & Ferris, J. (2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 85–99. doi: 10.1177/0899764006293178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S., Harris, M. N., & Taylor, K. (2012). Modelling charitable donations to an unexpected natural disaster: Evidence from the US panel study of income dynamics. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84(1), 97–110. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2012.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E., & Lankford, H. (1992). Gifts of money and gifts of time. Journal of Public Economics, 47(3), 321–341. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(92)90032-B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E., & Smart, R. (2007). Racial differences in civic participation and charitable giving: The confounding effects of educational attainment and unmeasured ability. Revue of Black Political Economy, 34, 259–271. doi: 10.1007/s12114-008-9015-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J., McCarthy, S., & Newman, C. (2005). An econometric analysis of charitable donations in the Republic of Ireland. Economic and Social Review, 36(3), 229–250.Google Scholar
Cheung, C. K., & Chan, C. M. (2000). Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23(2), 241–253. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7189(00)00003-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1(1), 103–111. doi: 10.1017/S1537592703000082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskilson, A. (1995). Trends in homophobia and gender attitudes: 1987–1993. Paper presented at 90th Annual Meeting American Sociology Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Feldstein, M. (1975). The income tax and charitable contributions: Part II–the impact on religious educational and other organizations. National Tax Journal, 28(2), 209–226.10.1086/NTJ41862054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittell, R., & Tebaldi, E. (2006). Charitable giving: Factors influencing giving in U.S. states. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 721–736. doi: 10.1177/0899764006289768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publisher.Google Scholar
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239–244. doi: 10.1080/00224499309551707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. P., & Vaidyanathan, B. (2011). Substitution or symbiosis? Assessing the relationship between religious and secular giving. Social Forces, 90(1), 157–180. doi: 10.1093/sf/90.1.157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, R. N. III, & Sharpe, D. L. (2007). The “sect effect” in charitable giving: Distinctive realities of exclusively religious charitable givers. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66(1), 697–726. doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00536.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchen, H. (1992). Determinants of charitable donations in Canada: A comparison over time. Applied Economics, 24(7), 709–713. doi: 10.1080/00036849200000039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A., & Price, M. K. (2009). The role of social connections in charitable fundraising: Evidence from a natural field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(2), 160–169. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behavior affected by the donations of others? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(1), 228–238. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meer, J. (2011). Brother, can you spare a dime: Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 926–941. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novotny, J., & Polonsky, F. (2011). The level of knowledge about Islam and perception of Islam among Czech and Slovak University students: Does ignorance determine subjective attitudes? Sociologia, 43(6), 674–696.Google Scholar
Okten, C., & Osili, U. O. (2004). Contributions in heterogeneous communities: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Population Economics, 17(4), 603–626. doi: 10.1007/s00148-004-0189-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okten, C., & Osili, U.O. (2005). Ethnic diversity and charitable giving. Retrieved from http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/files/research/ethnic_diversity_and_charitable_giving.pdfGoogle Scholar
Osili, U. O., & Du, D. (2005). Immigrant assimilation and charitable giving. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2005(48), 89–104. doi: 10.1002/pf.108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta analytic test and reformulation of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of America. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks doi: 10.1145/358916.361990.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty first century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajan, S. S., Pink, G. H., & Dow, W. H. (2009). Sociodemographic and personality characteristics of Canadian donors contributing to international charity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 413–440. doi: 10.1177/0899764008316056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribar, D. C., & Wilhelm, M. O. (1995). Charitable contributions to international relief and development. National Tax Journal, 48(2), 229–244.10.1086/NTJ41789139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor behavior. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(4), 215–238. doi: 10.1362/026725799784870351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelkoul, M., Scheepers, P., Tolsma, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (2011). Anti-muslim attitudes in The Netherlands: Tests of contradictory hypotheses derived from ethnic competition theory and intergroup contact theory. European Sociological Review, 27(6), 741–758. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcq035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. L., Windmeijer, F., & Wright, E. W. (2015). Peer effects in charitable giving: Evidence from the (running) field. Economic Journal, 125(585), 1053–1071.10.1111/ecoj.12114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, S., Richard, J., & Keith, B. (2006). Ethnicity, trust and the welfare state. In Kay, F. & Johnston, R. (Eds.), Diversity, social capital and the welfare state. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Wiepking, P. (2007). The philanthropic poor: In search of explanations for the relative generosity of lower income households. Economic Journal, 125(585), 1053–1071.Google Scholar
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar