Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hxdxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T13:40:25.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Catherine C. Eckel  and
Philip J. Grossman
Catherine C. Eckel*
Affiliation:
School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, GR31, Richardson, TX 75080, USA
Philip J. Grossman*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN 56301, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Field experimentRebate subsidyMatching subsidyCharitable giving

JEL classification

D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers H41: Public Goods L3: Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise C93: Field Experiments
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 3: Field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity , September 2008 , pp. 234 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Economic Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9198-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Bénabou, R., & Tiróle, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philanthropy, Center on. (2007). Patterns of household charitable giving by income group, 2005. Prepared for Google. Available on the Center's website: http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/.Google Scholar
Davis, D. D. (2006). Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects. Judgment and Decision-Making, 1, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. D., & Millner, E. L. (2005). Rebates and matches and consumer behavior. Southern Economic Journal, 72, 410–421.Google Scholar
Davis, D. D., Millner, E. L., & Reilly, R. J. (2005). Subsidy schemes and charitable contributions: a closer look. Experimental Economics, 8, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method (2nd edn). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2003). Rebates and matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter? Journal of Public Economics, 87, 681–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006a). Do donors care about subsidy type? An experimental study. In Davis, D., & Isaac, M. (Eds.), Research in experimental economics, Vol. 11. Experiments investigating fundraising and charitable contributions (pp. 163–182). New York: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006b). Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: further laboratory evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 72(4), 794–807.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., & Couper, M. P. (1998). Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.Google Scholar
Karlan, D., & List, J. A. (2007). Does price matter in charitable giving? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1774–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A. (2006). Field experiments: a bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 6(2), Article 2.Google Scholar
List, J. A., & Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: experimental evidence from a university capital campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110(1), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Eckel and Grossman supplementary material

Eckel and Grossman supplementary material
Download Eckel and Grossman supplementary material(File)
File 1.2 MB