donations make people happier: evidence from the wenchuan ... · 2 wenchuan earthquake the wenchuan...

AuthorP

roof

Donations Make People Happier: Evidencefrom the Wenchuan Earthquake

Qianping Ren1 · Maoliang Ye2

Accepted: 7 January 2016 / Published online: 19 January 2016© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract We examine the effect of donation on the happiness of donors using the 2010

wave of the China Family Panel Study. We consider data from the Wenchuan earthquake,

which has induced a large amount of donations from all Chinese communities. We use two

measures of donation behavior, namely, donations for victims of the Wenchuan earthquake

and for general purposes. We address the endogeneity problem using the percentage of

donation in the community the respondent lives in as the instrumental variable, conditional

on the generosity of other residents toward each other in the same community. We also

employ the propensity score matching method to check for the robustness of our results.

All results show that donation has a significantly positive effect on happiness. Our study

provides new evidence on the relationship between donation and happiness using natural

observations, which complement the experimental evidence in the recent literature.

Keywords Happiness · Donation · Wenchuan earthquake

JEL Classification I31 · D12 · A12

Shifting from buying stuff to buying experiences, and from spending on yourself to spending on others, canhave a dramatic impact on happiness.

(Dunn and Norton 2013)

& Maoliang [email protected]

Qianping [email protected]

1 Beijing IQIYI Technology Ltd., Baidu Company, Beijing, China

2 Department of Public Finance, School of Economics, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies inEconomics, and Key Laboratory of Econometrics (Xiamen University), Ministry of Education,Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, Fujian Province, People’s Republic of China

123

Soc Indic Res (2017) 132:517–536DOI 10.1007/s11205-016-1233-5

AuthorP

roof

1 Introduction

This study investigates the effect of donation on the happiness of donors. One motivation

originates from the central questions in “happiness economics:” whether money buys

happiness and how to effectively increase an individual’s happiness level using money.

Various studies have shown that richer individuals feel happier than the poor in a country

for a given period (Easterlin 1974, 1995, 2001; Diener et al. 1999; Gardner and Oswald

2001, 2007; Lindahl 2005; Kahneman et al. 2006; Apouey and Clark 2010; Crabtree and

Wu 2011; Easterlin et al. 2012; Li et al. 2014). However, the Easterlin paradox suggests

that over time subjective well-being does not improve with income (Easterlin 1974, 1995,

2001; Veenhoven 1994; Oswald 1997; Easterlin and Sawangfa 2010).1 For example, China

has an important developing economy and is the most populous country worldwide.

Several studies have reported that the happiness or life satisfaction of Chinese people has

not improved, although China has shown remarkable economic growth for the past three

decades (Burkholder 2005; Brockmann et al. 2009; Crabtree and Wu 2011; Knight and

Gunatilaka 2011; Easterlin et al. 2012).2

Frank (2004) provides an explanation for the Easterlin paradox: people pour their

increased wealth into things that do not remarkably contribute to lasting happiness, such as

purchasing costly consumer goods.3 In addition, Dunn and Norton (2013) suggest that one

of the key principles of the “right” ways to boost happiness is “shifting from buying stuff to

buying experiences, and from spending on yourself to spending on others.” In an exper-

iment, Dunn et al. (2008) show that participants randomly assigned to spend money on

others experienced higher happiness than those assigned to spend money on themselves.

Survey data also confirm this experimental result (Dunn et al. 2008; Aknin et al. 2012;

Aknin et al. 2013b). Similarly, Konow and Earley (2008) demonstrate that generosity is

positively correlated with various self-reported measures of long-run subjective well-

being.

Another motivation of our study comes from the literature on charitable behavior

(donation or volunteering) and its relationship with happiness. Pure and impure altruism

can theoretically motivate individuals’ donations and boost subjective well-being.4

Empirical studies have found a positive relationship between individuals’ pro-social

1 However, Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) find contrasting results. Easterlin (2005), Veenhoven andHagerty (2006), Easterlin et al. (2010), and Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers (2012, 2013) continue the debateabout the Easterlin paradox.2 However, Liu et al. (2013) examine a shorter and recent period of 2003–2010 and report that the happinessof Chinese has improved during this period using the Chinese General Social Survey.3 Other explanations include rising aspirations (Easterlin 1995, 2001; Frey and Stutzer 2002a, b; Stutzer2004; Knight and Gunatilaka 2012), changing reference groups (Easterlin 1974, 1995, 2001; Clark andOswald 1996; Ferrer-i-Carbonell 2005; Fafchamps and Shilpi 2008; Knight et al. 2009; Knight andGunatilaka 2010; Knight and Gunatilaka 2011) and deteriorated social safety net (Easterlin et al. 2012).4 Pure and impure altruism can affect individuals’ donation behavior and happiness. Pure altruism is usuallyexpressed as one person’s preference for others’ material or psychic benefit, with no expectation of anycompensation or benefits, either direct or indirect. Impure altruism, which involves “warm glow” (Andreoni1989, 1990), indicates that the donor’s preference for giving per se produces a pleasurable feeling. Empiricalevidence supports either pure or impure altruism, or both of them. For example, Aknin et al. (2013a)demonstrate that the emotional benefits of spending money on others are evident only when givers are awareof their positive influence on recipients, which suggests the pure altruism motive for donation. By contrast,Crumpler and Grossman (2008) find that warm glow giving exists and motivates a substantial proportion ofall giving. Harbaugh et al. (2007) find that pure and impure altruism contribute to charitable donations usingneural evidence of reward and self-reported subjective well-being in an fMRI study of charitable giving.

518 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roof

activities and happiness (Brooks 2006; Borgonovi 2008; Aknin et al. 2013b) or life sat-

isfaction (Meier and Stutzer 2008; Binder and Freytag 2013).

In this study, we consider the Wenchuan earthquake, which has induced a large

amount of donations among Chinese. Thus, we explore the relationship between donation

and happiness using a natural phenomenon. We address the endogeneity concern on the

donation behavior by employing the percentage of donation in the community where the

respondent lives as the instrumental variable of the respondent’s donation. The rationale

for this instrumental variable is that solicitation (Andreoni et al. 2011) and request to

giving (Yoruk 2008, 2009, 2012) play important roles in the decision of donation and

arguably do not directly influence potential donors’ happiness. Moreover, community

donation percentage serves as an indicator of such solicitation and social factors.

However, living with more generous neighbors may improve happiness.5 Thus, we

control the generosity of other residents toward each other in the same community.

Conditional on this type of within-community generosity, the community percentage of

outward donation plausibly affects the resident’s happiness only through his/her donation

behavior.

All ordinary least square (OLS), ordered probit, two-stage least square (2SLS), and

propensity score matching estimates suggest that donation has a positive effect on hap-

piness. This result is robust to various measures of donation behavior. Our study provides

new evidence on the relationship between donation and happiness using natural observa-

tions, which complement the experimental evidence in the recent literature.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the Wenchuan

earthquake. Section 3 describes the data and empirical strategy used in this paper. Section 4

presents the estimation results. Section 5 shows the conclusions.

2 Wenchuan Earthquake

The Wenchuan earthquake (Wenchuan da dizhen) was a deadly earthquake that occurred on12 May 2008 and measured at 8.0 Ms6 and 7.9 Mw.7 This phenomenon was one of the

most destructive earthquakes in the history of China and the 21st deadliest earthquake of

all time. Strong aftershocks, some of which exceeded 6 Ms, continued to be felt in the area

even months after the main quake, causing new casualties and damages. Official fig-

ures stated that 69,196 were confirmed dead and 374,176 were injured, with 18,379 listed

as missing.8 The earthquake left about 4.8 million people homeless, although the number

could reach 11 million.9 Approximately 15 million people lived in the affected area. The

5 Yip et al. (2007) find that reciprocity and mutual help improve subjective well-being.6 Magnitude of Sichuan earthquake revised to 8.0. (2008, May 18). XinhuaNewsAgency. http://www.china.org.cn/environment/news/2008-05/19/content_15326773.htm, last accessed on December 12, 2015.7 Magnitude 7.9—Eastern Sichuan, China. (2008, May 12). USGS. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2008/us2008ryan/, last accessed on December 12, 2015.8 各地伤亡汇总 [Casualties of the Wenchuan Earthquake] (in Chinese). (2008, July 21). http://news.sina.com.cn/pc/2008-05-13/326/651.html, last accessed on December 12, 2015. And汶川地震已造成 69,196人遇难 18,379人失踪_新闻中心_新浪网 [Wenchuan Earthquake has already caused 69,196 fatalities and18,379 missing] (in Chinese). (2008, July 6). http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2008-07-06/162615881691.shtml,last accessed on December 12, 2015.9 Hooker, J. (2008, May 26). Toll Rises in China Quake. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/world/asia/26quake.html, last accessed on December 12, 2015.

Donation Makes People Happier: Evidence from the Wenchuan… 519

123

AuthorP

roof

reported official estimates of insurers’ losses from the earthquake reached US$1 billion,

and estimated total damages exceeded US$20 billion.10

People both in China and foreign countries donated immediately and actively because

of the catastrophe caused by the earthquake. The Ministry of Civil Affairs stated that

76.02 billion yuan (including cash and goods, approximately US$11.13 billion) was

donated inside and outside the country,11 including 4.185 billion yuan in the first week.12

Moreover, the cash contributions from donations from sources outside China (excluding

Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan) exceeded a total of 4.4 billion yuan (approximately US

$644.3 million).13

3 Data and Empirical Methods

3.1 Data

We use the data from the 2010 wave of the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), a (nearly)

national probability sample of Chinese families conducted by the Institute of Social Sci-

ence Survey, Peking University, P. R. China.14 In the 2010 wave, 14,960 households were

included in the sample, and interviews were conducted with all family members aged

10 years or above (see Xie et al. 2012 for details of the sampling design). In this study, we

use the adult sample with merged family and community information. Thus, we use a total

of 19,967 observations with complete information in our study. The summary statistics are

presented in Table 1.

Overall, 70.4 % of respondents donated for the Wenchuan earthquake between May

2008 and the time of survey in 2010. The donation percentage is 27.1 % for the general

donation behavior in the single year of 2009. The average Wenchuan earthquake donation

percentage of each community is 70.8 %, whereas the average general donation percentage

of each community in 2009 is 28.7 %. We have two variables that indicate the generosity

of community neighbors toward each other rather than outside recipients. The average

percentage of giving foods or presents to each other among respondents in the community

other than the respondent is 13.27 %, and the percentage of helping each other is 28.35 %.

The mean age of respondents is approximately 45 years, and 56.6 % of the respondents are

male.

Our dependent variable is individual self-reported happiness. The happiness variable is

measured from the question in the survey “How happy do you feel about yourself in

10 Earthquake estimates as high as $1 billion: AIR. (2008, May 14). http://www.businessinsurance.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=9999200012955, last accessed on December12, 2015.11 The 135th announcement of the Ministry of Civil Affairs. (2009, March 20). http://www.mca.gov.cn/article/zwgk/tzl/200903/20090300028395.shtml, last accessed on December 12, 2015.12 Hilgers, L. (2008, August 11). Giving in China. http://balkin.blogspot.ca/2008/08/giving-in-china_11.html, last accessed on December 12, 2015.13 国际社会向中国地震灾区提供了四十四亿现金援助 [The International Society had donated 4.4 billionyuan for rescue efforts in Sichuan earthquake area] (in Chinese). (2009, May 11). http://www.chinanews.com/cj/kong/news/2009/05-11/1686035.shtml, last accessed on December 12, 2015.14 The survey covered 24 provinces or municipalities. Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Ningxia, Inner Mongolia,and Hainan were excluded from the sample to reduce costs, but together they make up only 5 % of thepopulation (Xie et al. 2012, p. 14).

520 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roof

Table 1 Summary statistics of key variables

Variable Definition Mean (anddeviation)

Happiness In the scale of 1 to 5, from very unhappy to very happy ingeneral

3.825 (1.006)

Donation variables

Earthquake donation “1,” if the respondent’s family donated for the Wenchuanearthquake victims

0.704 (0.457)

General donation “1,” if the respondent’s family donated in 2009 0.271 (0.444)

Community earthquakedonation percentage

Percentage of donation behavior in the community where therespondent lives for the Wenchuan earthquake victims

70.84 (%)(25.083)

Community generaldonation percentage

Percentage of general donation behavior in the communitywhere the respondent lives in 2009

28.72 (%)(21.110)

Log (earthquake donationamount)

Logarithm of the respondent’s donation amount for theWenchuan earthquake victims

2.977 (2.285)

Log (general donationamount)

Logarithm of the respondent’s donation amount in 2009 1.218 (2.144)

Demographic and socioeconomic variables

Log (self-income) Logarithm of the respondent’s income in 2009 8.762 (1.626)

Age Age of the respondent 44.947(14.403)

Age2 Age 9 age 2227.698(1379.127)

Male “1,” if the respondent is male 0.566 (0.496)

Urban “1,” if the community is labeled urban by the NationalBureau of Statistics

0.489 (0.500)

Years of schooling Years of schooling 6.663 (4.871)

Employed “1,” if the respondent is employed 0.642 (0.479)

Married “1,” if the respondent is married 0.849 (0.359)

Cohabiting “1,” if the respondent is cohabiting 0.003 (0.053)

Divorced “1,” if the respondent is divorced 0.015 (0.122)

Widowed “1,” if the respondent is widowed 0.043 (0.203)

Religious “1,” if the respondent participates in a religion organization 1.11 %(0.105)

Health In the scale of 1 to 5, from very unhealthy to healthy ingeneral (self-reported)

4.263 (0.939)

Internal generosity of community neighbors

Mutual giving percentage Percentage of giving foods or presents to each other in thecommunity where the respondent lives in the last month

13.27 %(12.418)

Mutual help percentage Percentage of helping each other in the community wherethe respondent lives in the last month

28.35 %(20.497)

Opinions and attitudes

Importance of family Respondent’s opinion on the importance of family, fromunimportant (1) to very important (5)

4.624 (0.686)

Importance of wealth Respondent’s opinion on the importance of money, fromunimportant (1) to very important (5)

3.648 (1.175)

Importance of having fun Respondent’s opinion on the importance of having fun in lifefrom unimportant (1) to very important (5)

4.046 (0.935)

Observations 19,967


123

AuthorP

roof

Table 2 Effect of donation on happiness

Wenchuan earthquake donation General donation

OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Log (income) 0.030*** 0.027*** 0.031*** 0.029***

(0.006) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006)

Donation dummy 0.078* 0.310** 0.056** 0.140**

(0.042) (0.124) (0.022) (0.067)

Age −0.038*** −0.038*** −0.038*** −0.038***

(0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004)

Age2/100 0.044*** 0.044*** 0.044*** 0.044***

(0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004)

Male −0.112*** −0.106*** −0.112*** −0.110***

(0.015) (0.016) (0.015) (0.015)

Urban 0.012 −0.015 0.017 0.011

(0.025) (0.028) (0.024) (0.027)

Years of schooling 0.012*** 0.010*** 0.013*** 0.012***

(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)

Employed 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.021

(0.023) (0.023) (0.023) (0.023)

Married 0.278*** 0.275*** 0.279*** 0.278***

(0.035) (0.036) (0.035) (0.035)

Cohabiting 0.080 0.055 0.086 0.084

(0.112) (0.115) (0.112) (0.113)

Divorced −0.376*** −0.388*** −0.371*** −0.372***

(0.070) (0.066) (0.071) (0.071)

Widowed −0.015 −0.016 −0.014 −0.013

(0.043) (0.046) (0.042) (0.042)

Religious 0.259*** 0.250*** 0.266*** 0.272***

(0.060) (0.059) (0.060) (0.061)

Health 0.175*** 0.175*** 0.175*** 0.176***

(0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017)

Mutual giving percentage 0.002 0.002 0.002* 0.002*

(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)

Mutual help percentage −0.001 −0.001 −0.001 −0.001

(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)

Importance of family 0.255*** 0.253*** 0.256*** 0.256***

(0.017) (0.018) (0.017) (0.017)

Importance of wealth −0.051*** −0.049*** −0.052*** −0.052***

(0.011) (0.010) (0.011) (0.011)

0.186*** 0.184*** 0.187*** 0.187***

(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.009)

Observations 19,967 19,967 19,967 19,967

R-squared 0.161 0.150 0.160 0.159

522 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roofgeneral?,” and the answers range from very unhappy to very happy with five scales.15 The

average happiness value is 3.825.

3.2 Empirical Methods

We explore the effect of donation on happiness. The baseline model is the OLS regression:

H ¼ aþ b� Donationþ h0Z þ e; ð1Þwhere H is the individual’s happiness, which has five scales. Donation is a dummy that is

equal to one if the individual’s family donated to the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake victims

or in the year 2009 for any purpose (depending on the specification). Otherwise, donation

is equal to zero. Additionally, Z is a vector of demographic and socioeconomic variables

that may affect happiness, such as income, gender, age, age squared, rural or urban resi-

dence status, years of schooling, employment status, marital status, and self-reported

health. We also control the individual’s opinion on the importance of family, money, and

having fun in life, because these opinions may affect individuals’ feeling on the sources of

happiness. Meanwhile, ε is the error term. We also report the results of the ordered probit

model in the Appendix to check for robustness because the happiness value has only five

scales.

Two potential problems arise. Some unobserved characteristics, such as aspiration for

material life, can affect happiness level (Stutzer 2004; Knight and Gunatilaka 2012) and

individuals’ tendency to donate because individuals with lower material aspiration may be

more likely to be generous in terms of giving to others.16 Reverse causality is also possible

as happier people may be more likely to donate (Anik et al. 2009). We employ the

instrumental variable method to address these concerns. A valid instrumental variable for

donation should affect individuals’ donation behavior, but it does not directly affect their

happiness conditional on the control variables (i.e., only affects happiness through its effect

on the donation behavior).

The community donation percentage is a plausible instrumental variable. The com-

munity donation percentage serves as an indicator of solicitation power for donation in a

community, conditional on the internal generosity of community neighbors (indicated by

mutual giving and mutual help percentages). This factor may affect the likelihood of the

individual’s donation behavior and arguably not directly affect his/her happiness. Various

Table 2 continued


OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

F-statistic for instruments 1765.94 4069.08

Robust standard errors clustered at the provincial level are reported in parentheses. The significance levels of1, 5, and 10 % are denoted by ***, **, and *, respectively

15 The 2012 wave of CFPS does not ask the same question about happiness. Thus, we can only use the 2010wave.16 Although we control for respondents’ opinion on the importance of wealth, the influence of aspiration onhappiness may not be fully captured.


123

AuthorP

roof

studies have confirmed that solicitation plays an important role in donation behavior. For

example, Meer (2011) uses data from a university and finds that people are more likely to

give, even substantial amounts, when they are solicited by someone with whom they have

social ties. Charitable organizations utilize this kind of effect and realize that personal

solicitation by acquaintances is effective. These organizations “often design their cam-

paigns to leverage the power of social influences” (Carman 2004). Andreoni et al. (2011)

find that asking increases donations by 75 % through a randomized natural field experiment

during the annual campaign of the Salvation Army in the USA, where solicitors either

asked “please give” to passersby or were silent.

Thus, we employ the donation percentage of the community where the individual lives

as an instrumental variable for the donation dummy. The 2SLS model is as follows:

Donation ¼ /þ u� Doantion Ratioþ c0Z þ f ð2:1Þ

H ¼ aþ b� Donationþ h0Z þ e ð2:2Þ

We first use Eq. (2.1) to estimate the likelihood of individual donation and then regress

individual happiness on this predicted value of individual donation likelihood, as shown in

Eq. (2.2). The coefficient on donation in Eq. (2.2) shows the causal effect of donation on

happiness for individuals whose donations are affected by the community donation per-

centage, with the community donation percentage as an instrumental variable.

4 Results

4.1 Wenchuan Earthquake Donation and Happiness

Table 2 reports the regression results of OLS and 2SLS on happiness. Columns 1 and 2

report the results for the Wenchuan earthquake. The OLS result in Column 1 shows

that people who donated for the Wenchuan earthquake victims report a 0.078 higher

value (around 8 % of the standard deviation) of happiness than non-donors. The

coefficient on logarithmic yearly income is 0.030 and statistically significant at the 1 %

level. Moreover, the negative and positive coefficients on age and age squared,

respectively, are both significant.17 The happiness level reported by females, on aver-

age, is 0.112 higher than that reported by males, and this difference is highly

significant, which reveals the gender difference in SWB (Nolen-Hoeksema and Rusting

1999). Years of schooling and being married have significantly positive effects on

happiness. The happiness value reported by divorced respondents is 0.376 lower than

those who were never married, which is consistent with the finding in most studies

(Kohler et al. 2005) that marital status has a remarkable effect on the happiness level.

People with religious involvement have 0.259 higher happiness value than non-religious

individuals, which is consistent with previous studies (Lelkes 2006; Helliwell 2003,

2006). The coefficient on self-reported health is 0.175 and statistically significant at the

1 % level, consistent with the results of Sun et al. (2015). The more the respondent

17 Happiness level declines at middle age (with the lowest level at 40–50 years old) and increases again atold age. The average age in the sample is approximately 45, which lies at the middle age stage. This result isconsistent with other studies (Kahneman and Krueger 2006; Appleton and Song 2008; Liu and Shang 2012).

524 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roof

values the importance of family and having fun in life, the happier he/she is. By

contrast, lower happiness level is reported by individuals who give more importance on

wealth, which is consistent with the findings of Knight et al. (2009). The coefficient on

the variable “mutual giving percentage” is positively significant in the general donation

context, which indicates that the internal generosity of the community enhances the

happiness of the residents in the community. However, the coefficient on the variable

“mutual help percentage” is negative and insignificant.

We also report the results of ordered probit regressions (Tables 5, 6 of the Appendix)

because the dependent variable (happiness) is discrete. We obtain qualitatively similar

results.18 Therefore, we treat the happiness variable as continuous hereafter.

Column 2 reports the 2SLS results using the community donation percentage for the

Wenchuan earthquake victims as the instrumental variable.19 The estimated effect of

earthquake donation on happiness increases to 0.310.20 The F-statistic from the first stage

is 1765.94, which is sufficiently large, suggesting that our instrumental variable is very

powerful.

The donors, their family members, or close friends may also be victims of the earth-

quake per se, which may boost their empathy and lead them to donate for the earthquake

Table 3 Effect of donation on happiness (propensity score matching)


Donation dummy 0.082*** 0.059***

(0.018) (0.019)

Observations 19,967 19,967

The number of matches per observation is one. We match observations on income, years of schooling, age,age squared, gender, employment status, four marital status dummy variables, urban dummy, religiondummy, self-reported health, internal generosity of the community, and value of the importance of family,wealth, and having fun in life. The significance levels of 1, 5, and 10 % are denoted by ***, **, and *,respectively. Analytical standard errors are reported in parentheses. We obtain robust standard errorsidentical to the above results when we adopt the method of Abadie and Imbens (2015) and use three matchesfor each treated observation

18 We first report the coefficient of ordered probit regressions in column 1 of Tables 5 and 6. The coefficientis positive and significant, indicating the overall positive effect of donation on happiness. We then report incolumns 2–6 the marginal effect of donation on the probability that the happiness value reaches eachpotential outcome (1–5). The mean value of happiness is 3.825 in our sample. Thus, we observe the negativeeffects of donation on the probability that the happiness value is equal to 1, 2, or 3 in columns 2–4, as well asthe positive effects on the probability that the happiness value is equal to 4 or 5 in columns 5 and 6. Thus,these results provide a qualitatively similar conclusion to that of column 1 in Table 2.19 We first report the coefficient of the instrumental variable ordered probit regressions in column 7 ofTables 5 and 6. The coefficient is positive and significant, indicating the overall positive effect of donationon happiness. We then report in columns 8–12 the marginal effect of donation on the probability that thehappiness value reaches each potential outcome (1–5). The mean value of happiness is 3.825 in our sample.We observe the negative effects of donation on the probability that the happiness value is equal to 1, 2, or 3in columns 8–10, as well as the positive effects on the probability that the happiness value is equal to 4 or 5in columns 11 and 12. Thus, these results provide a qualitatively similar conclusion to that of column 2 inTable 2.20 If measurement errors of donation behavior are severe and cause attenuation bias in OLS results, then the2SLS estimate can correct the attenuation bias and report a higher estimate.


123

AuthorP

roof

Table 4 Effect of donation amount on happiness


OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS

Log (income) 0.029*** 0.026*** 0.030*** 0.030***

(0.006) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006)

Log (donation amount) 0.019** 0.046*** 0.011** 0.019*

(0.008) (0.014) (0.005) (0.010)

Age −0.038*** −0.038*** −0.038*** −0.038***

(0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004)

Age2/100 0.044*** 0.044*** 0.044*** 0.044***

(0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004)

Male −0.109*** −0.103*** −0.112*** −0.111***

(0.015) (0.016) (0.015) (0.016)

Urban 0.002 −0.025 0.016 0.011

(0.024) (0.026) (0.024) (0.025)


(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003)

Employed 0.014 0.014 0.016 0.017

(0.023) (0.022) (0.023) (0.022)

Married 0.277*** 0.276*** 0.278*** 0.278***

(0.035) (0.035) (0.035) (0.035)

Cohabiting 0.075 0.055 0.088 0.088

(0.111) (0.112) (0.111) (0.111)

Divorced −0.376*** −0.382*** −0.371*** −0.372***

(0.070) (0.068) (0.071) (0.071)

Widowed −0.017 −0.020 −0.015 −0.015

(0.043) (0.045) (0.042) (0.042)

Religious 0.260*** 0.257*** 0.263*** 0.264***

(0.061) (0.062) (0.061) (0.061)

Health 0.175*** 0.175*** 0.175*** 0.175***

(0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017)

Mutual giving percentage 0.002 0.001 0.002* 0.002*

(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)


(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)


(0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017)


(0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011)

Importance of having fun 0.186*** 0.184*** 0.187*** 0.187***

(0.010) (0.010) (0.010) (0.010)

Observations 19,967 19,967 19,967 19,967

R-squared 0.161 0.158 0.160 0.160

526 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roofvictims. If this condition is true, the unobserved damages that the respondents, their family

members, or close friends suffered in the earthquake may affect both donation and hap-

piness of respondents, thereby biasing our estimate. To address this concern, we conduct

similar analyses excluding the Sichuan sample, because the damages of the earthquake

were largely restricted to the Sichuan province where Wenchuan is located (Tables 7, 8 of

the Appendix). The results are similar to those in columns 1 and 2 of Table 2.

4.2 General Donation and Happiness

Considering that the Wenchuan earthquake is a very special case, we explore whether

donations for other purposes will also affect an individual’s happiness. We use a more

general variable as the proxy of donation behavior to check the robustness of our results.

This variable is measured from the answer to the question “Has your family ever donated

in the previous year (2009)?” Columns 3 and 4 in Table 2 report the results using this

variable as the key explanatory variable.

The results are similar to those on the donation for the Wenchuan earthquake victims in

columns 1 and 2. The effect of general donation on happiness is 0.056 (0.140) and sta-

tistically significant by the OLS (2SLS) estimate, further confirming that donation has a

positive effect on happiness. The F-statistic from the first stage is 4069.08, which is

sufficiently large, suggesting that our IV is powerful.

4.3 Propensity Score Matching

The donors may be very different from non-donors. We further employ the propensity

score matching method to check the robustness of our results (Table 3). The average

treatment effects are 0.082 for the Wenchuan earthquake donation and 0.059 for the

general donation. Both results are statistically significant at the 1 % level.

4.4 Donation Amount and Happiness

We also present the amount of donation instead of the donation dummy as an alternative

measure of the donation behavior in Table 4. Column 2 reports the 2SLS results using the

average community donation amount for the Wenchuan earthquake victims as the

instrumental variable. The average community donation amount in 2009 is used as the

instrumental variable in column 4 regarding general donation. The OLS results show that

the amount of donations has a significantly positive effect on happiness, and the 2SLS

estimates confirm the qualitative results with an even larger effect.

Table 4 continued


OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS


Robust standard errors clustered at the provincial level are reported in parentheses. The significance levels of1, 5, and 10 % are denoted by ***, **, and *, respectively


123

AuthorP

roof

5 Conclusions and Discussions

This paper reports the effect of donation on happiness. We find a positive association

between donation and happiness. We minimize the endogeneity problem by employing the

donation percentage of the community where the respondent lives as the instrumental

variable, conditional on the generosity of other residents toward each other in the same

community. We use several measures of donation behavior, namely, donations for the

Wenchuan earthquake victims and for general purposes to check the robustness of our

results. We apply the donation dummy and the donation amount on both measures of

behavior. We also employ the propensity score matching model. All results show that

donation has a significantly positive effect on happiness. This paper provides new evidence

from a natural phenomenon and complements the literature, although several recent studies

have shown such a relationship using controlled experiments.

Although we find evidence that donation behavior raises donors’ happiness, we cannot

distinguish various channels of such an effect in this study. For example, the rising of

happiness via donation can be attributed to either pure altruism or impure altruism with

“warm glow.” On the one hand, pure altruism may be the dominant reason. Aknin et al.

(2013a) find that happiness only emerges when givers are aware of their positive effect,

which indicates that higher happiness occurs only when participants give to causes that

explain how these funds are used to make a difference in the life of a recipient. On the

other hand, the literature on the “warm glow” motivation suggests that donors may feel

happy not only because they know the recipients are better off with their donations but also

because of their donation behavior per se, regardless of whether their donations make a

difference for recipients. “Warm glow” may be an important channel that explains why

donations improve donors’ happiness because of the non-transparency of the use of

donations in China.21 However, pure altruism may still dominate if donors believe their

donations have been used to where they are needed, even if they do not know the exact use

of these donations. Future studies on the channels through which donations influence

happiness are desirable.

Acknowledgments We thank the editor and three referees for their helpful comments. Zhiyuan Chen andQingyan Zheng provide excellent research assistances. This study is sponsored by the Youth Grant forHumanities and Social Sciences Research, Chinese Ministry of Education (Grant No. 14YJC790156).

Appendix

See Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8.

21 A serious problem exists in Chinese Charities for the transparency of the use of donations. According to asurvey by the China Charity Information Center, only 30.4 % of the public welfare foundations releaseannual reports and the ratio of disclosing financial reports is even lower, only 28 % (source: http://news.foundationcenter.org.cn/html/2012-11/56618.html, last accessed on December 12, 2015). At the same time,there seems also little demand from the donors for knowing where their donations go. A survey by TsinghuaUniversity indicated that only 4.7 % of the donors for the Wenchuan earthquake know where their donationsgo exactly (source: http://news.china.com.cn/2014-04/21/content_32153332.htm, last accessed on Decem-ber 12, 2015).

528 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roof

Tab

le5

EffectofWenchuan

earthquakedonationonhappiness(ordered

probitandIV

ordered

probit)

Ordered

Probit

IVOrdered

Probit

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Log(income)

0.035***

−0.002***

−0.003***

−0.007***

0.001

0.011***

0.031***

−0.002***

−0.003***

−0.006***

0.001

0.010***

(0.007)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.002)

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.002)

Donationdummy

0.091*

−0.005*

−0.008*

−0.018*

0.002

0.029*

0.346**

−0.019**

−0.030**

−0.066***

0.006

0.109***

(0.050)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.010)

(0.002)

(0.015)

(0.139)

(0.008)

(0.013)

(0.025)

(0.005)

(0.042)

Age

−0.043***

0.002***

0.004***

0.008***

−0.001

−0.014***

−0.043***

0.002***

0.004***

0.008***

−0.001

−0.014***

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.002)

Age2/100

0.051***

−0.003***

−0.004***

−0.010***

0.001

0.016***

0.050***

−0.003***

−0.004***

−0.010***

0.001

0.016***

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

Male

−0.127***

0.007***

0.011***

0.025***

−0.002

−0.040***

−0.119***

0.007***

0.010***

0.023***

−0.002

−0.038***

(0.017)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.003)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.018)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.001)

(0.006)

Urban

0.015

−0.001

−0.001

−0.003

0.000

0.005

−0.016

0.001

0.001

0.003

−0.000

−0.005

(0.029)

(0.002)

(0.002)

(0.006)

(0.001)

(0.009)

(0.031)

(0.002)

(0.003)

(0.006)

(0.001)

(0.010)

Years

of

schooling

0.014***

−0.001***

−0.001***

−0.003***

0.000

0.004***

0.011***

−0.001***

−0.001***

−0.002***

0.000

0.003***

(0.003)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

Employed

0.011

−0.001

−0.001

−0.002

0.000

0.003

0.012

−0.001

−0.001

−0.002

0.000

0.004

(0.025)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.000)

(0.008)

(0.024)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.000)

(0.008)

Married

0.320***

−0.017***

−0.028***

−0.062***

0.006

0.101***

0.315***

−0.018***

−0.028***

−0.060***

0.006

0.100***

(0.046)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.009)

(0.004)

(0.014)

(0.045)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.008)

(0.003)

(0.014)

Cohabiting

0.098

−0.005

−0.009

−0.019

0.002

0.031

0.070

−0.004

−0.006

−0.013

0.001

0.022

(0.131)

(0.007)

(0.012)

(0.026)

(0.003)

(0.042)

(0.134)

(0.008)

(0.012)

(0.025)

(0.003)

(0.042)

Divorced

−0.391***

0.021***

0.034***

0.076***

−0.007

−0.124***

−0.402***

0.023***

0.035***

0.076***

−0.007

−0.127***

(0.071)

(0.004)

(0.007)

(0.014)

(0.005)

(0.023)

(0.067)

(0.004)

(0.006)

(0.013)

(0.004)

(0.022)


123

AuthorP

roof

Tab

le5continued

Ordered

Probit

IVOrdered

Probit

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Widowed

0.004

−0.000

−0.000

−0.001

0.000

0.001

0.003

−0.000

−0.000

−0.001

0.000

0.001

(0.049)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.009)

(0.001)

(0.015)

(0.051)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.010)

(0.001)

(0.016)

Religious

0.334***

−0.018***

−0.029***

−0.065***

0.006

0.106***

0.322***

−0.018***

−0.028***

−0.061***

0.006

0.102***

(0.079)

(0.004)

(0.008)

(0.015)

(0.005)

(0.025)

(0.077)

(0.005)

(0.007)

(0.014)

(0.004)

(0.024)

Health

0.195***

−0.010***

−0.017***

−0.038***

0.004

0.062***

0.194***

−0.011***

−0.017***

−0.037***

0.003

0.061***

(0.020)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.003)

(0.006)

(0.020)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.002)

(0.005)

Mutual

giving

percentage

0.002*

−0.000*

−0.000*

−0.000*

0.000

0.001*

0.002

−0.000

−0.000

−0.000

0.000

0.001

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

Mutual

help

percentage

−0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

−0.000

−0.000

−0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

−0.000

−0.000

(0.002)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

Importance

of

family

0.287***

−0.015***

−0.025***

−0.056***

0.005*

0.091***

0.283***

−0.016***

−0.025***

−0.054***

0.005*

0.089***

(0.016)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.003)

(0.007)

(0.017)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.004)

(0.003)

(0.008)

Importance

of

wealth

−0.061***

0.003***

0.005***

0.012***

−0.001

−0.019***

−0.058***

0.003***

0.005***

0.011***

−0.001

−0.018***

(0.014)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.001)

(0.004)

(0.013)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.001)

(0.004)

Importance

of

havingfun

0.223***

−0.012***

−0.019***

−0.043***

0.004

0.070***

0.218***

−0.012***

−0.019***

−0.041***

0.004*

0.069***

(0.013)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.013)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.002)

(0.004)

Observations

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

Robuststandarderrorsclustered

attheprovincial

level

arereported

inparentheses.Columns1–6reporttheordered

probitresults,withthecoefficientin

column1.Marginal

effectsontheprobabilitiesat

each

outcomeofhappinessarereported

incolumns2–6.Columns7–12reporttheIV

ordered

probitresultsusingthepercentageofdonationin

thecommunitytherespondentlives

inas

theinstrumentalvariable,withthecoefficientin

column7andmarginaleffectsontheprobabilitiesateach

outcomeofhappinessin

columns8–12.Thesignificance

levelsof1,5,and10%

aredenotedby***,**,and*,respectively

530 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roof

Tab

le6

Effectofgeneral

donationonhappiness(ordered

probitandIV

ordered

probit)

Ordered

probit

IVOrdered

probit

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Log(income)

0.035***

−0.002***

−0.003***

−0.007***

0.001

0.011***

0.034***

−0.002***

−0.003***

−0.007***

0.001

0.011***

(0.007)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.002)

(0.007)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.002)

Donationdummy

0.070**

−0.004**

−0.006**

−0.014**

0.001

0.022**

0.169**

−0.009*

−0.015**

−0.033**

0.003

0.053**

(0.028)

(0.002)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.001)

(0.009)

(0.084)

(0.005)

(0.007)

(0.016)

(0.003)

(0.026)

Age

−0.043***

0.002***

0.004***

0.008***

−0.001

−0.014***

−0.043***

0.002***

0.004***

0.008***

−0.001

−0.014***

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

Age2/100

0.051***

−0.003***

−0.004***

−0.010***

0.001

0.016***

0.051***

−0.003***

−0.004***

−0.010***

0.001

0.016***

(0.006)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.002)

Male

−0.127***

0.007***

0.011***

0.025***

−0.002

−0.040***

−0.125***

0.007***

0.011***

0.024***

−0.002

−0.040***

(0.017)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.003)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.017)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.003)

(0.002)

(0.005)

Urban

0.020

−0.001

−0.002

−0.004

0.000

0.006

0.012

−0.001

−0.001

−0.002

0.000

0.004

(0.029)

(0.002)

(0.003)

(0.006)

(0.001)

(0.009)

(0.032)

(0.002)

(0.003)

(0.006)

(0.001)

(0.010)

Years

of

schooling

0.014***

−0.001***

−0.001***

−0.003***

0.000

0.004***

0.013***

−0.001***

−0.001***

−0.003***

0.000

0.004***

(0.003)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.001)

Employed

0.013

−0.001

−0.001

−0.003

0.000

0.004

0.017

−0.001

−0.001

−0.003

0.000

0.005

(0.025)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.000)

(0.008)

(0.026)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.005)

(0.001)

(0.008)

Married

0.321***

−0.017***

−0.028***

−0.062***

0.006

0.102***

0.320***

−0.017***

−0.028***

−0.062***

0.006

0.101***

(0.046)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.009)

(0.004)

(0.014)

(0.046)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.009)

(0.004)

(0.014)

Cohabiting

0.107

−0.006

−0.009

−0.021

0.002

0.034

0.103

−0.006

−0.009

−0.020

0.002

0.033

(0.132)

(0.007)

(0.012)

(0.026)

(0.003)

(0.042)

(0.133)

(0.007)

(0.012)

(0.026)

(0.003)

(0.042)

Divorced

−0.386***

0.021***

0.034***

0.075***

−0.007

−0.122***

−0.386***

0.021***

0.034***

0.075***

−0.007

−0.122***

(0.072)

(0.004)

(0.007)

(0.014)

(0.005)

(0.023)

(0.071)

(0.004)

(0.007)

(0.013)

(0.005)

(0.023)


123

AuthorP

roof

Tab

le6continued

Ordered

probit

IVOrdered

probit

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

Coeff.

Pr(H

=1)

Pr(H

=2)

Pr(H

=3)

Pr

(H=

4)

Pr(H

=5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Widowed

0.006

−0.000

−0.000

−0.001

0.000

0.002

0.006

−0.000

−0.001

−0.001

0.000

0.002

(0.048)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.009)

(0.001)

(0.015)

(0.048)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.009)

(0.001)

(0.015)

Religious

0.343***

−0.018***

−0.030***

−0.067***

0.007

0.109***

0.350***

−0.019***

−0.031***

−0.068***

0.007

0.111***

(0.080)

(0.004)

(0.008)

(0.015)

(0.005)

(0.025)

(0.080)

(0.005)

(0.008)

(0.015)

(0.005)

(0.025)

Health

0.195***

−0.010***

−0.017***

−0.038***

0.004

0.062***

0.196***

−0.011***

−0.017***

−0.038***

0.004

0.062***

(0.020)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.003)

(0.006)

(0.020)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.004)

(0.003)

(0.005)

Mutual

giving

percentage

0.002*

−0.000*

−0.000*

−0.000**

0.000

0.001*

0.002*

−0.000*

−0.000*

−0.000*

0.000

0.001*

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

Mutual

help

percentage

−0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

−0.000

−0.000

−0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

−0.000

−0.000

(0.002)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

(0.002)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.000)

(0.001)

Importance

of

family

0.288***

−0.015***

−0.025***

−0.056***

0.005

0.091***

0.288***

−0.016***

−0.025***

−0.056***

0.005

0.091***

(0.016)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.003)

(0.007)

(0.016)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.003)

(0.007)

Importance

of

wealth

−0.062***

0.003***

0.005***

0.012***

−0.001

−0.020***

−0.062***

0.003***

0.005***

0.012***

−0.001

−0.020***

(0.014)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.001)

(0.004)

(0.014)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.001)

(0.004)

Importance

of

havingfun

0.223***

−0.012***

−0.020***

−0.044***

0.004

0.071***

0.223***

−0.012***

−0.020***

−0.043***

0.004

0.071***

(0.013)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.003)

(0.004)

(0.013)

(0.001)

(0.001)

(0.003)

(0.003)

(0.004)

Observations

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

19,967

Robust

standarderrors

clustered

attheprovincial

level

arereported

inparentheses.Columns1–6reporttheordered

probitresults,

withthecoefficientin

column1and

marginaleffectsontheprobabilitiesateach


columns2–6.Columns7–12reporttheIV

ordered

probitresultsusingthepercentageofdonationin

the

communitytherespondentlives

astheinstrumentalvariable,withthecoefficientin

column7andmarginal

effectsontheprobabilitiesat

each


columns8–12.Thesignificance

levelsof1,5,and10%

aredenotedby***,**,and*,respectively

532 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roof

Table 7 Effect of Wenchuan earthquake donation on happiness (exclusion of sichuan sample)

OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS(1) (2) (3) (4)

Log (income) 0.031*** 0.028*** 0.030*** 0.026***

(0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.005)

Donation dummy 0.084* 0.341**

(0.046) (0.145)

Log (donation amount) 0.020** 0.048***

(0.008) (0.015)

Age −0.040*** −0.040*** −0.039*** −0.039***

(0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)

Age2/100 0.046*** 0.046*** 0.046*** 0.045***

(0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.005)

Male −0.115*** −0.109*** −0.112*** −0.106***

(0.016) (0.016) (0.016) (0.016)

Urban 0.015 −0.020 0.005 −0.026

(0.026) (0.033) (0.026) (0.029)


(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)

Employed 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001

(0.022) (0.022) (0.022) (0.022)

Married 0.291*** 0.287*** 0.290*** 0.287***

(0.035) (0.036) (0.035) (0.035)

Cohabiting 0.113 0.091 0.107 0.090

(0.110) (0.114) (0.110) (0.110)

Divorced −0.380*** −0.393*** −0.381*** −0.387***

(0.074) (0.070) (0.074) (0.072)

Widowed −0.004 −0.004 −0.006 −0.009

(0.046) (0.049) (0.047) (0.049)

Religious 0.258*** 0.248*** 0.259*** 0.256***

(0.062) (0.061) (0.063) (0.063)

Health 0.173*** 0.174*** 0.173*** 0.174***

(0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017)

Mutual giving percentage 0.002* 0.002 0.002* 0.002

(0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001)


(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002)


(0.018) (0.019) (0.018) (0.018)


(0.012) (0.011) (0.012) (0.012)

Importance of having fun 0.182*** 0.180*** 0.182*** 0.180***

(0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.010)

Observations 18,814 18,814 18,814 18,814

R-squared 0.163 0.151 0.164 0.160


123

AuthorP

roof

References

Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2015). Matching on the estimated propensity score. Working paper, HarvardUniversity and National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/pscore.pdf.

Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., et al.(2013a). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 635–652.

Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for apositive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2),347–355.

Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Whillans, A. V., Grant, A. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013b). Making a differencematters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of Economic Behaviorand Organization, 88, 90–95.

Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence.Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458.

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. TheEconomic Journal, 100, 464–477.

Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M., & Trachtman, H. (2011). Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy,and charitable giving. NBER working paper, no. 17648.

Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., & Dunn, E. W. (2009). Feeling good about giving: The benefits (andcosts) of self-interested charitable behavior. In D. M. Oppenheimer & C. Y. Olivola (Eds.), Experi-mental approaches to the study of charitable giving (pp. 3–13). New York, NY: Taylor and FrancisGroup.

Apouey, B., & Clark, A. E. (2010).Winning big but feeling no better? The effect of lottery prizes on physicaland mental health. Working paper, Paris: School of Economics.

Appleton, S., & Song, L. (2008). Life satisfaction in urban China: Components and determinants. WorldDevelopment, 36(11), 2325–2340.

Table 7 continued

OLS 2SLS OLS 2SLS(1) (2) (3) (4)


The 1153 observations from Sichuan province are excluded. Robust standard errors clustered at theprovincial level are reported in parentheses. The significance levels of 1, 5, and 10 % are denoted by ***, **,and *, respectively

Table 8 Effect of Wenchuan earthquake donation on happiness (propensity score matching, exclusion ofSichuan sample)

Wenchuan earthquake donation

Donation dummy 0.074***

(0.019)

Observations 18,814

The 1153 observations from Sichuan province are excluded. The number of matches per observation is one.We match observations on income, years of schooling, age, age squared, gender, employment status, fourmarital status dummy variables, urban dummy, religion dummy, self-reported health, internal generosity ofthe community, and value of the importance of family, wealth, and having fun in life. The significance levelsof 1, 5, and 10 % are denoted by ***, **, and *, respectively. Analytical standard errors are reported inparentheses. We obtain robust standard errors identical to the above results when we adopt the method ofAbadie and Imbens (2015) and use three matches for each treated observation

534 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

AuthorP

roof

Binder, M., & Freytag, A. (2013). Volunteering, subjective well-being and public policy. Journal of Eco-nomic Psychology, 34, 97–119.

Borgonovi, F. (2008). Doing well by doing good. The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness. Social Science and Medicine, 66(11), 2321–2334.

Brockmann, H., Delhey, J., Welzel, C., & Yuan, H. (2009). The China puzzle: Falling happiness in a risingeconomy. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(4), 387–405.

Brooks, A. C. (2006). Who really cares? The surprising truth about compassionate conservativism. NewYork: Basic Books.

Burkholder, R. (2005). Chinese far wealthier than a decade ago—but are they happier? The Gallup Orga-nization. http://www.gallup.com/poll/14548/chinese-farwealthier-than-decade-ago-they-happier.aspx.Accessed on February 8, 2013.

Carman, K. (2004). Social influences and the private provision of public goods: Evidence from charitablecontributions in the workplace. Working paper, Harvard University.

Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61(3), 359–381.

Crumpler, H., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of PublicEconomics, 92, 1011–1021.

Crabtree S, & Wu, T. (2011). China’s puzzling flat line. Gallup Management Journal. http://gmj.gallup.com/content/148853/china-puzzling-flat-line.aspx#1. Accessed on February 8, 2013.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades ofprogress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.

Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science,319, 1687–1688.

Dunn, E., & Norton, M. (2013). Happy money: The science of smarter spending. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P.A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honour ofMoses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press.

Easterlin, R. A. (1995). Will raising the income of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of EconomicBehaviour and Organization, 27(1), 35–47.

Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111(743),465–484.

Easterlin, R. A. (2005). Feeding the illusion of growth and happiness: A reply to Hagerty and Veenhoven.Social Indicators Research, 74(3), 429–443.

Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L. A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., & Zweig, J. S. (2010). The happiness–incomeparadox revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(52), 22463–22468.

Easterlin, R. A., Morgan, R., Switek, M., & Wang, F. (2012). China’s life satisfaction, 1990–2010. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(25), 9775–9780.

Easterlin, R. A., & Sawangfa, O. (2010). Happiness and growth: Does the cross section predict time trends?Evidence from developing countries. In E. Diener, J. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), internationaldifferences in well-being (pp. 162–212). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Fafchamps, M., & Shilpi, F. (2008). Subjective welfare, isolation, and relative consumption. Journal ofDevelopment Economics, 86(1), 43–60.

Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2005). Income and well-being: An empirical analysis of the comparison incomeeffect. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5–6), 997–1019.

Frank, R. H. (2004). How not to buy happiness. Daedalus, 133(2), 69–79.Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002a). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Eco-

nomic literature, 40(2), 402–435.Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002b). Happiness and economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Does money buy happiness? A longitudinal study using data on

windfalls. Mimeo, Warwick University.Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. J. (2007). Money and mental wellbeing: A longitudinal study of medium-sized

lottery wins. Journal of Health Economics, 26(1), 49–60.Harbaugh, W., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal

motives for charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622–1625.Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-

being. Economic Modeling, 20, 331–360.Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being, social capital and public policy: What’s new? The Economic Journal,

116, C34–C45.


123

AuthorP

roof

Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be happier ifyou were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312(5782), 1908–1910.

Knight, J., & Gunatilaka, R. (2010). Great expectations? The subjective well-being of rural–urban migrantsin China. World Development, 38(1), 113–124.

Knight, J., & Gunatilaka, R. (2011). Does economic growth raise happiness in China? Oxford DevelopmentStudies, 39(1), 1–24.

Knight, J., & Gunatilaka, R. (2012). Income, aspirations and the hedonic treadmill in a poor society. Journalof Economic Behavior and Organization, 82(1), 67–81.

Knight, J., Song, L., & Gunatilaka, R. (2009). Subjective well-being and its determinants in rural China.China Economic Review, 20(4), 635–649.

Kohler, H.-P., Behrman, J. R., & Skytthe, A. (2005). Partner + children = happiness? An 35 assessment ofthe effect of fertility and partnerships on subjective well-being. Population and Development Review,31(3), 407–445.

Konow, J., & Earley, J. (2008). The hedonistic paradox: Is homo economicus happier? Journal of PublicEconomics, 92(1–2), 1–33.

Lelkes, O. (2006). Tasting freedom: Happiness, religion and economic transition. Journal of EconomicBehavior and Organization, 59, 173–194.

Li, H., Liu, P.W., Ye, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). Does money buy happiness? Evidence from twins in urbanChina. Working paper, Tsinghua University.

Lindahl, M. (2005). Estimating the effect of income on health using lottery prizes as exogenous source ofvariation in income. Journal of Human Resources, 40(1), 144–168.

Liu, Z. Q., & Shang, Q. Y. (2012). Individual well-being in urban China: The role of income expectations.China Economic Review, 23(4), 833–849.

Liu, J., Xiong, M., & Su, Y. (2013). National happiness at a time of economic growth: A tracking studybased on CGSS data. Social Sciences in China, 34(4), 20–37.

Meer, J. (2011). Brother, can you spare a dime? Peer pressure in charitable solicitation. Journal of PublicEconomics, 95(7–8), 926–941.

Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2008). Is volunteering rewarding in itself? Economica, 75(297), 39–59.Nolen-Hoeksema, S.,&Rusting, C. L. (1999).Gender differences inwell-being. InD.Kahneman, E.Diener,&

N. Schwarz (Eds.),Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell-Sage.Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. The Economic Journal, 107(445), 1815–1831.Sacks, D. W., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2012). The new stylized facts about income and subjective well-

being. Emotion, 12(6), 1181–1187.Sacks, D. W., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2013). Growth in income and subjective well-being over time.

Mimeo: University of Michigan.Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin

Paradox. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2008(1), 1–87.Stutzer, A. (2004). The role of income aspirations in individual happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior

and Organization, 54(1), 89–109.Sun, S., Chen, J., Johannesson, M., Kind, P., & Burstrom, K. (2015). Subjective well-being and its asso-

ciation with subjective health status, age, sex, region, and socio-economic characteristics in a Chinesepopulation study. Journal of Happiness Studies, (forthcoming).

Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make peopleany happier. Social Indicators Research, 32, 101–160.

Veenhoven, R., & Hagerty, M. (2006). Rising happiness in nations 1946–2004: A reply to Easterlin. SocialIndicators Research, 79(3), 421–436.

Xie, Y., Qiu, Z.Q., & Lu, P. (2012). China family panel studies, sample design for the 2010 baseline survey.Technical report series: CFPS-1. Beijing: Institute of Social Science Survey, December 20, 2012 (inChinese).

Yip, W., Subramanian, S. V., Mitchell, A. D., Lee, D. T., Wang, J., & Kawachi, I. (2007). Does socialcapital enhance health and well-being? Evidence from rural China. Social Science and Medicine, 64(1),35–49.

Yoruk, B. K. (2008). The power of asking in volunteering: Evidence from a matched sample. EconomicsLetters, 99(1), 79–84.

Yoruk, B. K. (2009). How responsive are charitable donors to requests to give? Journal of Public Eco-nomics, 93(9–10), 1111–1117.

Yoruk, B. K. (2012). Do charitable solicitations matter? A comparative analysis of fundraising methods.Fiscal Studies, 33(4), 467–487.

536 Q. Ren, M. Ye

123

donations make people happier: evidence from the wenchuan ... · 2 wenchuan earthquake the wenchuan...

Documents